Iraq war - so what happens once our troops are home?

Question

Its always popular to protest against war and want troops to be home. But what I dont ever here from these people is what is the next step. Do they think that once the US leaves Iraq that the world will be one happy go lucky safe place again? If they believe that then they really are dreaming. So all of you who are antiwar and bring the troops home supporters, what exactly do you think the next step should be? Do you expect the Taliban and Al Queda and all those other groups to start playing nice now that we are gone?

Answer 1

See, this is the problem. You and other Republicans believed Bush when he stated that the Iraqi war was about terrorists. No evidence. Sorry. I don't see how leaving is going to get a rise out of terrorism. We can't fight terrorism if we are fighting in ONE country. If this were truly a war on terrorism, we would have more troops in Afgahnastan, we would have troops in Saudi Arabia (can't because the Bushies are pals with the Royal family), we would be in Iran, etc. You can't fight true terrorism in just ONE country. You have to make selective targets. Utilize the world intelligence community and target THOSE terrorists. Fighting in a civil war has nothing to do with terrorism.

Answer 2

They won't go home until the soldiers retire, quits or dies. They will either get sent to do other projects (such as Afganistan and maybe Sudan) or sent back to their base.

Chances are Iraq will break up into three parts and nobody will be willing to stop unless the over 500,000 trained Iraqis decide Iraq should be one country.

As far as the aliban and Al Queda go in Afganistan, it might be more of a movement now than an organization. Key leaders are dead and there is no formal organization now. Commanders with money can basically do whatever they want much like the warlords that are still in Afganistan. The supposed main commander boasted a number of 4,000 men which is down from 10,000 men he boasted about the end of last year. Recruits are often mentally ill and or poor so winning their hearts and minds will probably be useless.

Lots of this is all spooky shadow stuff. After all 1 million Africans die each year from malaria and almost 60,000 Americans die each year from car accidents. According to the CIA fact book, Germany and Italy both had twice the death rate per 1,000 than Iraq in 2006 and France, Japan and the U.S. also had higher death rates per 1,000 than Iraq in 2006.

Answer 3

the truth is this:

Iraq was better off with Saddam. As bad as that is, it was better off.

Now that we have taken Saddam out, we are stuck. Period.

There is no simple solution because the ONLY solution is to get out of the way and let the region fight it out. Whatever happens now will NOT be in the USA's best interests and will most likely take at least a generation or two to sort out.

The funny thing is: George H.W. Bush said sa much in his autobiography he "wrote" just after leaving office. It was the explaination of why he left Saddam in power. If the son, George W. Bush, had bothered to read his own fathers book, he might have known this. But of course the Traitor Bush didn't bother with that just as he didn't bother to tell the truth about the intelligence reports when he ignored all reasonable voices and invaded. KMOX radio out of St Louis spent a day quoting the report Bush cited and then played audio of Bush as he claimed to be telling the public what was in the as yet classified document. It was amazing and this was two and a half years ago. Why the intelligence community allows him to claim he had faulty intelligence is beyond me especially when the report said that," Iraq and Saddam Hussien posed no threat to the United States."

So we have a choice now that the Traitor got us into an uneccessary war removing focus from the TRUE enemy, Osama and Al Queda, and its difficult.

We can choose to abandon Iraq to its own bleak future. A future that Saudia Arabia, Iran and Turkey are all going to want to have a major influence on...

or...

We can keep our troops there for decades occupying the country, creating a new generation of terrorists and killing a generation of american youth.

Those are the stakes. What do we choose?

Answer 4

Millie C., why is it that just because a person looks at it the way the asker does, you quickly label him a Republican? That's the problem with people like you...too narrow minded to think that there's people out there that don't have to blindly follow one party or the other, like I guess you do. I feel the same way the asker does, but I'm Independant. You see, I have a brain and it actually works. I can think for myself. I don't need people with a little (D) or (R) behind their name to think for me.

I saw some interesting interviews on MSNBC this evening. Yes, left leaning MSNBC. They interviewed several troops serving in Iraq right now. They asked about those that say they support the troops and not the war. The soldiers said that doesn't cut it for them. If you don't support the war, then you aren't supporting the troops and what they're doing over there so you might as well go on with you life and leave it to them. If you say we're failing in Iraq, you're saying that the troops aren't doing their jobs and that's not supporting them. This doesn't come from me but from soldiers fighting in Iraq.

