January 15, 2007
-
Leaving Iraq
How can The United States remove itself from the present war in Iraq? Should it remove itself?
That's one of the questions for discussion this month at Socrates_Cafe
This question brings up a number of other questions for consideration:
Who's running things in Iraq?
They now have an elected government in place with a large standing army and police force, but we and the insurgents still pretty much call the shots in Iraq.What were/are our mission and objectives in Iraq?
We rid the country of Saddam Hussein and Baathist rule but apparently our original objectives were to somehow create a "Friendly Democratic Outpost" in the Middle East and to use that nation to control the more objectionable efforts of Iran and Syria - and, Oh Yes, to rid the area of Weapons of Mass Destruction and al Qaeda operatives.
Iraq does have a democratically elected government friendly to us and there are no WMDs. Iran, Syria, and al Qaeda seem to be doing pretty well, however.What did/do the Iraqis want?
To be rid of Saddam (at least most of them did), a measure of democracy and peace, the end of discrimination against Kurds and Shia, control of their own country.
They did get rid of Saddam. Right now they would probably settle for peace, law, and basic utilities as they had under Saddam. Now the Sunnis have to worry about discrimination (and genocide).Arguments against our leaving include the idea that we would somehow be "Cutting and running" or that we must fight terror there or we will have to fight it here.
If we were to leave tomorrow, next month, or next year, or at all for that matter - we will be "cutting and running", that is cutting our losses and removing ourselves from a situation we did not foresee, do not want to be part of, and, considering our other world commitments, can not afford. What's wrong with that?
As far as the "fight terrorists there instead of here"- Remember they struck here first and an army in Iraq will hardly protect us from another terrorist attack - might even encourage it - as they were apparently upset over our influence in the arab world to begin with.Would setting a timetable to leave Iraq or denying more funds to that war somehow show lack of support for our troops there?
Certainly not. Since this is a political decision, it, if made, would lead to re-definition of our troops' mission in Iraq and the withdrawal would certainly be in good order over an extended period - sort of a drawdown as we turn the country over to the Iraqi government. I assume we would fully support any UN resolve to send "Peacekeepers" in if they are needed.What would leaving Iraq do to our reputation in the rest of the world?
Probably help repair it.How do we want to be known in the civilized world and has our Iraqi adventure made us more or less respected?
What's your take on this?You'll note I have not suggested any detailed plan for withdrawal. Such a plan would be quite complicated and include both military and political decisions which would have to be made over an extended period; but the answers to the questions above would certainly indicate our basic policy. Apparently currently most Americans agree with my somewhat simplistic views.
Comments (5)
Frankly, I think a withdrawal would be ill advised at this time, because the overall objective has not yet bee realized.
What was the overall objective? The one stated many times by the administration was "To rid the country of Weapons of Mass destruction and bring Democracy and Freedom to the people of Iraq" That, it is my understanding, was the rationale used to persuade the congress and attempt to persuade the UN to support our invasion of that country.
There are not now, nor apparently ever were, WMDs in Iraq. The country has a democratically elected government and the Iraqis apparently are free to kill each other as enthusiastically as they wish. There is little evidence that our presence will lead to peace in Iraq. It is now in the midst of a tribal and religious sorting out of power which we simply cannot influence without taking sides, which is not in our national interest. The Iraqi army and police, which we have trained and equipped, are apparently part of the sorting out process.
Personally, I don't think Saddam and the Iraqis are worth one American soldier's life, much less over three thousand. But then, I'm not the President of the United States. He apparently thinks Iraq is worth all those lives - and more. A majority of the American people seem to disagree with him, but he doesn't seem to care - or perhaps understand.
Our Armed forces are not being used well. If anyone is "Not supporting the troops" it's George W. Bush. He says he "accepts the responsibility" for placing them in an intolerable situation; but frankly I don't think he yet understands what he has done - if he did he would smile less and not be quite so arrogant in his comments to critics. He will be lucky if he escapes impeachment
.
My goodness. I guess I got a little carried away here
"Never Mind"
Dear Dick,
Obviously I could probably think up dozens of questions to ask if I didn't agree with you. You seem to have covered all the points inherent in the question. The answer to "should we leave" is a resounding yes, and I not only agree, I can point out blog articles I wrote back in 2001 and 2003 where I warned that going into the Middle East with guns blazing would involve us in "another Vietnam." Apparently, there are still people who believe in Bush's personal mission. I have no doubt he still believes in it. Just as Hitler believed he was winning WWII even as the Russians were storming into Berlin.
I saw a great bumper sticker the other day. "Support the Troops. Send them home."
Many years ago, when Florida airlines were hijacked to Cuba, I read an article that said the "future" would contain many more terrorist acts and hijackings. Can any armed force participate in eradicating the threat of terrorism? Can terrorism be stopped? Does a U.S. military presence in the Middle East actually prevent, or does it help to foster terrrorism?
Is the present "government" of Iraq viable to both the opposing Sunni and Shiite factions? Is it basically a "puppet government" of the U.S.? Can there ever be a "war" against an ideology rather than a visible enemy?
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
I was actually going to post on these topics, but after having read your post, I don't think there is anything to add. I agree with you almost entirely.
"How do we want to be known in the civilized world and has our Iraqi adventure made us more or less respected?" I believe our "adventure" in Iraq has lessened our credibility with the world and that our country is less respected than ever before. The prime minister of Great Britain may be in agreement with our president, but I doubt that the people of GB are as enthusiastic about us or about their involvement in Iraq.
I think you've covered the subject quite well.
Peace.
Authentic attorney at law seo Solutions - Tips