Politics, News & Issues >
War in Iraq
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US pull out its troops regardless of whether Iraq is ready to defend its people?
Results so far:
| Yes | 57% | 1776 votes | Total: 3120 votes | |
| No | 43% | 1344 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIraq is in a mess. No amount of spin or propaganda can change this undeniable fact. Crime is spiraling out of control and hundreds of thousands of people live without electricity, clean water or an effective sewage system. Add to this the increase of religious death squads and the 50 to 60 daily bomb attacks, resulting in numerous civilian deaths and injuries, and you have a country that is on the brink, if not in the throes, of complete meltdown. So is the presence of foreign troops making this country a safer place? Clearly, as the evidence shows, it is not.
The arguments for maintaining a military presence in Iraq revolve around the need for stability, and that abandoning the Iraqi people will plunge their country into further chaos. Indeed, this is the line the current US administration cites. But when has the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi population ever been a priority for the invading forces? The moral case' for going to war was the last resort in trying to garner support for the invasion. Initially, the motive for going into Iraq was because Saddam was abetting Al Qaeda, so the attack was a natural extension of Bush's War on Terror'. When no evidence emerged to support this claim it was decided that Hussein was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction' which posed an immediate security threat to the west. The British parliament bought into this, thanks to some jumped-up evidence, and despite not having a mandate from the United Nations, approved the illegal deployment of troops to the Middle East. When it was clear that no WoMD existed, Blair and Bush had to fall back on their last line of defense which was the moral case' to depose Saddam Hussein. Undoubtedly, this is a strong case with Saddam being an abhorrent tyrant who wickedly ruled Iraq through fear and violence. However, I would argue that the moral case for not deposing him was stronger. The removal of the brutish dictator needs to be weighed against the killing or mutilation of thousands of people; the possibility of civil war in Iraq; the anger and hostility the invasion has generated throughout the Muslim world and the creation, as a result, of a more hospitable environment in which terrorism can operate; the resurfacing of imperial power; and the weakening of international law. I would suggest that these costs outweigh the undisputed benefit.
Of course, anybody who is immune to government spin and doesn't believe everything they read in the newspapers knows exactly why America invaded Iraq. It was Operation Iraqi Liberation which is only understood if you consider the acronym OIL. It is now on public record that Robert Ebel, formerly the CIA's top oil analyst, was sent by the pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret meeting with Saddam's former oil minister to finalize the plans for liberating' Iraq's oil industry. And what did the US want to do with Iraq's oil? A leaked plan secretly drafted by the US State Department holds the answer. They didn't want to get more of Iraq's oil but wanted Iraq to produce less of it. The lower the supply, the higher the price. After all, it's the big bucks from oil that paid for Bush's ranch and keeps his cronies in business.
One can conclude from this that the interests of the Iraqi civilian population are not at the forefront of Bush's conscience. So why haven't the troops returned home? Rather than protecting civilians, the military are protecting corporate interests. The reconstruction dollars that have been thrown into Iraq have nearly all been sucked up by huge American companies. These corporations are responsible for water, electricity, bridges, roads, hospitals and sewers, and they are not doing a very good job of the reconstruction, with official reports of poorly built, badly run, and mismanaged projects.
So if the role of the military is not to protect Iraqis then there is no meaningful reason why they should remain. Those who argue withdrawal will result in Islamist fundamentalist militias causing untold havoc are denying the fact that these groups already control large sectors of Iraq. Moreover, these factions were created as a response to the fact that the US Occupation never prioritized giving security to Iraqis. One only needs to look at the civil disorder and looting that occurred after the taking of Baghdad to see this is the case. Another reason that is cited for the troops to stay is that the Iraqi security forces are still not up to the job, and that there needs to be more training. This is not a strong argument because the security forces have been embedded in the occupation itself and are seen as collaborators, and an extension of the hated and loathed foreign invaders. The security forces can only be effective once the occupying troops have gone, allowing them to build up their own force with credibility.
You will notice that none of my arguments for troop withdrawal have been to prevent more American soldier deaths. It must be devastating for families back in the USA to lose loved ones in such a meaningless conflict waged for economic reasons. However, the coalition fatalities are minor compared to the civilian casualties suffered in Iraq. Even conservative estimates put the death toll of innocents at just over 70,000, and it is rising every day. I abhor bloodshed yet find myself in the unenviable position of believing that the Iraqi's have the right to resist occupation.
