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% | 1779 votes | Total: 3125 votes | |
| No | 43% | 1346 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe US should pull its troops out of Iraq. Consider these factors. The American military is just bogged down in a neverending war of attrition with well-armed, well-trained insurgents who could literally fight on for decades. This monumentally ugly war of attrition has killed thousands of US troops (and wounded over 25,000) with little or nothing to show for it. United States soldiers are spilling their blood seemingly for little or nothing. It does not make sense for these soldiers to continue to sacrifice themselves to gain nothing.
Even the recent US "troop surge" means very little in the equation-the insurgents have become increasingly sophisticated at fighting US forces...and more importantly very adept at concealment. Additionally, many have moved into key positions in the security, millitary and intelligence networks of the country-effectively controlling parts of the mechanisms of control of the Iraqi government. The Iraq war is Viet-Nam all over again. An apt title for it would be "Viet-Nam: the next generation"-the parallels are that shocking to the vast majority of us.
The US sacrificed tens of thousands of US soldiers in Viet-Nam, and the enemy still won. In this war, the US will more than likely pull out its troops over a period of time, seemingly trying to get out of the mess and mire of this ugly war. As for a long-term stable, democractic government in Iraq, either the government will be the insurgency...or the insurgency will be the government. That's what it will grind down to in the end, some form of, or complete control of, or shared control of the government by the various insurgent groups, operating from the three environs, primarily the Shia and Sunni zones. The country may end up disintegrating into three zones, in part dominated by a more powerful and much more dominant Iran.
Eventually, one of the two main groups in Iraq will fight to control the entire country through a coup, much like what Saddam Hussein did when he rose to power. A general or other military dictator will rise to power, consolidating his power in purges and mass killings, like Saddam did. The US will initially be abhorred, but will not intervene, due to the political nightmare of their previous long bloody fight in Iraq. They'll make friends wth the dictator, much like what they did with Hussein.
More than five years into the war and the war rages on with little diminishment in insurgent strength, like Viet-Nam. They roam freely-as the much dreaded al-Qaeda gains in strength. Critics of the argument will cite this as a reason to stay there. These unsavory elements have gained strength because a weak, ineffectual government rules in Baghdad, and the US is locked in one battle after another that does not significantly weaken these elements.
These are tribal people who know the lay of the land well, and who are becoming increasingly sophisticated fighters as they receive much better weapons and training from an ever bellicose Iran and Syria. Weapons that are taking a terrible bloody toll on the American military, devastating state-of-the art in protective armored tanks and other vehicles...and more importantly the US soldiers inside them. These senseless deaths only compound the absurdity of the war.
Keeping the American military in Iraq to stave off al-Qaeda is an absurdity. Iraq is a large enough country to hide these terrorists well. Even with the recent US troop surge in Iraq: there is no way that the American military can saturate the country well enough to stop these terrorists. All one has to do is look at Afghanistan. The US has been there much longer and still Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have not broken. How many nations are fighting in Afghanistan in the NATO-stabiliztion force? The force is bleeding profusely while al-Qaeda and the Taliban are making a huge comeback. Using parts of Pakistan, the US ally in the war against terror, as a staging area, openly mocking the USA.
Admittedly, Iraq and Afghanistan are different issues. But in some important ways they are similar. An insurgency is very hard to break. During the second world war, the Nazis occupied Yugoslavia with 33 troop divisions. Partisan and other resistance groups flourished under the jackboots of the Nazi dictatorship, in Yugoslavia and other parts of occupied Europe, and were never defeated. Additionally, historically, with every resistance fighter who died, many more would offer to take his place. Resistance groups simply cannot be broken, and this generation of them in Iraq will simply wait out the Americans-fully knowing the rewards of victory: control over Iraq and its huge oil wealth. As stated before, they are already in some ways controlling and greatly influencing the weak, embryonic Iraqi government.
Iraq is not a serious enough issue to maintain the occupation. The country would probably disintegrate into three zones if the US left. I will never forget the day of 9/11 and the monumental tragedy that gripped us all. But a bigger tragedy is the continuing US troop presence in Iraq, which bleeds the US out of its wealth, young people, belief in their democratic principles...and of hope for the future.
With the new administration elected in 2008, President Barack Obama looks towards finally ending the long night of the bloody Iraqi war, with a timed US withdrawal, and a redeployment to the other quagmire: Afghanistan, and a strong, renewed and aggressive hunt for the man who precipated all of this: Osama Bin Laden.
Learn more about this author, Todd Daigneault.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
It is widely believed that Iraq has been one solid debacle since almost the inception of "Operation Iraqi Freedom". While it is true that America cannot afford to stay, it cannot afford to leave either. The vast majority of people in the United States have grown used to a very leisurely lifestyle, where much is simply given to them or sold at a much lower cost than in other countries.
Gasoline, for instance is upwards of US$6 in some of the more lucky countries and areas of the world; Americans are used to the $3.00 gallon price label. That is the main reason America went to war in Iraq; not to 'aide the Iraqi women' or 'save them from an evil dictator', but to keep prices down. This imperialistic and capitalist attitude presented to the world as a whole by the men running America, is the real reason for so much hatred and ill feeling toward The United States. Many countries invaded by the United States merely wish to live in a way which they have lived for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. They do not appreciate America's 'democratic' views and self-centered 'fluffy' philosophies to be shoved down their throats.
Once again America put its nose into another country's affairs in the interest of self preservation and in the name of freedom, democracy and equality for all.
With troops and advisers deeply rooted within the Middle East, it would be chaos and madness to attempt a withdrawl now. We cannot say "Sorry, we thought we would achieve victory faster; this is not working for us, you are on your own," and turn and run! Most of the world hates America enough as it is; the worst thing for America's grand image would be to leave; we would be seen as cowardly, dishonest, money grubbing power mongers, and worse, other nations would believe that we cannot keep our words when we promise something. Other global powers might view America as weak and untrustworthy because we promised aide and ran.
If other powers ceased to trust us, they would sever ties and trade, running the economy into the ground. Immigration, illegal or legal would slow, weakening the economy since many big businesses, though they pretend not to, rely upon the cheap labor force to more easily run their companies, such as Wal Mart and McDonald's. Then Americans would be forced to work in low paying jobs, which would theoretically drive a bigger wedge between the prodigal upper class and the lower and middle classes. Things would return as they began at the inception of America, low wages, long hours, poor health, and no health care. People would be too concerned with their own health and families to care about other people.
In addition to weakening America's economy, pulling out of Iraq would create an even bigger power vacuum in the Middle East than the one currently in existence. Once US troops left, other nations would fall upon Iraq and take its oil and oil wealth to fund whatever anti-American/Wester n programs they want. Other foregin powers might be in danger as well; what if those extremists attacked them once they had the funds from America's old oil fields? That could bring about the Third World War; constant conflict over limited and unrenewable resources and no control or mediator to level hot heads.
America should remain in Iraq to prevent complete collapse of global economic structures and of course, to preserve itself.
Learn more about this author, Lady Grace.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- War in Iraq
- Is the use of torture as an interrogation technique ever justified?
- How should US view Iraq government's call for US withdrawal time-table: With relief or as ingratitude?
- Setting a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq is a terrible mistake
- There will be no victory in the War on Terror in the Iraq War
- Should the US continue to participate in the War in Iraq?
- Does the US have a moral obligation to stay in Iraq until peace is secured?
