How can we get out of Iraq with some sence of victory and knowing that what we wanted to accomplish was met?

Question

Going into Iraq was supported by most of Americans. The problem of not finding dirty weapons of mass destruction shouldn't have been the biggest story of the war. We needed to show the world that you can't mess with the United States and get away with it. Now that we've accomplished that mission, what is next? Do we need to stay until they're government is stable? Do we need to see that there will not be mass destruction of human life and civil war if we pull out? How do we accomplish our goals?

Answer 1

framing the war as a search for weapons of mass distruction was a mistake. In reality, there were lots of reasons to go into Iraq, starting with the removal of a murdering dictator who had shown agression in the past (i.e. Kuwait in early 90's). Its a shame the president did not make this case to the American people more strongly. If the president had exposed the genocide of the Kurdish people in northern Iraq and the oppression of certain sects within Iraq, the weapons of mass destruction argument would have been irrelevent.

We have achieved some victory already by removing a evil person and giving the Iraqis some fundamental freedom in their goverment that they did not have before. The next victory is security, and will be achieved when the Iraqi people and military step up to the plate and help our American, British, and other allied soldiers keep terrorists and extreamists out. We as Americans can help achieve this goal by supporting our military and giving the President's new plan to increase troops in Baghdad a chance. Whether you like him or not, he'll be the president for 2 more years, and he can accomplish more with our support than without.

Answer 2

That is hard to answer, I think, because I am willing to change my opinions about that subject anytime I hear new information. Some people are not. Right now, I really think that there is a lot we don't know about and that there probably would be a lot of serious terroristic attacks on the U. S. if we can't help to get Iraq stabilized. Of course, I am sure it is not just Iraq, but if some of those countries can become successfully democratized, then the terrorists will not have near as many "friends" as they used to have". The terrorists hate the western world, and don't might waiting as long as they have to to destroy it. I think the president has information to support that. I don't know what the best way is to prevent that, but I am not sure that anyone else knows any better. I do hate seeing so many of our soldiers having to go there and risk their lives though, and that is what is the most disturbing about it, but what if it is really somehow preventing mass destruction of our own country involving all of us unlike anything we have ever seen. Also, almost every soldier from around here that has come back from Iraq, has said that they were told over and over by people they met in Iraq that they were so very thankful for them. We don't hear that at all from the media. So, right now, I don't have strong opinions about the war. I am taking in all the information I can, and am waiting to see how it turns out. I pray that it will have been a good decision for our country. I think that we need to have tried something for our own good, but you know, countries around the world can't always just look out for themselves. Every country that is able has a global obligation to help other countries in whatever way it can. Besides, the United States might now be a free country if it had not been for France.

Answer 3

**The Iraqi government claims in one interview to want us there - in another to want us gone. Depending on the news show decides which claim you see.

**Everyone gets to hear how the militants want us gone. They would quit killing civilians if the coalition troops weren't there.
Does that make ANY sense at all? Did I missed their point?

If Prime Minister al-Maliki was so willing to take over his government - we would be gone and the UN would be there, WITHOUT US this time. The UN dumped everything and left in 2003 because they lost 22 peacekeepers, so give it back to them. The UN claims it has great ideas and the willingness but can't while coalition forces are there.

Excerpt of Resolution 1637
#1Notes that the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at the request of the Government of Iraq and having regard to the letters annexed to this resolution, reaffirms the authorization for the multinational force as set forth in resolution 1546 (2004) and decides to extend the mandate of the multinational force as set forth in that resolution 1546 (2004) until 31 December 2006;
#2. Decides further that the mandate for the multinational force shall be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or no later than 15 June 2006, and declares that it will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq.

Iraq won't terminate this mandate - they keep expanding it. There in lays a problem people are to lazy to grasp.....I am tired of all the BS . Let Iraq figure it out - I am getting sick of their constant do -nothing and blame the US or Bush for our troops still being there.

