What is the purpose for the presence of American troops in Iraq?

Question

Get rid of the WMDs? Impossible and unnecessary; they never existed. Depose Saddam? Accomplished. Build a new democracy? There has never been one there, and what grounds are there to think that there ever will? Who appointed America to use violence and killing to do it, anyway? The world has many dictatorships - why choose Iraq for a democracy-building mission? Should we just ignore the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. while beating up on Iraq? Are we supposed to overlook the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians, not Iraqis? And that the Saudi Arabian Osama Bin Laden appears to be safely in Pakistan while all the American effort is on Iraq? Why are our forces in Iraq at all?

Fang says "The objective is to battle terrorism" and many people would agree. But terrorism is not a state or a body of persons; it is a tactic. Likewise, "terror" is nothing more than an emotion - the emotion of a terrified person. It is not sane to declare "war" on an emotion or a tactic.

Answer 1

The reason Bush and Co. chose Iraq is because it has a very large supply of oil, and because a good portion of the world's remaining oil is in the Middle East region. The goal was to set up a base in the area to secure US access to all of this oil (both in Iraq and in the surrounding countries). The Neo-Cons looked at a map of the region, and Iraq was the obvious choice for a US outpost. Here's why:

1. After a decade of war with Iraq, and another decade of UN sanctions, much of Iraq's oil was untapped.
2. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator that many of his neighbors feared and hated. Deposing him seemed unlikely to cause too much opposition in the region.
3. The US had many allies amongst the Kurds in northern Iraq, whom the US had been protecting with the no-fly zone.
4. It was assumed that the Iraqis hated Saddam so much that they would welcome the Americans as liberators.
5. It was assumed that the Iraqis would be so grateful to the US for liberating them that they would pay for their own rebuilding by selling oil.
6. Because of Saddam's bickering with UN weapons inspectors, Bush could justify an invasion as defensive and never have to admit that the war was for oil.
7. The Saudi government has been allies of the US for many years, and has helped keep the price of oil down by pumping more when the price got too high (a "swing producer"). Plus, Islam's two most important cities are in Saudi Arabia, and an occupation of Saudi Arabia would therefore inflame much of the Muslim world.
8. Iran has oil, but it has two and a half times the population of Iraq, and a population that would probably oppose a US occupation a lot more than (it was thought) the Iraqis would.
9. Kuwait is already a US ally (thanks to the first Gulf War), and sells us plenty of oil.
10. Syria and Jordan have no oil, nor do they have access to the Persian Gulf, through which much of the exported oil in the Middle East is shipped.

Unfortunately, Bush and his advisors did not understand the simple fact that Iraq had three distinct ethnic groups (Kurds, Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs) that did not much care for each other. Nor did he forsee that American soldiers on the ground would attract Muslim fighters from other parts of the world. Nor did he forsee that other countries might arm the insurgency (just like the US armed the mujahadeen against the Russians in Afghanistan, just like the North Vietnamese armed the Viet Cong in South Vietnam, just like the US armed the British against Germany, etc., etc., etc.).

So why are we still there?

1. We're still not getting much oil from Iraq due to the continued fighting.
2. We have not secured a base to police the oil supply in neighboring countries.
3. Withdrawing from Iraq now would be an admission of failure for Bush, which would humiliate him personally, taint his administration in history, and hurt his political party for years to come.
4. Bush, a former addict, doesn't know when to cut his losses. Like a gambler hocking his wedding ring for one more hand of Black Jack, he's hoping that Iraq will eventually pay off.
5. Withdrawing would probably lead to even more fighting and might result in the break-up of the country. This would be another blight on Bush's career as surely news of the carnage would appear every night on the evening news. Also, a Sunni Arab state would be hostile to the US (for overthrowing Saddam, who was a Sunni and favored Sunnis), as would a Shiite Arab state (because it would be close to and influenced by the Iranians, who are also Shiite).