Unfortuna tely, statements such as Against the war but support the troops' are logically incompatible, and can only be seen as vacuous sloganeering from propagandists wishing to detract from the real issues, or simply those who know no better. I believe the troops should pull out immediately and let the Iraqi people sort out the mess which the invasion created. There is only one good reason I can see for keeping the troops in Iraq. As long as they remain, America will not have the capability to illegally invade another sovereign country effectively.
Learn more about this author, Krullix.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The Dilemma of American Troops In Iraq
The American military cannot pull out of Iraq at this stage. It is regrettable that the leadership in Washington deliberately manipulated the sense of pain and frustration in their people that resulted from the "9/11" attack on their fine nation. It is regrettable as well that the reasoning behind this particular invasion was flawed in its agenda, not from a lack of sincere desire to truly bring democratic reforms to the Middle East, but rather from a lack of any serious understanding or estimate of the centuries long internal conflicts of the region. All things considered I simply cannot believe that Americas need for oil and the fact that the current President's personal interests are tied to those specific corporate interests were not a significant factor in the motivations that led to this war. This said now that the damage is done, America is in the unfortunate position of having to do all it can to stabilize the country.
It appears that the driving ideology in the present administration is the concept that creating a successful democracy in Iraq would inspire the populations of the surrounding nations to adopt the system. Though a noble intention, it seems foolhardy to think that a society, centuries older than that of the America, could be changed in this manner. The saddest observation that arises from this entire scenario is that it seems that it required the brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein to keep the various factions from civil war. It is tragic that the Iraqi people have not been able to rise to this occasion and opportunity with the decorum and dignity they are capable of. Considering the upheaval of warfare and the deep emotions it charges, it is a least a little understandable. With subversive interference coming from bordering nations it is as well somewhat understandable. I would ask that they find within themselves the personal strength to set aside old divisions and reach for the future. It must fall upon them to strive re-establish glory of ancient Babylon, but to do so within the context of fresh and altruistic ambition. Do not let the sacrifices of those who have died, regardless of their respective tribe be in vain.
With what seemed to be depraved indifference, the American administration committed an old and obvious strategic error. In WWII the Germans thinking they were unstoppable, split their forces and invaded Russia. Most historians will agree that if not for this arrogant miscalculation, Europe would most likely have fallen under German control. America should have remained solely committed to the Afghanistan conflict. I suspect that this would have resulted in that particular endeavor now being relatively complete. It would also have given the Muslim world a shinning example of democracy at work within the confines and ideals of their culture. I am at a loss to understand the Iraqi invasion being in any way a rational undertaking. Yet here we are at this tragic and pivotal point in world history.
The Americans do without question need to find a way to withdraw their military forces. First and foremost they must engineer a solution that will not see Iraq fall into genocidal tribal warfare like we are witnessing in parts of Africa at present. Capitalist doctrine proposes the concept that to indiscriminately provide aid breeds a certain form of dependency. To some degree the Iraqi government is falling into that trap, though I would offer not deliberately. The Democrat agenda of enforcing benchmarks on Iraqi development is wise and will engender within that body the necessity to advance their efforts towards that cause. Without this component complacency will be created, and not by desire but simply by design. The continued occupation of Iraq by the Americans is fueling resentment in other nations in the area and in so doing motivating support for the very villains they have sought to expel.
The administration may have to consider a "partial" victory as a success and abandon the idea of a "complete" victory. Iraq may have to be divided into ethnically oriented states. Though unfortunate when considering the grand ideals behind this endeavor it may prove to be the least violent and most efficient manner for allowing these people to evolve a democratic society within the structures of their culture and its specific needs. This will not end the violence, but it will stabilize the country enough to allow it to evolve under its own steam. The American forces would then be able to reduce troop size and the financial burdens thereof. They could then offer support to the moderate factions within that nation with the aim of engendering friendship and investment while not appearing to be overbearing insurgents. This is not an ideal solution but it may be the most reasonable and in the long run the most productive one.
