Should America withdraw from Iraq if we are asked to?

Yes

1 of 3

by Robert C. Sage

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Should America remain in Iraq, if most Iraqis don't trust US and want US to leave? If America is occupying Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqis and they want us to be gone, why should there even be debate about American troops remaining there for anything but a stopgap? If American leaders won't listen to the citizens of a country we invaded, the people who we are supposedly there to help, then to whom will we listen? Ultimately, who should have the right to decide if American or other foreign troops should be occupying another country, if that country never attacked the occupiers? Is it enough to suspect that Saddam might have otherwise attacked America, although he never did and never said he would?

The Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strikes was used to justify this war of choice. This dangerous so-called doctrine could be invoked to support military action against any potential American foe based on hearsay, innuendo or simple paranoia. It requires no hostile action or threat to be used. In effect, it allows America to attack and invade any country of its choosing for any reason or no reason at all. It is enough for American leaders to state that America feels potentially endangered. This opens up the use of American military assets to serve the personal or political interests and concerns of the president, without any repercussions, as long as the action is wrapped in the cloak of national security.

When America finds that it has been deceived and tricked into allowing a president to attack, invade and occupy a foreign land, what should it do? Certainly, America and the world at large, has the right to demand answers to tough questions. Why are there no Congressional hearings on the deceptions and artifices used to start this war and put American troops into harm's way? Why is the Bush Administration not called to task to explain why diplomacy was not used and is still not used instead of war? Why is war no longer the last resort?

These are not academic questions from an ivory tower. They are subjects that could and should be debated in public school civics classes. Every American citizen has the right to receive answers to such basic questions. Every Iraqi should also have the right to call for the UN Security Council or an International Court to deliberate over the legitimacy of the American occupation of his/her country. Apparently, the intimidation factor in controlling "the US Justice Dept." is not insignificant. Along with the ability to affect the public message with millions of employees direct and indirect, there is moral responsibility that goes with the special powers. If factual material evidence shows deliberate manipulation of evidence on the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, what are the chances that there was some level of collusion or acquiesence to 9-11? The special commission that studied the event ignored major aspects, such as the fact that WTC7 also fell into its footprint 10 hours after the other 2 towers. It cannot be forgotten that the Project for a New American Century of which Dick Cheney was a founding member, called for a new Pearl Harbor in order to pursue active foreign intervention.

The level of direct involvement and facilitation of treasionous actions is something which only Congress can truthfully investigate and it has been ignored assiduously by the Democratic leadership, under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed. Again, the degree of direct personal mal-feasance in the Executive Branch can only officially be reviewed by the US Congress, but if they refuse to exercise their Constitutional obligation, that by extension becomes the will of the people, through their duly elected representatives. It is irrelevant if the system is corrupt through the blatant quid pro quo of campaign contributions. If the majority of the American people really felt grossly violated, we want to believe that there would be a revolt. However, so far, people have not risen up. Instead, they are focussed on their own issues.

Thus, the current level of anger, frustration and betrayal has not gotten to the extent that a revolution has occurred, but there is major pain and hardship being experienced by large numbers of Americans. During February, 2007, there were 65,000 Americans who disappeared from the work force. The long term unemployed has grown and they are not even counted in the official statistics. There is no arguing the economic "recession", aggravated by high oil prices (over $100/Barrel), sub-prime mortgage crisis and now Real estate value loss in America (up to half of homes are worth less than the loans on them.) Ironically, US food prices continue to rise and wages are not being raised accordingly. The American financial system and its economic foundamentals are going through some gut-wrenching change.

Meanwhile, what has the rapid growth in the current federal budget deficit bought for us? What is happening with the money that America is agreeing to someday pay back to foreigners? The mushrooming long term US national debt is destroying the country of Iraq, where an estimated 70% are unemployed and most want nothing to do with the violence and coersion of US security forces. The Turkish military has invaded Iraqi Kurdistan and is preparing to establish Turkish bases inside Iraq, obviously with American acquiesence. The closeness of US Kurdish relations has taken a major blow. Symbols of America, such as the US flag, are no longer openly displayed. The one area of long term success for America in Iraq is suddenly in jeopardy due to Bush Administration mis-management. McCain continues to support the war and thus, has received a predictable endorsement from George W. Bush.

The American domestic situation continues to deteriorate and support for the profligate spending for destruction in Iraq is not popular (WOT annual budget estimate $800 billion). Clearly, the American people are confused by the Iraq War and issues surrounding it. We see no permament benefit at present or likely in the future from continuing to occupy a hostile country. The sooner that Washington D.C. internalizes that and implements it in reality, the better off we shall all be. So far, the Democrats have sacrificed everything in anticipation of the presidential election. The Republicans under Newt Gingrich did not hesitate to go after William Jefferson Clinton over lying over sexual indiscretions, so why should Democrats hesitate to investigate George Walker Bush over facts of material evidence leading to war? Why should funding the war be so automatic in a time if recessionary economy?

The American form of government is eventually self-correcting. The politicians cannot remain with hands over their eyes, ears and mouths indefinitely. In such weighty issues, the American people always do reach a concensus, whether it is achieved during the incumbent term of office or later. The history of the majority perspective of the American people on Iraq has shown tremendous change. When the US invaded Iraq, our people supported the action, based on Dabuya's fabricated claims of Saddam's involvement in 9-11 and with al-Qaeda and danger of WMDs to the US. However, as it became known that the pretenses were false and the Iraqis have rejected American tutelege for their country, the American people have withdrawn their support for the war. That was seen in the results of the 2006 mid-term elections as well as in numerous national polls before and since. Clearly, the American people want out of Iraq. It is a shame that our corrupt and weak US Congress refuses to act, until Dabuya is gone. That is the prime reason that public support for Congress is even lower than that for Bush. His legacy has be profoundly impacted by his dishonesty and unwillingness to listen to the people.

Learn more about this author, Robert C. Sage.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.