What's one good reason to pull all US military personnel from Iraq within 30 days?

Question

I have a debate in U.S. history tomorrow, and I have to argue that all troops should be removed from Iraq in 30 days. I only chose the topic to balance it the group, and hence, will somewhat play Devil's Advocate. I've got a few ideas, but still I'd like to know what you think.

For anyone seeing this topic, provide one good reason, if you can. This topic will close at 9:00 PM EST sharp, and if only one person answers it, I'll choose them for the best answer by defult. Now, I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to stay and fight, but I don't care to hear them at this time. Just reasons for leaving.

Good luck :)

Answer 1

THE MAYHEM HAS GOTTEN WORSE AND IS NOT GOING TO GET ANY BETTER.IN ANOTHER 30 DAYS WE WILL LOSE AT LEAST ANOTHER HUNDRED SOLDIERS.THIS WAR IS NOT WORTH THE LIFE OF YET ANOTHER US SOLDIER.LETS GET OUT NOW

Answer 2

Thirty days would be damn near impossible even if there were a cease fire today.
A volcanic eruption comes to mind. Where everyone is overwhelmed with lava, but that's pretty remote. Although it did happen in the Phillipiones some years ago.

The Phillipine government wanted a military base occupied by the US Military, for their own use. The lease was up and the Philippine government put such impossible terms on the US for a new lease, that the decision was made for the US to abandon the base. A short time later, a volcano erupted and completely destroyed the only other US base in the Phillipines. Once again, the US abandoned the base which left the Phillipines with no US bases. Sorry I digress.

The other possibility is if the new Iraqi government asked the US Command to pull out. This isn't very likely to happen, and it's doubtful the US would bring those units back to the states with all the other stuff that's going on, particularly with Iran. More than likely, those units would be staged in Kuwait until a more permanent location could be considered.

Answer 3

for 1 thing it would put almost all of the conspiracy theories to rest and restore confidence to the american people that their govt really had good intentions in the middle east ... and it would restore faith in the USs' good intentions to the world ... but it will never happen because they plan on taking over the entire middle east .... but that would be a good reason ...and we could concentrate some of the money and efforts on fixing the economy and defense of the mainland. You can make an argumentive point from that, but the bottom line is there are not any good resons to leave now ... the damage is done ... we would have to mop up first and disarm the population which they could do in several months if that is what they wanted to do ... but they dont ... they want the population in iraq devided and killing each other.

Answer 4

the difficulty isn't lots that the media is misguided, as that the media isn't thorough of their insurance. it is extra glamorous to speak concerning the warriors doing foot patrols and setting up impromptu defenses on rooftops in the city components. it is not so glamorous to speak concerning the Sr. NCO's lounging around Anaconda, getting fat and dishonest on their better halves for a 12 months. progression is confusing to define in the rustic as an entire. What serves as progression in the a strategies north does not relate to what's happening in the a strategies south or out west. there are countless inner politics, conflicts and skill conflicts between the countless cultures and sub-cultures which Coalition presence overshadows. the genuine try would be whilst or if the US pulls out thoroughly. From my journey, i can inform you that the Kurds shop their areas shelter and quiet. They take somewhat some satisfaction in that and that they keep the two their cultural and political integrity. we've little or no presence in that area, and maximum of what we've is help purposes, not secure practices. we could circulate away on the instant and that they might run issues only a similar devoid human beings.

Answer 5

As far as I am concerned there is NO good reason, and in the first place there is no way to get out of Iraq in 30 days, you can't move Men,Women and Equipment in 30 days. And to answer Miss BAMA Our men and women are over there dieing for you, it's not the oil. Would you rather look out your window and see the fighting going on?

Answer 6

To stop wasteing blood and money on a civil war we can not stop or control better to redeploy our troops to afghanistan where we can still make a difference. With more troops we can secure the few cities and lock down the borders of afghanistan from the taliban.

Answer 7

I can't think of one good reason. If we did that it would be disastrous.

