How many people think invading Iraq a mistake, but, we did, and now, to maintain order, we need to stay?

Question

Iraq is the worst foreign policy decision, maybe, in U.S. history. I blame both parties, not just the Bush administration, as, there was ample evidence back then by the DIA and CIA that Iraq posed no serious threat. Only 6 Senators even bothered to read the reports from the CIA available to them before casting probably the most important vote of their careers.

We might have been more patient with the U.N. sanctions and inspections of facilities in Iraq.

But, fact is, we invaded a troubled region.

Now, we are there, and 4 years later, it is a mess, but really, no matter, we are there. Should we leave, chaos will ensue, and it is hard to imagine Al Qaeda and enemy factions, THAT CONSIDER US AN ENEMY and given the chance, will attack us with anything they can bring.

All told, shouldn't we stick this out, even knowing it was a snafu and fubar beyond comprehension?

Answer 1

I agree with your statement. But here's what I think is a reasonable solution.

Since the Iraqi people don't stand a snowball's chance in Jamaica of ever being a unified people, we should dissolve the "democratically elected" government and take back possession of the land.
The land should be divided into three districts, and those three districts used as international bargaining chips. The district that has religious ties to Iran can be offered to Iran to annex. Iran would have to cease all the nasty BS they have been doing and allow the USA permenant bases in that district.
The Kurdish district can be offered U.S. territorial status or independence, their choice.
The third district with religious ties to Saudi Arabia can be offered to Suadi Arabia with the same commitment of bases for the USA. And, Saudi Arabia would have to hunt down, capture, and deliver their citizen, Bin Laden, to the USA for crimes against the USA.
Both Iran and Saudi Arabia would have to except responsibilty for the rounding up of all Al Qaeda members and the destruction of that organization.

Answer 2

Chaos will ensue? Chaos is here and trying to cobble together a governement out of this group is asking for trouble. The biggest mistake that Churchill said he ever made was attempting to hammer out countries of what was left of the Ottoman empire. The tribal ties have always superceded the artifician national ties they share. There isn't a good answer to this.

Staying there causes unrest among Iraqis who see us as invaders and every dead soldier makes us at home that much more upset because they are being lost in a worthless cause. Leaving will allow some despot to take control and then you're looking at either a Super Iran if the despot is Shia or the second coming of Saddam.

Answer 3

As difficult as it is, I agree with you. Both parties share the blame for going in . . . we should vote them all out but we buy their fingerpointing arguments at least to the extent that we point our outrage at Bush over all others. Iraq was contained by UN Sanctions and constant US bombings prior to the invasion. We could have continued that policy of containment indefinitely. As for Saddam being a tyrant, who cares what he did to his own people. If we are going to be the morality police to rid the world of dictators we have a lot of countries, including many allies, that we would have to invade.

Now that we are there what do we do? My first thought is that the military needs a victory. Another cut and run Vietnam type fiasco would demoralize the military for the next 20 years. Additionally, if we can get a stabilized government in Iraq, that would be best for everyone involved. Unfortunately, it appears to me that any elected government in Iraq is ultimately going to be very unfriendly to the US in the long run anyway. They only want us there as long as they need us, after that we are the enemy again.

There are no simple anwswers. We don't even know how we are going to pay for what the war has cost already. How much are the American people supposed to sacrifice for the Iraqis? Nonetheless, we are there and we cannot just leave right now. We should train the Iraqi army and police to take over security as soon as possible. Securing the borders from outside influence is, obviously, a number one priority which we should be helping them with. If we can use this opportunity to capture or (preferably) kill Al-Quaeda or other anti-US militants, we should do so. We should be trying to get out though and I think the frustration many people vent is that this president doesn't seem to want to put forth any viable plan to promote stabilization and troop withdrawal. As he said in his authorized autobiography, the goal is simply to leave the troops there long enough so that the next president is stuck leaving them there indefinitely.

Answer 4

20-20 hindsight is useless. Nobody knows what is going to happen when something like in invasion becomes necessary, and it was necessary. UN sanctions have NEVER worked, and in this case there was twelve years and thousands of violations of UN sanctions, so I am wondering how much patience is needed? Maybe we wait untill a brown-bag nuke goes off in NYC?
In addition, once we got in there, we discovered that the twelve years of trade sanctions were routinely violated by our alleged "allies" in the UN who put monetary gain above honor, the security of their own citizens,, etc.
Wars are always messy, and the main thing that is a SNAFU about this one is not the war itself, but the attempt to install a democracy on people who are not ready for one yet. I think we should have simply settled for a new dictatorship more friendly to the west and let it go at that.
All that being said, I am hoping the Iraqi people will surprise everybody and get a democracy started in spite of all the difficulties going on right now. It is hard to tell how things are REALLY going in Iraq with all the distortions the Mainstream Media throw at us. I have heard from eyewitnesses that things are not as bad as the fictional news outlets make it out to be.
As far as people being our enemies, we dont have to be everybody's friend, so who cares about being a friend to despots and lunatic religious movements who think that the Almighty sanctions violence against anyone who disagrees with what some wacko Imam thinks? The enemies of freedom will ALWAYS be the enemies of the US. SImple as that.

