Someone convince me that we should pull out of Iraq using Logic. Rule: Stick to the issue itself.?

Question

The one catch to doing this is that you can't use the word Bush or anything related to him or his administration at all. This is to make sure you stick to the issue. Question: Should we pull out of Iraq. If someone can logically answer "yes." with proof and support, they will earn my gratitude, respect, and points.

Answer 1

Sure. But I will have to use CiC to refer to the office of the Commander in Chief, since that position makes certain decisions, which become relevant to the answer.

There are three main types of conflicts.

First, we have Wars, where there is a single specific enemy who is in a position to surrender on behalf of the entire enemy forces. When we first invaded Iraq, it could be called a war. Not in the legal sense, since Congress never declared war, but in the common usage. So, we were at war against Saddam and his forces. We won that won. Saddam lost and was deposed. Mission Accomplished.

Second, we have crusades. These are open-ended quests to accomplish some vast goal. Destroy terrorism, for example. The only way to "win" that crusade is to eliminate everyone who would ever be a threat to anyone else. Eliminate all possible terrorists. But since terrorists are all over the world, keeping the vast majority of our deployed forces in Iraq won't help in that crusade. So, the Iraq conflict has very little to do with the crusaed to eliminate terrorism from the world.

Finally, we have occupations, where there is not a single enemy, but the scope is much more limited than a global crusade. Iraq currently is an occupation. And the decision to stay or go is mostly unilateral on the part of the CiC, because there no single enemy who can surrender to end the conflict.

So, we are occupying Iraq. To accomplish what? Without a goal, it is an unending process as long as the CiC decides to remain. Or as long as Congress decides to keep funding and authorizing the occupation. Because both the CiC and Congress have different overlapping constitutional authority in this area. So, either one can decide to pull the plug.

How do we know when to pull the plug? Well, that depends on our goal. If our goal is to create a new govt in Iraq, that's done. If our goal is to help them establish a new constituion, that's done. If our goal is to help the hold a free election, that's done? So, what is our goal? And how do we know it's done?

Any occupation is based on some goal. So, to determine if we're done, first we need to define the goal. Because without a specific measurable objective goal, we're back to being an unlimited open-ended crusade. And there's no rational crusade that we can accomplish solely within Iraq.

So, if we don't have a measurable goal, then it becomes an ongoing project, like tending a garden or cleaning a house. Those goals are never finished, they are ongoing. And like any other project, there is a budget and milestones and some cost-benefit analysis.

So, let's look at the costs. Trillions of dollars. Thousands of American lives. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

What's the benefit to US. Nothing. We're doing charity, offering our services to Iraq because they can't take care of themselves. And while that's very noble and generous, it doesn't really fit well into the cost-benefit analysis model.

So, bottom line -- we're spending huge amounts of resources and doing it for charity sake. But according to recent polls (within the past 6 months to a year) the American people overwhelmingly would rather spend that money on our domestic needs, and keep the troops safe and ready for use as needed in the global crusade against terror. We've already shown that Iraq isn't the only front, so keeping the troops in Iraq doesn't help that crusade.

So, we're spending huge amounts of resources, but the American people don't want to do that any more. So Congress, which is chosen by the American people (and recently) is taking steps to do what the American people want -- stop spending money on charity and start spending it at home.

Which has the added benefit of having our troops safe, and refreshed, and ready to respond to other threats. Which are out there. But even our own generals state that in the current situation, with so many troops in Iraq, we're unable to effectively respond to other battlefronts as needed.

So, not only only is stopping the Iraq occupation good for America, continuing the occupation is bad for America. And while ending the occupation may be bad for Iraq, we need to prioritize who is more important -- us or them.

Now let's talk about a time-table. Either we're there forever, or we're not. If we're not, then we have to leave at some point. And we need to give at least 6 months notice, because that's how long it would take re-deploy everyone and transition any ongoing activity to local authorities. So, regardless of when we decide to pull out, everyone will have 6 months notice.

The biggest argument against a time-table is that the "enemy" (actually, all the various misc forces) will simply wait until after then before attacking. But that means 6-18 months of relative calm during that 'waiting' period. Which can only make it easier for the Iraqi govt to stabilize and ready itself. So, the time-table makes it better for the Iraqis, if the skeptics are to be believed, as compared to continuous attacks.

Answer 2

OK, let's try this approach. I did this in another answer a few days back.

Let's say we remain in Iraq and Afghanistan for another three to ten years.

Let's even throw in a couple more of the surges like the one that's underway now in Bagdad.

All right. We're successful in keeping these two nations as flash points for insurgents. They keep throwing their resources into instigating violence and suicide attacks.

When does the violence end?

When can the current elected government stand and do the job we're training them to do?

And what happens once the forces do leave, under a more ideal circumstance?

Sorry that I have to take this long journey, but you did ask for a logical reason.

Here it is.

The best we can do with what resources we have in field today is postpone what will happen when we leave, one year or ten years from now.

Our enemies will bide their time and resources. The children of those we've already killed will be ready to carry on.

The die is cast. All we can do now is wait. I only hope I'm wrong, but I know too much about history to live in denial.

The choice is yours. Stay the course and watch an average of 700 wounded American troops come home each month, as well as who knows how many dead?