Answer 2

"olhip48" makes a half hearted attempt to justify something. Let's not forget Bin Ladin had nothing to do with Iraq.
I feel, that securing the oil reserves was the main objective, followed by the building of 14 US bases in Iraq to facilitate a longer stay was equally important. A so-called "democratic" government has been put in place. The original idea , was that this gov't would do Washington's bidding. They have been playing the part until Saddam was executed, now they want the US out so they can wreck havoc on the Sunnies for the years of oppression against the Sh!te majority. One of Bush's promises to the American people was that the revenue from Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Watch the taxes in the US for a generation or two. Haliburton and the other modern day "carpet baggers" will do great , that includes the present administration. When it comes to decent leaders, we here in Canada are just as "polically bankrupt" as you are in the US. God help all of us.

Answer 3

I have two observations before I would answer this "question."

The way you phrased your question indicates that it is not so much a question as it an expression of your opinion. Nothing wrong with expressing your opinion, but is that the purpose of YA? I don't think so; do you honestly believe it is?

Second, I look at the ratings of the answers and conclude that the ratings are based, not on the quality of the answers, but on whether the rater agrees with the political point of view. I ask, "Raters, is that truly the purpose of the ratings?" When I joined, I read the rules. I can't see how you can honestly say it is a meant to be a vote on politics.

That said, I will answer the heading, but not the polemic--if you are really interested .Please read the Congressional declaration, voted upon and agreed to by those who now conveniently forget what they voted for--people like Hitlery, who claimed that when she was co-president she wanted to attack Saddam; people like Hanoi John who insisted that the president (Clinton, at the time) should attack Saddam; people like Arlen Spector...wait, he was busy researching Scottish law...

The resolution is too long to reproduce here. Read it yourself -- that is if you are interested in the facts, rather than a five second sound bite.

Answer 4

The tribal government know as the Taliban allowed a safe sanctuary for al-Qaeda to operate and train. Not only this but they were very brutal. Once the United States came in to set up a new government the Taliban turned into an insurgency. Right now were training the new Afghan government to take control of their country which is a very difficult job when the people we are training are very uhhh.... difficult to work with and generally have low morale. The Afghans want to help but not if there may be repercussions from the Taliban or al-Qaeda if they are seen working with coalition forces.

Answer 5

The truth is out there, but it is not easy to find. A major reason for military action in Iraq was the refusal of Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. resolutions calling for weapons inspections. Saddam refused to allow inspectors and even shuttled inspectors out of Iraq. Though no big stores of WMD's were found, the baisc materials for making nuclear weapons were found. No nuclear material was ever found, but Saddam was attempting to build a nuclear arsenal. There was a goodly amount of chemical and biological weapons found and Iraq did have the military capacity to do harm to its' neighbors.
Osama Bin Laden is still on the ten most wanted list of the F.B.I. but other than his own claims of having been involved in 9/11 there is no actual hard evidence that links him to those events. That is not to say he isn't guilty and needs to be tracked down. He is one of many people that are categorized as terrorists and targets of the war on terror. Saddam Hussein was also one of those targets. The U.S. and Brittish tropos in Iraq now are attempting to protect as much as possible, the stability of the newly formed Iraqi government. A major problem is that our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war and one in which they really do not have a side.
The objective is to battle terrorism. It is not being done very well, but it is being done as well as anyone has been able to do it. There are no simple or quick solutions.

Answer 6

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit, there were 35 murders in the month of January. That’s just one American city. About as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
When some claim that President Bush shouldn’t have started this war, state the following:
A.FDR led us into WW LL
B.Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost.. An average of 112,000 per year.
C.Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 53,000 lives were lost..An average of 18,334 per year.
D.John Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
E.Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost.. An average of 5,800 per year.
F.Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times, by Sudan and did nothing. Osama attacked us on multiple occasions.
“If you can read this, thank a teacher.”
“If you are reading it in English, Thank a Veteran!”

Answer 7

Five years prior to 9/11, bin laden declared war on the u.s. to the Clinton white house. In this written declaration, he stated to have Iraq as the front line. Bush took the war to alqueda, on their terms. I don't want them in my front yard.

Answer 8

to back up the Iraqi army.

Answer 9

To answer your bold-type question, one word: OIL....

Answer 10

K.....I think that's what all the hoopla is about. WE DON"T F-ING KNOW anymore!