I just separated from the military, and honestly I think it will be a long time before the United States military leaves Iraq. I truly think we will have to build some kind of permanent military installation there. The government will probably want to use it a jump off point to get to Iran next.
2006-07-17 13:34:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by DAVid 2
·
1⤊
3⤋
We're standing between the parties that want to kill each other & we'll leave when they calm down & work together AND the local govt is strong enough to kick the crap out of anyone that makes trouble. Reconstruciton after the US civil war was 7 years, about 5 in Japan after WWII as I recall but they kept their emperor who ordered them to cooperate & we left to go to Korea more than becuase they were ready. If you want a guess, I'd tell you 3/4ths of the troops will be out in 24-36 months give or take. The remainder will be primarily rapid reaction security force, embedded advisors, & training staff. A lot of that might be taken on by contractors too, so it's hard to say with troop numbers. Do remember though that we are the guest of the Iraqi govt & they are free to ask us to leave at any tmie the choose, and we would begin doing so that very day. They have stated they are looking for two more years & then a scaled pull back plan - meaning back to Kuwait where we can come back quickly if needed, and then home as we see fit. Good chance another war comes up in the next 5years though (Iran, maybe N Korea) & almost for sure in the next 10 years (N Korea, China).
2006-07-18 02:47:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by djack 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well let's see... If we left Iraq the way it is (unstable, and being invaded on a daily basis from terrorists hoping to turn Iraq into another Muslim Fundamentalist State, and keep democracy from succeeding), then we may as well tell the terrorists "Keep using the terror tactics you use, because they work". And then we can expect to face the same situation we are facing now in Iraq in another country sometime soon in the future.
Anyone remember Mogadishu (or for you non history buffs, a little movie called "Black Hawk Down"). President Clinton pulled us out of there before the job was done because we were facing a rebel group which used terror tactics to achieve success. When 17 of our soldiers died (while killing between 200-1000 of the enemy) Slick Willy ordered our troops out - rewarding the enemies tactics and propaganda machine.
Anyone see the similarities between what we are facing today in Iraq????
2006-07-17 20:40:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Christopher B 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
the turning point will be an election. GWB has stated, for the record, that leaving Iraq will be for another president to do. I found that so enlightening especially when you consider that during the last campaign he was challenged by Kerry reciting GWB own words which were "a president should never enter into a conflict without an exit plan", with that said Kerry asked him what his exit plan was. And as I recall, GWB came up with one, but the long and the short of it was that he gave lip service to what people wanted to hear.
2006-07-17 20:43:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Alan S 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You're aware that the U.S. still has a military presence in the countries it defeated in World War II, aren't you?
It's been 60 years, and we're still in those countries. Why are people expecting a different standard with Iraq?
2006-07-17 20:36:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
since we whipped their *** twice in the last two decades, and never technically left the country, why do we have to leave at all?
the bad people there are hoping we get sick of the bloodshed and fold our tents and go away, which in turn would leave Iraq looking like Afghanistan after USSR left that country. the latter left in disgrace after the people of USSR had their fill. we see the same repeating itself here, with factions in America falling in line with the "pull out"" crowd.
I fall in the "finish the job" crowd.
we beat Germany in WWII and did not leave; we are still there, BTW. we beat Japan, still there.
2006-07-17 20:40:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
For a long time. We are still in all the countries from WWII. We have tons of troops in Europe, much more than in the Middle East.
2006-07-17 20:34:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by JoeIQ 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think we should be in Iraq but now that we are there we beed to finish what we started. I think we should stay there for aslong as it takes. Look good things have come out of this war and this is coming from someone who lost a uncle in this war.
2006-07-17 20:33:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Googles 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
we are going to stay in Iraq until the Iraq has its own military protection against any insurgents. But that will probably be in a long time.
2006-07-17 21:15:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ford H 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Until we get a new president and his handlers in Washington, DC. expect to be there.
Unless Cheney declares an emergency and all Elections are suspended until further notice.
This scenario wouldn't surprise me, in fact, I was looking for something after 911 to ensure Bush's continuation if a Democrat got to close to winning.
2006-07-17 20:35:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by Cranky Old Goat 5
·
0⤊
0⤋