The only way that UN forces could enter the area as peacekeepers to moderate this evolution would be for a complete withdrawal of American military and corporate influences. It is obvious that America will never concede that scope of its influence in the region. They cannot abandon Iraqi civilians to anarchy and war. There is no turning back, but the present course of "military might" will never truly succeed in accomplishing the goals that inspired the effort in the first place. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? Yes I have to agree that he and those like him need to be removed from positions of power. The military solution may at times unfortunately prove to be the only practical method for accomplishing this. It is the misfortune of bad timing and despicable misrepresentation of this particular escapade that has condemned it to international ridicule and probable failure.
The "War On Terror" is a valid concept. It is essential that the world realize that action must be taken to disarm terrorist organizations. International sanctions and other forms of diplomacy have limited, if any true success toward this goal. As we observed in the 1980's with Central America, and again with Osamma Bin Laden, subversive military support has a way of backfiring. Indeed even Saddam Hussein was given military support by the very nation that invaded his country and dissolved his power base. As we are witnessing now, the application of direct military force creates as many problems as it solves.
The only reasonable and lasting solution in dealing with the Middle East is to eliminate international dependency on their oil. That considered simply finding other sources will not suffice as a reasonable and lasting solution. We have the technology to accomplish this change now, and more tragically have had that capability for some years, standing idly by while corporate interests systematically silenced their development. Implementing these changes without destabilizing our economy will take time, but can be achieved if we all agree to undertake the effort. Even if you chose not to accept the present ideology of "global warming" you must concede that global political stability is in the best interest of all humanity.
It must also be acknowledged that without the inflated value of the oil exports the economies of the Middle East will suffer greatly. When was the last time any of us purchased a product manufactured in this region? For the most part the respective regimes of this area seem to have made no discernible effort to diversify their internal economic structures. Considering the desertification of that particular geographic area, simple food production will undoubtedly present a significant dilemma for those populations. It would be foolish to deny that the distress caused by this economic hardship will inspire another justification for violence and unrest. In truth western society cannot be blamed for this lack of foresight within those societies. The resulting strife however will definitely have an adverse effect upon us. During and after our technological metamorphosis the international community must take action to support any serious attempts by Muslim societies to incorporate moderation into their respective political systems. It must fall upon the Muslim community itself to confront and disband those within their society that teach and inspire violence. Every attempt any outside interests make will inevitably be viewed as persecution and interference. Only from within can these types of changes truly take root and flourish.
America simply cannot remove its forces from Iraq at this time. To do so would be to accept the responsibility for the humanitarian tragedy that will undoubtedly unfold. It must however make a concerted effort to redefine its mission there, and as well redefine their interpretation of success. Continuing and expanding the military action in that nation will never produce the victory they seek. It is imperative that they do remove their military presence from Iraqi soil, but it must be done with infinitely more care than the original invasion was executed with. I am confident that all Iraqi people genuinely desire peace within their borders. Unfortunately extremists have decided that they will not permit this until their own countrymen are enslaved by specific radical ideals. I do not envy the next American administration having to face the fragile dilemma it will inherit. It is a shame and sincerely terrifying that the present administration abjectly denies the need to adjust the reasoning of its mandate. For the sake of Iraqi and American lives alike I sincerely hope the next President finds the wisdom and moral fortitude to make the hard decisions and necessary changes to bring about a manageable end to this conflict. There will be no easy way to resolve this crisis. The whole world is watching and collectively hoping you find a way. Before you condemn your allies for not joining you in this invasion, remember that all of them have and continue to, sacrifice lives and resources in the hunt for the men truly responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center. We did not turn our backs on you. Your political leaders refused to accept our council, in regards to what we understood as a misguided agenda. One they would not allow themselves to be dissuaded from.
Learn more about this author, Thomas Beddoe.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- War in Iraq
- We should be focusing military efforts on the Taliban, Al Qaeda and drugs in Afghanistan, not in Iraq
- Should the US Congress speed funding for more armor-protected vehicles to save soldiers' lives in Iraq?
- Conflict in Iraq: Is it possible to support the troops but not the war?
- Should US troops remain in Iraq indefinitely?
- How should US view Iraq government's call for US withdrawal time-table: With relief or as ingratitude?
- Should the US continue to participate in the War in Iraq?