You could argue that we need to bring our soldiers home. Even though they volunteered and lots relist for 2-3 tours. But you could go that route if you wanted. Your gonna have to get answers to these:

1. leaving would encourage the terrorists and show us as weak

2. we would leave the Iraq gov. weak and civil war would break out

3. the Iraq people who believe in a free Iraq would hate us.

4. we would loose the strategic location of Iraq

If you play devil's advocate be prepared to argue these too. Good luck and I hope you do well. (I'm not being sarcastic)

Answer 8

For the purposes of your debate (and disregarding the various kinds of idiot replies you have received from those unable to comprehend your question or respect its parameters) you have to be able to deflect these arguments:

(1) Leaving Iraq would create a security crisis, a failed state, and a haven for terrorism.

(2) Leaving Iraq would send a message to all terrorists that America can be beaten and is vulnerable.

(3) Abandoning Iraq would send a message to our allies that the Americans are incapable of nation-building.

Here are your ripostes:

(1) The Iraqi government is more or less functional. It has elected representatives and ministries in all critical aspects of governance. The American presence detracts from the legitimacy of the Iraqi government because it opens them to charges of collusion. Iraqi security forces are able to identify foreign terrorists in their midst, and reach an accomodation with the domestic insurgency that the Americans cannot do because of political image (the "tough stance on terrorism") and because of a lack of relevant personnel familiar with the region or the language in the right positions. Iraq was one of the most successful police states in the world before the invasion, so the notion that the Iraqi government, if put in the hot seat, could not successfully appeal to nationalism and use its old draconian tactics to suppress revolt is mistaken. It should be noted that the American presence forcibly moderates many of the excesses of the Iraqi security forces in torture and summary execution. Such means, while morally repugnant to some, are instrumental in such a region for enforcing rule.

(2) Leaving Iraq would send a reassuring message to those allies that matter - the various member states of the Arab League (some of whom cooperate with us militarily, such as Egypt and Jordan) and the member states of NATO who fight alongside us in Afghanistan (and with notable exceptions, in Iraq). It would tell the world that the Americans are not interested in colonizing other nations, and that by leaving that the Americans are willing to accomodate the wishes and concerns of their allies and pursue greater threats to stability there and elsewhere in the world. Leaving while a functional Iraqi government is in place with fairly strong security forces would be a hollow victory for the insurgency, since it would mean those fighting Americans on the principle of resisting foreign occupation would cease and reach accomodation with Baghdad, leaving the real troublesome elements to either submit or be destroyed. The eventual gains for the American military, able to rest and replace personnel and materiel losses used up in Iraq, would either be enough of a troop commitment to put an end once and for all to the war in Afghanistan, or a credible threat in place against pariah states such as North Korea ready to be deployed again, and battle-hardened.

(3) Leaving Iraq now is a public message that the Americans believe in the new Iraqi government and its ability to handle domestic affairs. The threat of outright civil war is mitigated by the autonomy the Kurds enjoy to the north, leaving the major combatants to be the religious division of Sunni west vs Shia southeast. An Iraqi government free of accusations of collusion with America can appeal to the old secular Nasserite nationalism and back it up by brute force, securing the petroleum income currently raided by the insurgency for black market funds and political blackmail against Baghdad. Once fully secure, that income can rebuild Iraq's despondent agriculture and industrial base. Iraqis are industrious people and the center of trade in the region for centuries, so it is not difficult to expect that unified under secular nationalism, they will prosper.

Those are your counterarguments. I've got rebuttals to all of the above as well, but these should serve you fairly well.

Good luck in the debate.

Answer 9

The U.S. must refocus its efforts on the nuclear stand-off with North Korea and while in Iraq, we are unable to take swift action if events continue to unfold the way they are.

Answer 10

To trick all the terrorists into coming out from hiding among the civilians so we can go back and get them.

Answer 11

We don't belong there. This is an oil deal. What exactly are our troops dying for? You can't spread democracy at the business end of a machine gun.