For those in favor of Bush's recent Iraq troop swell...?

Question

... could a circumstance ever conceivably arise in Iraq that would make withdrawal a considerable option? If so, what would that situation look like in terms of the violence or the cost in lives or dollars? Please understand that I'm not being rhetorical here; I'm honestly curious.

For those who say "no, never", however, I would ask you to explain what makes this different from Vietnam. I'm not saying Vietnam and Iraq are identical; I'm only wanting input as to how you think we can avoid the mistakes of the past.

Please, only answer if you are not in favor of immediate withdrawal; I don't want this to become a swarm of "my team" complaining loudly, as always and giving each other high fives for it (which isn't to say that we are necessarily wrong either).

Thanks for all the input so far. One type of response I should have anticipated is that withdrawal would lead to unpredictable chaos. I agree, it would; however, the question was not meant to be quite identical to whether or not we should pull out. Instead, I'm wondering if an indefinite presence, a "slow bleeding," could *ever* become worse than outright defeat by retreat. Indeed, it's depressing when the two sides of an issue are weighed in terms of lesser evils, not greater goods, but that's how it is. (Consider that no one argues that if we withdraw, Iraq will magically restore itself, or that if we stay indefinitely, success is guaranteed. It's all a matter of simply avoiding the other one.)

I'm also not too interested in the various original reasons, both sound and unsound, for war in the first place, as they pertain little to the problems and benefits of remaining there now. Just because a threat now exists that may not have in the first place doesn't mean we should ignore it; this is a liberal mistake akin to "guns don't kill people" (because it says that if we can blame Bush for the increased threat level, there is nothing we need to do about the threat). That said, it would appear that Vietnam is an example where pulling out did not result in any attacks on our soil, but of course, Iraq is not identical. Thoughts?

Answer 1

O don't believe staying forever is the answer. What NEEDS to happen, whether you believe in the war or not, is Iraq has to be able to defend itself because if we leave to early then all of our men that died over there would be in vane. Iraq WILL be able to take care of it's own business we are getting close. I did not believe in the war and still don't believe we should have gotten into this thing. But, I was brought up to believe that if you start something you damn well better finish it.

I also believe more troops is not the answer. We need to put political pressure on the Iraqi government to stop the fighting within the sects. If we leave now then everything that has been done is wasted.

Answer 2

Absolutely. Withdrawal would be a great option when a moderate, democractic government has control of a mostly peaceful country. This would probably be a result of a combination of well-trained Iraqi Army and police security forces, political (and politico-religious) agreements that reduce sectarian violence, and a stemming of the flow of external radical terrorists into the country.

Putting that in the terms you requested:
Violence: Low level
Lives: The loss of even one US serviceman's life is a horrible thing (as a Soldier I know that better than you do), but you can't value defense of the nation against lives lost. Radical Islam has killed many more US citizens on our own soil than Hitler ever did, and we lost hundreds of thousands of lives fighting Hitler. The price of freedom and security is sometimes, regrettably, lives - lives sacrificed so the rest of us can live free. It's unfortunate that too many in your "team" are no longer willing to consider that sacrifice, because that bodes poorly for our country in the long term.

Cost in dollars: Again, comparing to WW II (which was less of a threat to citizens in the US). Then, we spent 40% of our GNP defeating facism. Until we come close to that amount defeating radical Islam, no comparison can be made.

I anticipate your response to be that Iraq does not pose a 9-11 style threat to the US. Go reread the words of radical Islamists in Iraq - they have threatened to hunt us down anywhere, and radical Islam was bombing the US long before Iraq or Bush. That's a pretty simple 2+2 equation for me; please don't put your head in the sand.

A very well-worded question, by the way. Thank you for stimulating good, reasonable discussion.

Answer 3

Bush has stated since before the 2004 elections (Kerry used Bush's ideas as his own) what the goals in Iraq are:

1) Democratic elections.
2) Constitution.
3) More international help, diplomatic or otherwise.
4) A more secure Iraq border against terrorist infiltration.
5) A strong Iraqi military that can take over security for itself.

Nothing has changed over four years. 1 and 2 are done. Good luck on 3. Now we are working on 4 and 5. They are being trained. The Iraqi government is growing a set. We still need to help them out. After all, we tore down the corrupt dictatorship that had propped them up for thirty years.

How long will it take? Who knows. But if we pull out now, we will allow antiwar idiots to throw another Vietnam into our history books.

Answer 4

I'm not big on debates, but I feel that the war is necessary to accomplishing goals that were set years ago, long before Bush was put in office. People act like the President is to blame for this war, the war has been a long time coming, and to pull our troops out before we've accomplished our goal. Securing our freedom and the freedom of others. AND Don't forget for a second that our troops have gone through training to become the soldiers they are, and they signed up for it. They knew there was a chance of a war before they took the job. I hate the fact that there are troops dying, it hurts my heart to think of their families, but they made the choice to fight for ME and I will not for one second sit here and say that I think that what they are doing for me and our country is wrong. I stand proud that they have the guts to do what they do to keep me and my family safe.

Answer 5

we shouldnt pull out now because if we do, the shiites and sunnis are going to keep killing each other unchecked and it will go into a full blown civil war. about 90% of iraqs populations is shiite, and the sunnis have been oppresing them when saddam was in power, so there pretty mad. once there civilwar was over a new dictator would come in and after ten years guess who would have to stop him, america.

Answer 6

If we just pull out of Iraq, they will just have another leader like Saddam who will torture, rape and murder the citizens over there. I think that this situation is more like Hitler's Germany than Vietnam. Germany wasn't the one to bomb Pearl Harbor, it was Japan, but we attacked the Germans and no one complained. Hitler was doing horrible things to the people over there, so we stopped him. Saddam and his regime were just as bad, but people are mad about us stopping him. It makes no sense to me. We should not have ignored what was going on over there. And just like we still have a base in Germany, we should have one in Iraq.

Answer 7

I dont know how this compares to vietnam.

I do know we went over there and turned the lives of the Iraqis upside down.

It isnt ok to leave innocent Iraqis undefended when we put them in the situation. immediate withdrawl just isnt an option at this point.

Answer 8

I am not in favour of the troop swell or the war.

US was tied up in vietnam for over 10 years with 50,000 dead , a war based on lies and deceit. A strategic withrawel bought an end to hostilities.the world kept turning

US has been tied up in Iraq for over 3 years with 3000 dead, it cannot sustain the level of resourses it needs without an exhorbitant cost to either its manpower or tax payer, public opinion will not maintain. US needs to get out and leave the Iraqis to it. The world will keep turning

Answer 9

I would say if the USA was suddenly attacked by Godzilla, Rhodan, Ghidra, and Megalon then they should pull out. That is unless Mothra joins the coalition.

Answer 10

Good luck getting a real answer from a blind bushbot. Even bush himself cannot justify what he is doing in a rational way. All i can tell you is this. Having served this great country in the Army, It OUTRAGES me that bush cares so little for our troops, he sends them to a country embroiled in a sectarian civil war, started by his own lies. If those are not war crimes, i do not know what is!