Answer 5

We shouldn't have invaded Iraq and we shouldn't stay. By most accounts of the Iraqi people, they don't want us there and we have not made things better -- we've worsened a situation that was already bad to begin with. We need to leave and we need to understand that you cannot win a religious war. It may go underground but it never stops. Therefore, just as this war has been ongoing since before I was born and before my parents were born and probably long before that, it will go on regardless of whether we stay or go in Iraq. The methods may change and become more subtle but the deaths will continue and the war will continue and beliefs will not change. So why continue to throw good money after bad and why give up the lives of our citizens when those who are most immediately affected by the actions and acts of the war are sitting back and waiting instead of helping themselves? I say we should get out, just as the Russians got out. Remember the Iran Contra? Remember when we trained Saddam Hussein's soldiers? Remember how we turned against our friends when our opinions didn't agree with theirs? Well, it can happen to anyone and it is happening right here in the USA. The government has turned against the law-abiding citizens of the United States by failing to enforce the laws of the land against the illegal immigrants. Our government supported and embraced 9/11/01 when it took away the travel privileges of citizens and the rights of citizens while refusing to secure our borders and enforce the immigration laws. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." We can't help Iraq when the divide at home is growing.

While our government is busy making war with the rest of the world, 37.5 million immigrants are residing in our country today and we already know that more than half of that number are illegal immigrants. That is an invasion on the home front. Yes, Iraq is a SNAFU and FUBAR beyond comprehension but what's going on in the USA is far worse and far more threatening. Right after 9/11/01 we stopped to help what looked to be people of Mexican descent who were broken down along the highway. We found that they were not Mexican but were mid-easterners who did not speak English and who were on their way to New York. How many of these trucks coming from Mexico will be carrying arms and how many will be driven by terrorists (can't we acknowledge the possibility that these trucks could be driven by terrorists) and how many more people will they smuggle into the country? How many more drugs will be smuggled in through what appears to be legal channels? We already know that less than 1 in 100 trucks is inspected at the border and we are aware that on days when traffic is backed up, only the driver can be questioned and that time is not taken to inspect the loads being carried. Since when should security play second fiddle to commerce while U.S. Citizens have their phones tapped, their travel monitored, their money monitored, etc.?

What is more important to the safety and security of the USA, Iraq or the homeland? I say bring our troops home. Arm them to the hilt, place them on the border, inspect every ounce of cargo and secure the homeland first and foremost. Deport the illegal immigrants. Punish those who hire, harbor and help them and seize their assets -- Nationalize them because of their subversive actions. (Un-American activities)

Answer 6

Mouthycon has a element approximately eventuality vs. giving sanctions extra time. And Gabriela is right, too pondering we are nevertheless an prolonged way from improving from the "banana wars." We had time to flow in with the army we necessary, not the army we had, to paraphrase Rumsfeld. Our management have been additionally very slow to appreciate what form of war we had, and nevertheless have not articulated it to the yank human beings, in step with possibility by way of fact no person above Petraeus interior the chain of command yet is conscious. The Pentagon has invested few supplies in counterinsurgency, a minimum of at operational or strategic ranges. I agree there seems not extra perfect selection. And issues do not look going that badly so a great way as 4th-technology conflict is going, different than that the majority weren't arranged and, not being readied for the final ten or two decades of paintings, grew to grow to be in develop war-weary (that's clearly the first objective of people who salary this form of war).

Answer 7

Chaos will ensue regardless if we get out today or ten years from now. Look at Vietnam, how many years of war with loss of life, of limb and the money wasted with the exact same results happened if we had not even gone at all! This will be the exact same result! These people have been killing each other for 3000 years! I say get out today, they are not worth even one more of our kids lives. We are not able to fix anything over there.

Answer 8

I agree with you 100%. Either way, if we stay or leave, it will still cost too many lives of our soldiers. The Iraqis need to step up & take control & charge of their country. This administration's foreign policy is the worst & I do blame Bush as well as both parties. Just want our soldiers home & safe. Peace to all

Answer 9

First of all I don't believe you have all of your facts together because there WAS a credible threat against the US to include the attack on New York!

Secondly, it takes time to move a military force which only a blind government wouldn't see coming with ample time to remove weapons of mass destruction.

Third, when the UN sanctions were ignored countless times by the Iraqi government...do we sit back and become a paper tiger as participants in the United Nations or comply with the direction voted upon by the UN?!

Fourth, do we as the most powerful nation, when implored upon, stand up for the rights of those who were being tortured and killed by one thug and his family who maintained a dominant role over a country that was afraid to speak out?!

The problem that exists is you have such a diverse country with several entities wanting to maintain control versus losing their power with a democratic society. Nobody wants to elect somebody else that removes these guys from power.

You also have a society that has fought among themselves for centuries. Good things don't happen overnight.

Yet those who wish to blame government without having any clue as to what is really going on other than what their uneducated sources of information provide...rally against government.

Sadly, our politicians listen to the voters who lack the foresight into our future if we let Iraq continue to breed terrorists who would continue their efforts like those on 9/11.

We talk about 3500 lives lost in battle...which has been going on for over five years now. Yet, we forget about the 3000 innocent men, women, and children killed in less than an hour on 9/11.

What bothers me is how those who fought and died for democracy would have died in vain should we just leave Iraq and Osama Bin Ladin free to continue their torturous ways.

Just my humble opinion.

Answer 10

The US cannot and should not be the sole arbitrator and facilitator of peace in Iraq. This is a problem that needs to be resolved first and foremost by the Iraqis - if an outside force is needed, it MUST be done as an international effort, utilizing the regional resources of manpower, knowledge and understanding