Why can't Bush just say; "We got Saddam, mission accomplished, now lets get out." Why?

Answer 1

Because whether we like it or not, we're over there now, and they aren't just going to stop attacking because we do. We have to finish it, not just cut it off, though I have no idea how we'll do that.

Answer 2

Because Bush heard Powell say, "You break it, you own it" and said, "Let's break it, so I can own it." As far as he's concerned, Iraq and all it's wealth are HIS SPOILS. Iraq belongs to him and his crew. They didn't go through all this to just leave. The Saddam threat was BS reason number 1 (along with all the other ones, "spreading democracy" etc.) to get in there and steal the country. Mission Accomplished -- but it wouldn't be if he just got out now Here is Bush's plan for Iraq: IRAQ IS MINE, PERIOD! LIVE WITH IT!

Answer 3

Because even though catching Saddam was a great accomplishment, it by no means shows that we won. If we left now, with the instability of the entire Middle East, the region would be plunged into chaos. I don't believe we should have gone to Iraq to begin with, but now that we're there we ned to stay and try to stabilize the nation.

Answer 4

The goal is to have a stable government friendly to US oil interests. The concern is that Iraq will disintegrate into three nations: Kurdistan, a Sunni Arab state, and a Shiite Arab state. A Kurdish state would probably be friendly to the US. A Shiite state would probably be closely tied to Iran (which has a majority Shiite population) hence be hostile to all US interests. A Sunni state would probably be hostile to the US as well, since Sunnis enjoyed a great deal of privilege under Saddam, who was Sunni. Also, a great deal of conflict would continue if Iraq broke apart, and this would further hinder oil production. If Bush cannot get more oil flowing out of Iraq, the whole point of the invasion/occupation would be lost.

Answer 5

1) The new democratic government in Iraq is still weak and would likely collapse if US forces left. This would ignite a civil-war within Iraq and a larger regional war as Turkey tries to protect its interests in the north and Iran tries to dominate the southern Shia regions.

2) The US has made several long-term commitments to allies in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal would negatively impact our credibility in the Middle-East. Also, any Iraqi who cooperated with US forces would be very exposed to reprisal attacks as the new government falls.

3) A failed-state in Iraq would be a favorable environment for extremist groups and terrorist training camps similar to Afghanistan under the Taliban.

4) It would further increase the cost of oil.

Answer 6

Saddam is no longer a threat, but the insurgents are a threat. They are a threat to the whole middle east and they are sponsored by Iran. Iran must be destroyed before this issue settles down. If you believe 'destroyed' is too harsh, then how about their nuclear complex being destroyed and the midget Ahmadinejad, tarred and feathered and sent on his way. Only, then, will the middle eastern crises settle down and until it does, we are compelled to stay because we do offer some stability to the region.

Answer 7

US President George Bush's plans to invade Iraq have nothing to do eliminating “weapons of mass destruction”, preventing terrorism or ending human rights abuses. An attack on Iraq will be the first phase of a pre-existing strategy to increase US control of the world's oil supplies.

The study of history is the best medicine for a divorced reality; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find yourself and your country both examples and warnings.

To the war-for-profit gang, Santa comes at a time of their own choosing. For their sakes, we stack the sleigh with bombs while singing their moronic carols. Whose chimney will be next?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15476.htm
http://www.fff.org/whatsNew/2004-02-09a.htm

Answer 8

i'm a little young but i hav a brain, see we've accomplished the mission ( 1 mission! ) but not the other, we havn accomplished helping them b/c there'z still terorist'z out there and we need 2 help! I'm more worried about North Korea now though, it'z a little scary if u've heard about it, i know their nuclear weapon'z r way ov there but what about the people near them like Japan and China? that'z why i'm a little worried right now!

Answer 9

Just walk away, leaving the country in shambles? It has taken some time for the new government and hopefully a new democracy to form. It will still take more time. How long did it take for the United States to become a successful democracy? Years and years...

Answer 10

Because Saddam was the only one who could run the country, at least W's Dad was smart enough to know that (even though he created this whole terrorist mess in the first place w. Gulf war 1 which kept oil cheap for over a decade). How's it going to look if having gone in playing heroes now you leave the place in civil war, who's going to win that one, will they keep the oil price down or march on Israel?

Answer 11

Because we're trying to maintain a permanent ally with the global war on terror, as well as create a sustaining military presence there ala Germany after WWII. Not to mention building the only successful democracy in the middle east region.