Answer 4

Terrorism is the issue we went to Iraq over. Terrorists come from everywhere, even America. We have only succeded in showing the world that we have muscles. How many of you are still impressed when Arnold flexes? My point is, we're barking up the wrong tree. Granted there are probably large concentrations of terrorists in Iraq, but this will only make them more determined to act against us. Now they are more focused on the USA than ever. Why, because we are flexing our muscles. It's rather embarrasing to me. All eyes are on us now. ALL of them. We made everything worse for ourselves. I hope some good comes to the people of Iraq who are not terrorists. That's about all we can do to redeem ourselves is genuinely try to help them. Even silent war, like snipers, would probably be better for the war on terrorism. Something that focuses on the issue that actually is threatening our country. Oh, yeah, what about that big farce called oil? We know how to get by without gas. Maybe if we spent more energy on that instead of trying to fix other countries problems with force, we would make some headway and not be "dependant on fossil fuel"

Answer 5

Great question. I think it is the people's decision, not the government's decision to pull out the troops. The real question is no longer, "should we pull out?", but rather "can we afford NOT to pull out?"

Here is an exerpt from a news article:

"We read the paper and notice that Iraq seems to have gotten much more brutal and dangerous since it has enjoyed the benefits of democracy. On a single day last week, one hundred people died in Iraq. Thirty thousand died last year, said the press reports. The numbers of dead and maimed keep rising.

So do the costs.

Nicholas Kristof, of the New York Times, notices that our president is in roughly the same position as Alcibiades in ancient Athens. The man had led the country to war in Sicily…after others had warned him that it was a dangerous waste of time and money. According to Thucydides' account, Nicias said of the campaign, "[it is] a war that does not concern us." But Alcibiades had insisted, claiming that the Athenians would be welcomed as liberators…and that the 'rabble' would be easily defeated.

As it turned out, the campaign went badly. And so the pro-war groups had to go back to the Athenian people, asking for more money and more troops. What they needed, they said, was a 'surge' that would finally overcome resistance. At that stage, they couldn't honorably face the prospect of defeat and withdrawal. So, against much internal opposition, the new troops were raised - 5,000 of them - and sent, on 70 ships, to support the war effort in Sicily.

The result was a catastrophic defeat. Not only was the Sicilian adventure a total failure, it so weakened the Athenian state, that its enemies ganged up on it and the country was soon conquered by the Spartans. Thousands of Athenians were killed. Thousands more were sold into slavery. And Athens became a vassal state, paying tribute to Sparta and its allies.

For more on the Greeks' campaign in Sicily…as well as the fate of the Athenian empire: The Essential Classics."

History usually repeats itself if people forget to learn the lessons from history.

Answer 6

Iraq's government will never be stable. And we can't accomplish our goals. You cannot enter into one of the oldest civilizations on the planet, where wars between tribes has always existed and then expect to stop it.

But don't fret. When we do pull out of Iraq, this is when the Spin Doctors will earn their dollar and most likely; day in the sun.

Answer 7

The problem with your question is that the US didn't go in there looking for WMD - that was just an excuse made up to get a toe hold on a way to control the oil flow. The whole world knows it.

Bush's first win was rigged with the help of his brother in Florida and the oil companies. The second time he made a sweetheart deal with the charismatic Christian set to swing the vote his way and then double-crossed them.

Bush is a puppet with Chaney's hand moving his mouth. Behind Chaney are the oil companies and the big companies that depend on oil.

Do you really think that anything is actually going to change now? It doesn't matter who gets into office because the bottom line is money will buy any elected official anywhere, anytime. If you don't believe that you are naive.

Answer 8

Staying until the job is done would be nice. Unfortunately, the media has sabotaged yet another war. Walter Cronkite's legacy lives.

Iraq will only have peace when Iraqi's want it. The simplest solution for the US would be to divide the country. The biggest problem with that is finding an equitable way to split up the oil revenues in a way that will satiate most of them.

I doubt the US will take this route in spite of its relative prudence.

Answer 9

Your first point is why we need hearings to determine weather Iraq had anything to do with 911 and if that should of been our first priority and in the meantime N. Korea is in the testing phase of WMDs. But damage is done now what do we do? You will never understand if you think this is a war. Iraq is a occupation of someones land. What do they want, "git off ma land" that is how you win a occupation, just like Japan and Germany.

Answer 10

President Bush should have listened to Pope John Paul II, and never went in.
Now I am afraid there is no getting out. To leave that region in that condition is a crime. At least they had order before the invasion. How would Americans feel if their leaders were accused of that kind of international crime....
We as a nation now are responsible.......
I am no sadam supporter, but that region is violent and unruleable since ancient times.
Many empires have tried to bring their version of order to that region, and have failed.

How were we so proud and blind to think we were different from the history.