"Withdrawal", "troop reductions", "cut and run", and "retreat"...all of these mean the same thing: defeat.

And defeat is an emotionally-charged word for Americans. We do not like to lose. We are still trying to understand what happened in Vietnam and it's hard to believe that it might happen again.

But staying in this war because we don't like to lose is not a good reason to keep fighting.

Another poor reason is to keep fighting in the memory of the fallen soldiers.

Still another bad reason to keep fighting is so that the United States maintains its credibility. If we withdraw, others might be more likely to attack. That reason was given during Vietnam and the attacks never came after we withdrew from that country.

There is only one reason to keep fighting a war. That's when it's in the national interest of the United States to keep fighting.

Certainly, it would be better for the United States if Iraq could be stabilized. That area is important to the economy of the United States. And there is a certain moral obligation to repair the area now that we've broken it.

However, are these achievable goals? Can we reach those goals in a year? Not a chance. Can we reach these goals in 10 years? In 10 years, I believe that even our Iraqi friends will be tired of the occupation and may take up arms against us. Can the goals be reached in a hundred years? It is doubtful.

So even though there are some compelling reasons to be over there, the chances of obtaining any benefits are very small. At the same time, the costs and the risks are extremely high.

So if we cannot reasonably expect any benefits, we need to begin the troop reductions. There may come a time when military action will be needed again over there, but it will have to be in the national interest and there will have to be achievable goals.

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

---

Add your voice

Know something about Voting on troop reductions in Iraq?
We want to hear your view. Write now!