Once we have a new president will he/she withdraw troops from Iraq?

Question

Please don't talk stupid. Give me an intelligent answer.

Answer 1

Probably not immediately.

Politicians like to talk a lot of crap but when it comes right down to it we can't just withdraw the troops in one big swoop. It would be disastrous -- the Iraqi government is weak and the Iraqi military is having a hard enough time fighting Al Qaida that if we left immediately we're looking at a free-reign Al Qaida playground.

The problem is that this administration put us into this mess and now we've got to figure out the correct way to get out. If we pulled out now (as much as I'd like to), we'll leave ourselves in a much worse position than when we started (Saddam was an evil man... but he never allowed terrorists to gain footing in his country. Dictators don't like competition.). We have to strengthen the Iraqi government, strengthen their military and pull out slowly. Even then we're not assured that Al Qaida won't win, but at least the Iraqis will have a better shot than other scenarios.

Democrats have a big problem in this upcoming election because they understand the reality, but they also understand that many of their likely supporters want a fast withdrawal. They need to walk a fine line to keep their supporters happy yet not cause more chaos in the Middle East (that is, if a democrat wins the White House).

Anyway... the best answer to your question is yes... eventually. You'll probably be looking at gradual troop withdrawal for a number of years (2012 probably sounds about right, though I wouldn't be surprised to see it go longer) with the distinct possibility that we may leave a base open in Iraq (that would be bad. Bad. Bad. Bad.).

Jen

PS: In case you're wondering, I'm a Libertarian... not a Republican or Democrat.

Edited to say: You know, I agree a lot with a poster above... especially since there are many parallels to be drawn between Vietnam and Iraq... but there is ONE major difference. The Vietnamese never had any personal animosity for Americans -- they never strapped explosives to themselves, got on a plane and blew themselves up in the middle of California. Al Qaida is waging a religious war on anyone not fitting their definition of Muslim (ie: everyone but fundamentalists). They want to see nothing more than every single person on Earth either dead or a convert subject to their rule. Vietnam just wanted their country, Al Qaida wants us to die.

If we do pull out of Iraq quickly we risk handing the Iraqi government to Bin Laden. Do we really want an entire country's resources, technology and top scientists available to a man who has made no secret to the fact he wants all Americans dead? Once Northern Vietnam won the war, you didn't see the Viet Cong still trying to kill Americans in the US... If Al Qaida is allowed to win the way, it will give them the resources and base that will make a huge attack possible. We simply can't allow that to happen.

Like I said, Bush and his cronies (and Congress, by passing an authorization of military force) got us into this mess. We CANNOT let emotion override the dangers involved with a cut and run strategy.

Edited a second time to say: You know, I'd love nothing more than the impeachment of the president... BUT... let's look at this rationally.

If we impeach him, who will become president? Dick Cheney. Now if that isn't a name to strike fear in any intelligent person's heart, then you aren't paying attention. Bush might be an idiot, but Dick is pure evil. He believes in the power of the executive branch (no checks and balances, thank) above all others and is the one who is behind everything.

Secondly, what could we impeach him on? We have to have cold hard, verifiable facts. Kind of like Al Capone going to prison on tax evasion charges -- the police couldn't get proof of his mob deeds, so they targeted something that left a paper trail. We can't impeach Bush because he's an idiot, a moron or criminally incompetent. There is no proof that HE altered anything. There is no proof he did anything wrong and you can't convict someone with no evidence.

Also, let's not forget that the British and the UN caused significant problems (promising issues and ratifying agreements that were never honored) at the beginning of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Answer 2

Pretty good answer is yes. But if it is a president like Rudi then most likely not in the near future. Americans have become so frustrated with this war that they want to see an end to it and most candidates are banking on their anti-war campaigns to win support and votes. Any sound and sane person knows this war is a drag on our economy, it serves no interest to our security, it creates more violence and terror, it destroys American soldiers lifes, and it serves no further purpose to keep our troops there any longer. Pull out and let the Iraqis decide from themselves how to run their government. India and Pakistan were under one border once but due to differences and hatred towards each other, numerous conflicts, thousands of deads, and a years later they are seperate countries that trade with one another. If this fate will be similiar to Iraq then let it be. The excuse always used by our leaders don't hold up anymore. We lost and ran away from Vietnam. What are we doing now with them?...we are friends and trading with them.

Answer 3

Well since I will be writing and not speaking, I can only expression my opinion, NO! Why? because Americans have dug themselves a hole that they cannot get out of. And it is really their fault.. Instead of mass protesting for the impeachment of your president, your idiotic and fascist president, you all have chosen to to sit back and let this madman do what ever he wants, and now the terrorists, have their hearts set on destroying America, They have had enough of America's one sided foreign policies, Propping up cruel dictators in the Middle east and tacitly supporting nearly every thng the Israelis do to the Palestinians, and no! I am not advocating that that Hesbolla is not a terrorist organization, but no more so than the U.S Military or IDF present and past,
America will have to fight the very same people who they want to steal oil from, for a long time.

I think GWB and his good ole boys have caused America real harm and their is no easy answer for Americans no matter who is in office. But you could start by organizing your friends to keep better tabs on the next demagouge that your fellow Special interests groups put in office.

Answer 4

The best answer has already been provided by Candidates Clinton and Obama. After closed door discussions with the current administrations experts they have identified adjustments in their original beliefs. There has to be more information about where we are, what we are doing, and what our goal is than what can be publicly announced. Therefore, my opinion is no.

Answer 5

Hillary said US troops will be in Iraq till 2012.

Answer 6

Well I dont think its related to a certain president ..may be the general line depende by the party he/she from will determine the course of the war ...personally I think we should go in the war or all our casualties will go waste.

Answer 7

No.

All the withdrawal talk is nothing more than BS to fool the gullible.

Answer 8

I know that Obama wants to redeploy troops and use more non-military strategies to safeguard Americans.

Answer 9

Somehow Hillary Clinton will both end combat operations and continue combat operations at the same time.

That is pretty amazing. LOL

Answer 10

Highly unlikely, there could be possible withdraws around christmas, but they will most likely be heading back after.

Hope this is helpfull.
Regards,
M. Penry.