If you were the chief general in the military, how would we get out without all the consequences of leaving?

Question

I am looking for an answer that trys to avoid civil war and not hating the United States even more for being there in the first place. How can we change there even with Bush gone?

Answer 1

We should continue the fight against terrorists as long as they kill soldiers, Iraqi military, Iraqi police and innocent civilians. Pay attention to the reason for the war in the first place. Don't be led around by the nose, by the left wing liberal loonies in the US.

Answer 2

What exactly are the consequences of our leaving? There is no clear answer to such a question. We DID leave before and things seemed to be okay. Of course, back then, we left Iraq with a leader and a government. They DO have a government now and leaders, and even military a police. It seems to me that the best way to get out is to GET OUT.
Civil war has already broken out, so that is pretty much inevitable, or actually, it is the current status quo. Our being there deos not seem to be helping to curb the violenec much. Since the objective is to creat a free and democratic Iraq, we should allow the Iraqi people to vote on whether they want us ther or not. It would be interesting to find out how Iraqis really feel about U.S. forces occupying their country

Answer 3

We're stuck at this point, whether you agreed with the war or not. The only way we can avoid Civil War is to either create two countries, which would just lead to a war between the two new countries, or else try to promote a sense of national pride. I don't know how we would do that, but an idea might be to have an Iraqi team in the Olympics, with people drawn from both sides.

Answer 4

The consequences have already accrued. So they aren't the consequences of leaving. The war was a big mistake, caused by our system of political trust in adventurous presidents. Our present system causes us to support any adventure any president feels like getting involved in. The only long term solution is to change the system, to prohibit such adventures.

Timothy McVeigh's adventure, in bombing the OKC federal building in 1995, was exactly the same kind of adventure. He was fighting for what he believed in. He honestly believed he was doing the world a favor by doing that adventure. Bush honestly believes the same thing about his own adventure in Iraq. There is no difference between them, except that Bush has the US government on his side.

Bush believes that he got involved in this adventure because of Saddam. He believes that sincerely. McVeigh believed he got involved in his adventure because the US government was out of control, and someone needed to fight against it. Bush now believes he continues the adventure for urgent reasons, even though Saddam is no longer one of them. Timothy McVeigh did not expect to kill children, and was shocked that it happened. He asked the courts to stop his appeals, so he could get his punishment over with. He finally became enlightened, and understood how big a mistake his adventure was. Bush is likely to never become enlightened about his, because he has enough power to be able to deceive himself forever.

Answer 5

It's not the generals assignment to deal with the consequences! Any general worth his pay check can use the correct tactics to leave properly, with minimal effect on his people! The consequences will have to be dealt with by the State dept., who do you think that is going to be led by after Jan 20th, 2009?

Answer 6

That is like standing in a swamp and asking how do I get out of here without smelling like a swamp? It can't be done. You simply declare victory and leave like we did in Viet Nam.

Answer 7

We're way past trying to find a "third" solution.

Answer 8

Nothing can do. We got very bad reputation right now. we cant erase that long time.

Answer 9

you contradicted yourself there. you cant leave without the3 consequences of leaving

Answer 10

I thought you Democrats had ALL the answers...