As anyone who isn't living under a rock knows, the United States military, along with some military units from other nations is currently assisting the new Iraqi government in dealing with an insurgency comprised mostly of foreign nationals who are attacking Iraqi civilians, police, military and allied military units.

There is a huge amount of rhetoric about this situation starting with whether or not the United States should be there at all (both legally and morally) and encompassing whether or not the insurgents are "freedom fighters", "terrorists", "revolutionaries", etc., whether or not the Iraqi government is a real government or a puppet, whether or not the recent elections in Iraq were legitimate and whether or not it is even possible to resolve this situation.

My intent for this thread has only to do with the current situation. Whether or not one agrees with the war in Iraq, the fact is that it exists. Regardless of what one calls the insurgents or the elected Iraqi government, the fact is that a conflict is going on.

My question is whether or not the United States should leave now or should remain (perhaps with a slow troop reduction) until the new Iraqi government can handle the situation, even if that requires years.

There are no simple anwers here. If the United States leaves, it is likely that the new Iraqi government will be doomed. It is also reasonable to believe that Iran would be interested in taking over Iraq (likely that would be a very bloody conflict). If the United States stays for a while, it is likely that the insurgency will continue and that people on both sides, especially civilians (the insurgents' favorite targets) will continue to die (actually that is likely either way). Withdrawl will likely irreparably damage the United States image as a world power for the next 100 years. This would only open the doors to other powers such as China and Russia (nations who are quickly becoming friends) to exert power across the globe. The United States would likely suffer economically which could even result in another worldwide depression. Remaining may also damage U.S. credibility as little progress appears to be made (it is being made, albeit very slowly).

So what do you propose? Should the US remain to help the Iraqi government get to a point where it can handle its internal matters on its own or should the US cut its losses, withdraw and leave the Iraqis to figure things out?

-- Jeff

ps Please, if you want to argue whether or not the U.S. should be there in the first place, create a different thread. The fact is that the U.S. is there, and a decision as to what to do needs to be made.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

You can't cut an run when you are in the thick of it, that would be worse then invading Iraq in the first place. Now that we are there we have to see it through to the end even if it takes decades.

This is exactly what I feel the US should do:

Attached Files

Document.doc (10.0 KB, 24 views)

__________________
SEX IS NOT A SIN!
LICK IT UP


GIGGLES

All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH... learn it... or LEAVE... Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?
"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, "you want a piece of me?"

lol

Wow, and all this time I thought Williams was a douchebag. He still is because that is written very sarcastically.

__________________

Get me a hardtop with a decent engine, and make sure it's got a big trunk.

Very cute. Shame it can't be done (at least not that way). The US doesn't have the political willpower to do some of it and the world economy (or at least the US economy) would collapse if we did the rest.

Nonetheless, so far I've only seen one real answer (given by Shane).
I agree with you Shane, cutting and running would be very bad. This has to be seen through to the end. As I see them, some of the possible ramifications of this would be:

• The "end" of this conflict may not come for quite some time. This leads to the potential outrcy of some U.S. citizens to force a withdrawl (similar to Vietnam).
• The longer the U.S. remains there, the less legitimacy the Iraqi government has. If people believe it is a puppet government, it will suffer in international relations.
• There isn't a definition of the "end" of the conflict currently. Is it when the Iraqi constitution is accepted and elections are held under it? Is it when the Iraqi military reaches "full strength" (whatever that means)? Is it when the insurgence ends (possibly never)?

Of course there are also possible positive consequences:

• If the Iraqi army can be trained to handle this insurgency and the new government does become established, and if it is a reasonably fair government, then the Iraqi people will see a huge improvement in their quality of life within 5 years.
• The Middle East will potentially see one of very few nontyrannical, popular governments established in that region.
• The stabilization of Iraq is a buffer between Iran and Syra (nations known to support terrorism).
• Remaining and succeeding there reinforces the fact that the U.S., and its allies are not merely bullying the world, but are doing "good things".
• A success there adds to long term stability of economies, trade, politics, etc.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

I say we Clash.

__________________

Get me a hardtop with a decent engine, and make sure it's got a big trunk.

You don't say?

__________________
SEX IS NOT A SIN!
LICK IT UP


GIGGLES

The longer US stays there, the more exhausted it becomes.

