The images from Iraq this week of the country's first fair elections will not stray from the standard storyline: a head-scarved grandmother raising a blue-inked finger in victory; an armed American soldier gazing on solemnly; the chaos of streets rent in two by passion and rebellion and shrapnel. That's the problem with pictures, or stories, of one momentous event. We like attributing meaning and gravitas to particular moments, seeing elections themselves as more important than all that follows.

The truth is that none of the symbolism mattered much to the pitiable condition on the ground. With free speech at work, virulent anti-Americanism marked the election, and whatever the election's outcome, calls within Iraq for immediate withdrawal of American troops will only intensify. Though Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and the opposing Shi'ite United Iraqi Alliance backed away from supporting an ultimatum to the U.S., the new government is expected to plan a total troop withdrawal. The Pentagon still maintains that a timetable is out of the question, though now that we have hailed the Iraqi democracy, we cannot reject their representative command. The end of the American occupation is approaching, and it is in our best interests to leave Iraq sooner rather than later.

The best argument against withdrawal of troops is the woeful preparedness of Iraq's own security forces. Though Iraq needs 273,000 members, forces currently number only 127,000. Of those, as few as 5,000 are truly equipped to combat the insurgency, with 12,000 considered self-sufficient. Bush's claim that the Iraqi troops are capable, even progressing, is laughable. Without trained replacements, the vacuum left by American troops could give way to anarchic meltdown.

So, the Pentagon plans to maintain American troop levels at over 100,000 through 2006. Bush plans to request an additional $80 billion for the military budget, bringing 2005's total to $200 billion (far outstripping the activist's slogan, "A billion a week, a body a day," of one year ago). The plans presume that America's continued presence is actually helping Iraq.

The Iraqi people do not want us there. (Neither do the American people: nearly half now support withdrawal.) The insurgency has worsened in the last year, not improved, with about 70 attacks on American troops a day. Iraqi intelligence services estimate that there are at least 40,000 real rebels, with another 160,000 Iraqis aiding them-several times the rough guesses of one year ago. Our absence will only foment a terrorist's paradise, perhaps creating a dozen, or even a nation of, Fallujahs. We cannot quell the raging insurgency, and our presence only fuels the fire.

Official unemployment has stagnated between 30 and 40 percent, though economists suspect that more than half the workforce is without jobs. Iraq still lacks basic utilities, with nearly half of Baghdad without running water in the week before the election. Car lines for gasoline can stretch as long as 12 hours. Oil production is still at less than 75 percent of pre-war levels, robbing the country of valuable revenue. Between 15,000 and 18,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the invasion in March 2003. Yes, the Iraqi people have a vote, but, after nearly two years of occupation, their lives have not improved in real terms.

When the richest nation on Earth cannot restore water to a city, I have little confidence in its ability to negotiate a truce with more than 50 groups of insurgents, to confer authority on the new government, to plan the future of a battered nation. Nor, I believe, was that long-range venture ever our job. We had a responsibility to rebuild Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, to swiftly win the hearts of the people-but we failed. Our continued presence compounds that failure.

There is no begrudging the magnitude of good that happened in Iraq this week. But it is foolish to attribute the success of the Iraqi elections to the success of American policy. Every aspect of the military presence, from jobs to civilian deaths, has worsened in the last year. The list of epic blunders goes on-underestimation of the insurgency, the Abu Ghraib prison torture, the selection and renunciation of Ahmed Chalabi. The people of Iraq voted in spite of these failures, in spite of the very real threat to life and limb, convinced by election rhetoric that their nation was now one ballot closer to freedom from its occupiers. In comparison, our own selfish reasons for leaving-a record $427 billion deficit and a death toll over 1,100-hardly seem important.

It is painful to consider the opportunities squandered, the Iraq that might have been, but continued pursuit of the President's airy fantasies of a nation born again is only indulgent delusion. We have freed Iraq from its tyrant, we have overseen free elections. Now let's listen to the wishes of those we have professedly liberated and quietly take our leave.

Bhala can be reached at rsbhala@amherst.edu