Answer 5

I'm from Europe and my coutry has refused usa's proposal of sending a contigent of troops to fight in Iraq. It isn't our war afther all. Although i prefer the tought that any military action/preventive war sholud have 100% validated reason and be approved by UN that isn't the case. Afghanistan was rightfully attacked, they were hiding Bin Laden and had radical dictatorship. On the other hand what was the reason for Iraq invasion ??
There is no WMD, and it seems very likley that the reason isn't oil eather. The USA wolud protect 100 times better all those pipelines but instead they are daily sabotaged by rebels. And they haven't increased the Iraq's oil production by any significant amout in all of the occupations duration. Gass prices have just grown since 2003.and will still grow.
With the future elections and a very likley win for the democrats the troops are going home. It is just as Vietnam,
only in desert. NOW the next thing will probably happen. The current goverment is not strong egnough and hasn't got powerful army to fight with the rebels efficiently. You can expect a very likley civil war , for the next 5 ,10 ,15 years , that isn't possible to say. And on the idea that Iraq will fall apart I don't think that is about to happen. Look at all the civil wars in Africa in the past 50 years, like in Kongo or Somalia. They are multiethnic states, with weak central goverment , significant portions of land are in rebels control and that has been for decades. The situation will be the same as that and with time armed conflicts will be lesser and lesser. Kurds in the north wolud not try to proclaim independece in fear of Iranian/Turkish or Syrian intervention. They wolud have a very wide autonomy , state within state, at most. Te shi'a arabs wolud fight with sunni rebels for the control of the coutry , with the aid of Iran( if he doesn't get invaded as well).

In general I am against Iraq war but I'm trying to be as objective as I can. But when i see the pictures of the suicide bombers that have blown up entire school of children or USA rapings of prisoners I am totally pi+++d off. USA courts must find guilty all the sick individuals that have raped or descrated individuals dignity


ESPECIALLY THAT SICK JOKE OF A SOLDIER. I REMEMBER THAT I SAW A PICTURE OF SOME B***H THAT IS KEEPING A NAKED IRAQ CITIZEN ON A DOGS LEASH . HE WAS ALL BRUISED AND BEATEN FROM TORTURE AND SHE WAS SMILLING ; SMILLING !!!!!!!!

LIFE IN PRISON FOR HER AND THE LIKES OF HER.!!

Answer 6

When we finally realize our troops continued stay in Iraq in the midst of their civil war is not only counterproductive, but actually promotes both terrorism and hared toward America, while exacerbating the problems in Iraq, it will be an opportunity to begin the phased withdrawal. Had we more wisdom in Washington, we would not have invaded in the first place. Now that we are still there, it may require the next election before our troops can be removed from the quagmire we have created in Iraq. It will require international intervention to bring peace to Iraq, and no amount of American troops or our financial expenditure will solve this problem.

Answer 7

What happens in Iraq -- the various sides continue to fight. Eventally, one of them will gain dominance. Eventually, that side will form a government and try to maintain stability by enforcing its will upon the minority.

There is no national consensus in Iraq that would allow for a truly democratic system. Democracy (in any form, even a democratic republic) requires that the losing minority agree to abide by the decisions of the majority. That's not going to happen voluntarily in Iraq any time soon.

As to whether the eventual Iraq govt is one the US approves, that remains to be seen. Theoretically, the US should approve of any government that is voted into power by the majority of its citizens. But we've seen that's obviously not true. And remember that we appoved of Saddam decades ago as well, so everything is subject to change over time.

What will happen in the US -- our troops will be able to get rested, and properly trained and equipped. And we'll have then available for specific attacks on specific threats, rather than the bulk of our forces being tied up babysitting.

Which, as several high-ranking generals have said, makes us much more able to resist terrorist attacks than we are now.

Answer 8

i won't have the capacity to draw close the mentality of everyone who some how thinks that the conflict in Iraq is making us safer. pondering how committed and merciless the terrorists are, do no longer you think of that they had attack now, in spite of Iraq, in the event that they might? isn't that how they artwork (answer:confident). the actual reason they have not executed something yet is as a results of the fact they are able to't. conflict or no conflict.

Answer 9

What will most likely happen is an increase in terrorist acts worldwide.

What most people do not realize is that currently Iraq is a "black hole" for those who commit terrorism. It is a focal point for individuals who wish to engage in terrorist activities to go, and die. Right now people who would normally be planning and engaging in terrorism worldwide all want to run to Iraq to fight in their big cause against the US. So instead of planting a bomb in a nightclub, they are picking up an AK-47 and attempting to engage US forces, or planting a bomb on the side of the road and hoping someone drives by that they can actually kill.

The difference is that in Iraq the people they are trying to kill with terrorist acts actually can fight back. We are seeing now a shift in Iraq back to the old tactics of attacking the non-military population since obviously attacking military personnel is too costly for them.

The US military is so effective in Iraq that they loose more personnel in automobile accidents on a weekend back home then in actual combat. It is really funny to me that alot of Americans actually think they are "loosing" the war. They seem to be their own worst enemy.

Answer 10

We need to focus on alternative energy sources so that crude oil will be greatly devalued. That way, the middle-east region will become powerless once again and all those people can go back to crawling around in the sand chopping each other's heads off and no one will give a sh*t.