Is pulling out?

Question

Is pulling out our troops the best way to put pressure on Iraqies and other countries in that area to step up to the plate? Aren't we acting as a crutch as long as we're there?

Answer 1

As long as we are there, we are keeping Iran and Hezbollah from stepping in and taking over Iraq.

This would be a problem.

If there was a mistake, it was in the going in. I'm willing to accept that the government was privy to more info than I was. I didn't like the idea when Kerry did.

But we cannot leave.

Answer 2

The primary two other countries in the area that could help have agendas that are well served by conflict in Iran and they have been instigating the conflict in order to collect the spoils when the current government falls. So NOTHING short of war is going to convince them to stop this mcuh less help quell the problem. Saudi Arabia could possibly help because the royal family there wants a secular, not an Islamic state as a neighbor. However, SA cannot commit troops due to its internal conflicts and sectarian allegiances that cross the artificial national borders in that area. Threatening to remove the crutch of US forces will cause those Iraqis now in power to work harder toward stabilizing their country. If they do not 'win' then they may well be killed or at the least exiled along with their entire extended families. Unfortunately they do not have the resources to accomplish this as long as Syria and Iran support the insurgency and Sadr maintains his large private militia (which is trained, armed and supported largely by Iran).
Only if we commit massive amounts of troops will Iraq stand as a country with its borders intact. Yes, we are a crutch. Yes, we started this. I am happy that we deposed Saddam Hussien. That was positive enough that it justifies the large expenses we have incurred. However, the day this war started I said and many within the military beleived that the Bush administration had better have some 'magic' plan for the rebuilding and stabilization of Iraq or there would be a long conflict. I was shocked when we pulled out the first troops and laughed at Bush's victory announcement. Beating their military was easy but making the country a stable and peaceful country was known by anyone with any knowledge of the area to be a difficult proposition.
The situation is very dangerous and I do not forsee any improvement. If Bush maintains the present course, encouraging those now in power and withdrawing US forces over the next 2-3 years, Iraq will be lost and within 3-5 years (or sooner) there will be an Islamic state there operating under Sharia law and with the same agenda as Iran. (The Kurds may separate successfully and form a state in the north if Turkey does not stop that.) Also, Syria will be strengthened, Saudi Arabia will likely have become or be in the process of becoming another fundamentalist Islamic state, Kuwait and other small countries will be in danger, and Iran will have the bomb.
The below is not pertinent to the original question.
We have options but they require severe measures: killing Sadr, bombing Iran's nuclear facility, sealing Syria's Iraqi border, and forcing SA to commit peace keeping forces to Iran(then dealing with their internal problems) are just a few. What we need in any case, no matter what happens in Iraq, is a general enlargement of our military forces. We need at least 500,000 more troops in order to be safe in this country for the long term. I don't think we have the will to take these steps and what that portends I think we all can forecast.

Answer 3

The other countries will step up to the plate. Iran will become the dominating force within the Iraqi government if we pull out. Once the Iraqi military core is strong enough not to implode and perform a military coupe of the Democracy we leave in place then we could leave. Iran's people would put even more pressure on it's government to become more like Iraq and it would mean the end of the tyrannical Syrian regime that would collapse from within without us firing one shot. Qaddafi in Libya got the message early and surrendered his weapons and has already made a strong push for a more westernized society in an effort to placate his people. That's what the surrounding countries fear and that's why they send in un-uniformed troops to fight in Iraq. The war is with Iran...the battlefield just happens to be in Iraq.

Answer 4

Doesn't James Baker have a better idea of foreign relations than all of us? Yes he does, regardless of how you feel about his conservative politics. Didn't the esteemed Mr. Baker say that we should be cutting troop levels and getting all of our regular units out of Iraq by the end of 2007? Again, he did. Besides the last 6 years did Bush have any foreign policy experience? No, he didn't, that's why he asked Jim Baker and others for some help.

Why ask if you aren't going to follow the advice of others who with more experience than you? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Why are we running this war in a similar way to how it was run previously, and expecting different results? Why are we running this war a lot like Vietnam and Korea?

Insanity, I say.

Answer 5

Yah its funny okay so Bush says that giving them a time line cant be done because then the terrorists will just wait around for us to leave and them come back.

However he has said several times that we are there until the Iraqis can stand up for themselves.
So we stay and train train train the Iraqi men to be soliders and police, we train them and then they defect and join the militias and use the training we give them to fight us.

But hey whatever, Im sure they know what they are doing.

Answer 6

What has already happend is we have steped to the plate and it is time to get off the plate their is only a small prcent of other countrys troops their but their not going all out staying their for nearly four years like we have bush should get some advice from other countrys

Answer 7

I do not even think that the Iraqis will step up to the plate, they have not done it in the past, and did you notice the photos of the Iraqi soldiers last night on the news, the Iraqi soldiers, do not even know how to carry their weapons, they act like its a loaf of bread around their necks, they would lay down their weapons for an MRE, and a canteen of water, that will never change

Answer 8

Firstly, I'm a liberal who is generally opposed to all wars. That being said, we are there... we have messed up their country pretty bad. They are not yet ready to control things themselves (pretty obvious if you watch the news). Yes we are a crutch at the moment, but they crutches exist for a good reason... a doctor wouldn't tell someone with a broken foot to "step up to the plate" and walk on the damn thing, would they?

Answer 9

No. None of them will take over- they will simply pour in money, guns and some idiots to make it into another Somalia.
The only thing pulling out will do is to provide more proof that the US can be attacked without risk. Kind of "kick them in the balls, then lie low for a couple of years while bribing their allies and congressmen" type of war strategy. This might be new to US politicians, but it's bread and butter to ObL types. That is after all the method they (forebears) used to destroy Byzantium.

Not a good path to follow- unless you want to become another Byzantium...

Answer 10

YES...YES...YES...
How come US troops are trained in 9 weeks and it has been over 3 years and the Iraqies are not trained ?? There was no Al Quida in Iraq before we were there....they are there to cause trouble for us. If we leave so will they.