If we are still at war when the next president elections start, what happens if a democrat wins?

Question

I am really curious to know if we stay at war or not when we switch presidents.Do we stay at war, or does the next president start to decide on if he wants to end it or not? Even if it is another republican and they don't want to stay at war(lol, like that would happen) what would happen, do we immediatly pull out of iraq? Not sure if the president has to get permission or not, seeing as though Bush didn't ask for permission to go to war in the first place.

Answer 1

During the Vietnam War, there was a transition between parties. Johnson was a Democrat and Nixon was a Republican. Nixon didn't require an act of Congress to withdraw troops from Vietnam following the Paris Peace Accords.

The next president could just declare victory and pull out the troops, leaving Iraq in a total shambles. Of course, shambles are inevitable in this impossible situation...there can be no victory in Iraq. Nice going Mr. Bush. If this isn't a quagmire, I don't know what is.

Answer 2

I doubt the war would suddenly just end but rather you'd see a phase out of troops and gradually bring them home.

Most people now believe that the War in Iraq was needless and pointless.We just toppled Sadam...but may replace him with what???There was no plan in place to leave Iraq nor to rebuild it.

A new president..especially if a Democrat...would most likely have a timetable to leave and disengage.I'd guess within a year of a Democrat taking office that we'd be out of Iraq.

One thing does puzzle me though.In both Gulf Wars...this one and in Desert Storm we used national Guard troops and NOT the regular Army???WHY??

Answer 3

The voters of Iraq are just about unanimous of their opinion that the united states military ought to withdrawal at cutting-edge and in case you want summarily. the U. S. isn't providing any type of protection for civilians outdoors the golf eco-friendly zone, so maximum Iraqis are literally not laid low with a finished pull-out. The Iraqi structure previous to the U. S. invasion and occupation dictated that the oil is for the individuals. if you're slightly cynical and say "this is all about oil" then once you do the maths, you'll do not forget that the U. S. is extra constructive off pulling out, preventing the shortcoming of money, and delivers the oil decrease back the the Iraqi human beings the position it belongs. inspite of if the U. S. stole each and every of the oil, it does no longer pay for the fee of the militia action in Iraq.

Answer 4

First of all, we are not at war with ourselves and it's not going to be so easy to get out of, second, if we do pull out or forfit then we look like a bunch of ******* and the rest of the world will have no respect for us and start to walk all over us and we will end up a poor country beat to **** with no food or shelter... do you want someone as the president who protects us or just lets other countries take over... think about that one, i think all of you anit-war people really need to think about why we have war, we are protecting our country, our free country... we are happy and for the most part, safe. if we dont have a president like Mr. George Bush, then we are doomed... you also have to remember that is freakin dad was a president too, i am sure he knows what he is doing in there and what buttons to push and what to let go... there is a reason for everything and he had a good reason for this too...

Answer 5

Any good president would set up a plan to get out, which is what should have been the objective to begin with. Now all our resources are where they needn't be while N Korea is busy getting their missiles ready.

But anyway, if the next president chooses to end this 'police actions' (its not really a war) then it would take planning and months of prepping before a full withdrawal.

**************

Jay, the immigrants are ALREADY living it up on our paychecks with a con pres. and no end in site. because if they are given amnesty then they will just go on welfare.

Answer 6

A new president would inherit the problem, so it would be up to him (or her) to figure out a way to deal with it. They could keep the same policy, they could send in more troops and hope to pacify Iraq, or they could start bringing the troops home. This applies to both parties, whether its a Democrat or a Republican that's the next president.

Answer 7

Maybe common sense would prevail. And technically, for the record, we are not at war. A war indicates that we are fighting another government. Two friendly nations, Iraq and Afghanistan, have revolutionaries trying to overthrow their government, and we are there, at least nominally, to help them stay in power. We are fighting al Quaeda, but that's more like the "war on drugs." Nobody's going to just roll over and play dead, but there are methods other than just going out, guns blazing, to reduce their power.

Answer 8

Supposably there's something in the Constitution saying that the current president can stay in office during war time if it's necessary for the safety of our Country, I don't know if it's true. Nor do I care, we will all be killed in a nuclear war, unless God steps in.

Answer 9

Probably nothing happens that wouldn't happen if a republican wins. Any time you are an occupying army the indigenous population knows you won't be there forever and simply out wait you until you leave. So in any circumstance we will be leaving sooner or later no matter which party is in office.

Answer 10

Odds are, the democrat would be anti-war(probably someone who never supported it) and he or she would pull out our troops from iraq. If we are still there five and a half years later and it isn't any better, then that war is lost.