So, stay there. Few more years

__________________

Hi Aether, Haven't seen your posts for quite a while.

I noticed you didn't really address any of the real consequences of staying (or leaving). Whether you are against or for the current situation, you have to recognize that there are worldwide implications for either decision, making the U.S. exhausted is hardly the biggest of them.

The fact is that the U.S. is more resilient than you suggest. Certainly some of the U.S. wants us out of Iraq (these are the same people who want us out of every conflict). Most of U.S. (54% in the latest Rasmussen Poll) recognize that leaving Iraq now would be bad for Iraq. The fact is that they are right. The power vacuum left by a United States pullout would most likely be filled by Iran.

Iran would roll in, largely unopposed, and either directly take over Iraq or would simply provide support for the Sh'ia. In either case, Iran would, for the first time in decades, no longer have a hostile western border. That would mean they could step up their nuclear weapons program unfettered by any regional opposition. We might even see a Syria - Iran "Axis" arise.
Certainly a withdrawl would be seen by some nations in the Middle East as a vistory against the "Great Satan". Such a "victory" could only be seen as an affirmation of their use of terrorism as a valid tactic. It would also likely lead to an expansionist movement in these areas.

But sure, focus instead on the United States being exhausted.

-- Jeff

ps Good to have you back.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Its the pottery barn rule: you break it you buy it...

The problem is that American people were given the impression that this would be easy by the administration, but obviously that’s not the case nor has “nation building” (although you can’t build a nation, you can build a state, sorry I’m a picky political science major).

This is not like rebuilding Germany or Japan (as many would use as the prime examples of USA “nation building”), Iraq is not a homogeneous country ethnically or religiously. The threat of escalating ethnic violence in Iraq is the greatest danger. People seem to forget that the United States occupied both Germany and Japan with large numbers of troops for a number of years before substantially reducing its military presence. Both those countries were soundly beaten and had no large term insurgency (average insurgency lasts 9 years).

Of course public opinion polls for Iraq will be low and they should be due to the misleading on the reasons for war and the incompetence of the handling of the reconstruction. I’m not the biggest fan of polls, and when it comes to foreign affairs the average American knows very little.

What Iraq needs is a leader, it doesn’t matter whether he’s a full fledged democrat (I don’t mean this as democrat or republican, but rather democratic) or not, Iraq needs stability. Stability then democracy, it just can’t be half assed like it is now. Whether it will be the “political Houdini” of Iraqi politics Ahmed Chalabi or someone else, they must be strong and relatively appeal to many sides.

The insurgency in Iraq has changed from former regime members and rogue Shia clerics (most of these groups have turned to politics) too more of a foreign character. Most of the large suicides bombing attacks are carried out by terrorist organizations that have no platform for the Iraqi people and are affixed with killing Americans. It looks like they intend to exploit the cultural and ethnic divides in Iraq by targeting the Shias, in hopes of a violent Shia response upon Sunnis to cause a civil war the worst possible out come.

How can Iraq be saved from an ethnic civil war? Well, it in part depends on the American lead counter-insurgence, but its best bet is to do simple things. First simple every day things that are taken for granted like electricity, running water, est. have yet to be fully restored to there pre-gulf wars levels. This is key to not only winning over the Iraqi people and gaining its new government legitimacy and further developing the country so that it will be stable enough to support an experiment in democracy. This would combat the average Iraqi’s feel of hopelessness. I have a few Iraqi friends that I stay in contact with and it is very discouraging to see that lack of optimism in the future.

Yes Iraq needs more soldiers, but not American, Iraq needs an international force to sustain it. Arab troops from other Arab countries would be great, but they risk a public backlash from incredibly low approval rates for the American invasion. Iraq’s neighbors haven’t been on best terms with the country. Syria is very politically weak; Assad doesn’t even have the power to control their own boarders. Iran is only supported by part of the population, the Iran-Iraq war will not be easy to forget for many. Iraq is like Yugoslavia at the end of the cold war, so many different ethnic and religious groups put together. The world cannot afford Iraq to end up like another Yugoslavian collapse and all the ethnic violence and civil war that came with it. An early withdraw from Iraq could condemn millions to death and further instability in the region.

__________________
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot...