What would be the outcome of "cut and run"?

Question

I have been against it ( just for prides sake) before but now wonder if a regional war involving all Sunnis and Shiites might just kill more "terrorists" than we could ever do ourselves. I realize it Israel at peril, but really they will always be in peril and we of course would hve the option of nukes if they attacked Tel-Aviv. Seems to me the best way is to let them all kill each other.

Answer 1

There is a void created by Saddam's departure. Right now, the public at large does not know how to serve it's best interests, has no idea how to repair and rebuild, or who to have confidence in to do these things. You have removed the bully from the playground, but you didn't get all of his weapons- each of the junior bullies got a hand full before you found them.
If you think there unrest now, pull out and watch how the new bully gets into place. That void will be filled. The quicker you pull out, the quicker you will be back, if you are interested in the lives of the people in Iraq.
No war is popular. But to cut and run, death will come quickly to thousands in the infighting you mention. This is a quagmire that Bush will always be remembered for, and he will not overcome the unpopular position he has been given because of it. There is no way to win, but walking away would be much worse.

Answer 2

The tribes and religious sects at war with each other have been through this time after time. If we let them fight unimpedded than this war will end sooner as both parties will tire and seek peace on there own terms which is very important in Arab eyes. The country of Iraq will probably disappear which is okay as it was invented in Britian. This war would only restore things as they were before WW1. There would be a new Kurdistan which would cause Turkey and Iran to have fits but that is a problem for another time. There would be a new Shiastan and maybe some Sunni nation if they survive the war. As for Israel they have nothin g to worry about as they don't share a border with Iraq. They also have there own Nukes and can count on us to supply them with whatever weapons they need. So from a Financial and lifesaving perspective it would be in our interest to leave Iraq. We then could concentrate on Afghanistan and keep the terrorist there instead of in Urban Iraq. this would allow us much more flexability to hit the terrorist in the rural setting in Afghanistan.

Answer 3

The question you should be asking yourself is how many innocent men, women, and children would die. Nearly all the experts agree that cutting and running is the worst option. Iraq would become a bloodbath and millions of innocents would be slain. Iraq's security forces would be overrun and their fragile new democracy would be thrown into anarchy... Osama Bin Laden's forces would gain a moral boost as their vaunted leader, who said in the beginning that the United States does not have the stomach to finish the job we began, would be proven right. The moral of our men and women in uniform would decline as it would mean three thousand of their comrades had died in vain...

Is that really worth it? Just to save a few thousand lives, kill a few thousand terrorists, and save some money?

Answer 4

"Cut and run"? Isn't that what Ford did in Flint, Michigan, but pulling out all their presence and leaving the locals to fend for themselves?

I'd like to know why it is the reich wingnuts don't hesitate to abandon an unprofitable business venture yet are utterly petrified of abandoning the unprofitable military venture in Iraq.

OH, WAIT A MINUTE! I FORGOT! The military venture in Iraq *IS* profitable for big business, eg. Halliburton, McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing, Titan, etc. And since the money is coming from taxpayers and not the corporations (hell, they're _gaining_ money from it) why should the reich wingnuts be against the illegal invasion?

The _real_ "cut and run" is cowards like Chicken George who cut the budgets for soldiers' salaries and equipment and then run away from their responsibilities.


.

Answer 5

No one is asking for "cut and run" that is a Republican lie to scare people into supporting further this failure in Iraq they got the country into.

The idea of bringing the troops home now would mean more than likely increased violence and Iranian clerics controlling Iraq. All of which will happen eventually anyway. The question is should we do it now and deal with it diplomatically and politically (the way all insurgencies are defeated) or should we spend more lives American and Iraqi to prove that we are stupid.

Answer 6

The outcome will be the same as if we stay, total sectarian war.

This has gone on for centuries and will not stop with a just a few more troops.

We already got rid of the one person that kept a lid on this and had him tried by a kangaroo court and had him hung.

Get our troops out of the line of fire.

Answer 7

Problem is...they won't kill each other. They kill the innocents.
The reason we have such bad PR now is because we "cut-and-ran" with Bush Sr.
We need to stay, finish the mission, and clean up the aftermath.
If an exterminator trashed your house to get a rat, would you want him to clean up the mess before he leaves?

Answer 8

this war and ohter wars been raging for centuries. The USA get involves only becuz we are world most powerful. For the war in Iraq, its Bushs Pride War. were losing innocent young man and womens for no reason at all. its a sad situation.

Answer 9

Less death and destruction in the long run

Less money 4 Halliburton nad KBR

Answer 10

well thus far, i've never heard anyone but conservative pundits use the term cut and run.

most strategies i've seen use the term DEPLOYMENT, meaning to move troops back into afganistan, where they are desperately needed.

the rest of the troops would then be freed to after those who actually attacked america on 9/11...