No

by Jason Benson

Created on: July 31, 2008   Last Updated: September 09, 2008

On May 1st, 2003 to a jubilant crowd, the President announced that our mission was accomplished with a reinforcing banner strewn across the USS Abraham Lincoln. Over 5 years has past since that day and time has shown that not all ends were sewn up. In today's election so much emphasis is being thrown on a necessity for a time table for departure. However, honestly how much can be established and are such distinctions worth the costs? The answer to the first part of this question is really contingent on later and complications ensue when we attempt to define what we are trying to accomplish. So here is my two cents.
So first of all at this point what are we trying to accomplish or in some cases prevent. Prior to US's invasion Iraq was a dictatorship. There were countless atrocities including genocide with blood on the hands of Saddam Hussein, however, more applicable now is that there was stability in Iraq. Iraq wasn't fond of us after Kuwait but definitively prior to invasions no concrete evidence was provided that Iraq was plotting to attack the United States. Colin Powell after his compelling speech on the evidence of weapons of mass destruction soon after resigned. A cherry on top is that Iraq was much more concerned with Iran who was much more their enemy. I lay this foundation because a lot has changed.
Iraq is now on the brink of civil war. Parts of the country are seriously segregated with military keeping each side at bay and slightly things are barely simmering in recent news. We took away the one person that kept pandemonium at bay, Saddam. Our attempts at democracy are still feeble and surprise surprise Iran the former enemy of Iraq is now favored by many of the viable politicians for the Iraqi government. The kicker is Iran doesn't like us. Also the Taliban is now starting to resurface in Pakistan and Afghanistan. A whole new can of worms has been opened. So what do we need to do?
We stay in Iraq. It may be hard to swallow but ultimately it is necessary. We leave now and so much more chaos will ensue with civil war, actual terrorism, and waste of all the lives and resources put into this war. Ultimately more hatred will resonate toward the American government. So we stay. We keep things at bay. We fund and protect schools in Iraq and actually try to really benefit Iraq. We show them that democracy really is in their best interest. Democracy is far from perfect but it is much less violent then any other known form of government. With Iraq as an educated, democratic society there is actually hope for some resolution and a peaceful outcome. With chaos all over the world this could actually do some good and set an example for those in the same political disarray. This should be our goal and this I believe would be worth fighting for.
So if this is our goal then a time table would be both inaccurate and detrimental. Detrimental in the sense that you are pretty much playing poker with competing groups that can see your hand. Inaccurate, in the sense that if this time table ends in victory no foreseeable one will come in a couple years and that is what people want and what time tables will display.
So to answer the question, no I do not want a time table to be made. I hope that eventually "mission accomplished" can be said with finality and the troops can come home, knowing that their efforts were not in vain and that it really was a job well done.

Learn more about this author, Jason Benson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.