Answer 3

By continuing to stay in Iraq, our very presence is inflaming the civil war and strengthening the insurgents.

By staying in Iraq, the U.S. is inflaming the civil war. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told the U.S. Government that they would be prepared to back the Sunnis in Iraq (Saddam's government was made up of Sunnis) if the U.S. leaves Iraq, because they believe our forces there are exacerbating the situation. By backing the Sunnis, Saudi Arabia would help to encourage the moderate Shiites (the dominate Islamic group in Iran) in the Iraqi parliament to come to the table and negotiate a peaceful resolution that the Shi'ite militias would accept, thereby weakening the civil conflict.

Further, by staying in Iraq, the United States is strengthening the hand of the insurgents and making their recruitment of new insurgents easier. The United States represents years of sanctions at our behest, shock and awe, and from the perspective of many in the region, we are supporters of repressive regimes and a cultural threat that must be thwarted. When the United States leaves, and perhaps a coalition of Arabic peace keeping forces coordinated by the United Nations assists the region, the urgency for the insurgency would be quelled.

When the insurgent's hand is weakened and the civil war reduced to a simmer, rebuilding, employment and normal life can return to the region.

Answer 4

well in my opinion the military intervention has failed. the occupation does not enjoy the support of the iraqi people otherwise you would see public disdain of suicide bombing and sectarian strife. the iraqi people see the americans as being the cause of the problem not the solution. the american installed iraqi government is corrupt at best and a complete failure at worst.
very little money is being spent on the reconstruction of iraq. the people need food, electricy, and running water. the insurgency is so bad that most money is being spent on security. billions have been wasted on (some)contractors that have provided little or no services.
a pull out would force the iraqis to govern themselves and take seriously the job of rebuilding their country. the american forces would be better used to contain the violence within iraq and not let it spread throughout the region.
there is no good solution to this problem--only terrible and less terrible solutions. but nothing can be accomplished by further miring american forces into a civil war where both sides think that america is the enemy.

Answer 5

The reasons behind the need for all U.S. troops to be redeployed are centered around the fact that we have accomplished what we set out to do. The entire reason for going to war in the first place was to remove Saddam from power. That happened just under four years ago. Since that time, our troops have been fighting a loosing cause; establishing a new form of government over people who do not seem to want it. We have done everything we can to help the Iraqis move forward, but they do not want our help. When is enough enough. Now is the time to start our withdrawal. If anything, hopefully within the year, the understanding of our imminent withdrawal will spur the Iraqi factions into joining forces to better their nation.

I don't believe any of that B.S., but that is the argument coming from those who oppose the war. They offer no foresight into what happens in Iraq after we leave.

Answer 6

It is not in everyone's best interest to pull out of Iraq. In order to use logic, I'll need to present the argument from the perspective of one who would benefit from such an action: The GOP.

A withdrawal at this time would clearly signal a Democratic victory, and they would make a HUGE public display to take credit, too. With no easy American targets at hand, terrorists' plans would once again turn to American soil. Odds are the attacks at home would resume shortly before the 2008 elections....I doubt there'd be a Democrat left in office after that.

Answer 7

Yes, we should, because Iraq had no terrorism until we stuck our noses in, and the logic that, now that we have done so, we have to stay until we fix it" is flawed, because we can't fix it. Terrorism is the national sport in the Middle East; the only influence that kept it out of Iraq was Saddam. We best just find Bin Laden, pull his guts out through his nose, and leave it at that.

Answer 8

I see a lot of ignorance here.

The US troop deaths are miniscule compared to the Iraqi deaths caused by the insurgents. Near as I can see, it's about 2%, and that trend seems to be continuing.

The reason is obvious. Regardless of the ignorance posted above me, we are NOT the primary targets. The various factions are targetting each other.

This will not cease if we leave before they have a government strong enough to keep order. It will escalate. This is irrefutable. The question is how much it will escalate.

I suggest looking at Darfur and post-America Vietnam to get a clue about that.

You Global Warming types need to consider the impact on Greenhouse gases that burning bodies by the hundreds of thousands will have before you make up your minds.

Answer 9

Are you arguing that we colonize Iraq? Perhaps you envision it as the 51st state.

You can stop rolling your eyes because that's exactly what you said. In your question, as stated, American forces NEVER leave Iraq.

Try posting another question or amend the one above. Do you have a time frame in mind? This year? Next year? Perhaps by the year 2050? Time frame is very important to the question you ask.

Answer 10

I don't want your respect or your points so whatever you do, don't select this answer as the best.

1- No matter how many soldiers we put in country, they will continue to be the target of insurgents.

2- We have no idea who we are fighting and who are our allies.

3- They (any of the groups hell bent on blowing us up) are willing to die on a whim if there is even a chance of killing one of us.

4- What exactly will victory look like and how will we know it has been achieved? Are you willing to pump billions of dollars and thousands more lives into a conflict that could easily continue for another 40 or 50 years.

5- The rifts between Sunni and Shia have been ongoing for centuries, we are pikers who are just getting caught in the crossfire of a conflict that has no resolution.

Now go back to listening to Michael Savage so he can tell you what your opinion should be tomorrow.