Should we allow our troops to complete the victory in Iraq, & then bring them home afterwards ASAP?

Answer 1

Absolutely! We have to be victorious. If we are not, Iraq will be taken over by Iran. America will look weak to the rest of the world. We need to start what we finished. Don't give me crap about losing American soldiers. I was an American soldier for MANY years. They know what they sign up for, and do so with pride. During the entire war in Iraq, we have not lost as many soldiers as some single skirmishes in WWII. If America doesn't stop being so soft, we will stop being America. MOST of the anti-war movement is from people who never served our country.

Answer 2

What victory?

I only ask because the War was won years ago by the US....this is an Occupation....and Occupations are never "won".

Anyway how about (heard this from a guy here on Y/A) for every X days without attacks we withdraw Y troops and keep doing so until we are all home. It allows us to send more if attacks increase....if peace then Iraq gets a grip on control and policing their own country..Iraq people see us not as invading and conquering but a force that will be leaving if they get their country in shape.

All of this could be done within 6 months..ok maybe a year.


Glen T> You could very well be right but most Vets I talk to are pissed that American soldiers are being used as a police force for another country in a way that has no benefit for America

Answer 3

Sure if you want to committ 175,000 US troops to Iraq for the next 10 years at a cost of around $200 billion dollars per year because if it's a 'complete' victory you want that is what it would take. We do not have the troops, the equipment, nor the money.

Answer 4

Yes, as long as Iraq can be self reliant, and our soldiers can stop warring with insurgents.
In reality though, realitycheck, USA never leaves a country when our "foot is in the door".
Leaving Iraq entirely would be a mistake, since thousands of years the rest of the world has tried to get into the middle east. To give up a means to change a terrorist society into a civilized one, would just be flat wrong!

Answer 5

As a proud military spouse, I shall say this though I don't want to ever see my husband go back to Iraq, its not as simple as bring everyone home now! We have to finish what we started because if we don't we'll only have to go back in a few years later. Everyone consintrates on the negatives no one ever mentions the positive things that have gone on. THere are people there that were under harsh rule that are now free from a tirant. We are helping them build back up their own Army and their land, installing technology that will be benificial to their future welfair. Also we shouldn't forget the ones we help may be able to offer us help one day when we might need it.

Answer 6

No. One country at a time is a good way to proceed. Next will come Iran. They are sending terrorists even now to assassinate and murder US soldiers and Iraq Citizens. We must remove the leaders of any country that harbors and promotes terrorism. but it's foolish to take a bigger bite than we can chew. Bush is doing it exactly right. His only fault lies in listening to the rantings of people who hate him and want him to fail at the expense of the war and the troops fighting it. I support the troops and I support their mission.

Answer 7

That would be great except for certain basic facts which stand in opposition to that position.

1) No one has actually defined what will constitute a win in Iraq.
2) No one wants to set a reasonable estimation for withdrawal of troops.

Iraq has become a never-ending quagmire with the United States engaging in the same nation building behavior which we have always claimed we don't. I was not against the war, which we won, but I am against the unending attempt to force a peace, which we will not win. The only path to freedom and security for Iraq is for the Iraqi people to take the lead in providing those things for themselves. We can assist them in these efforts, but we cannot force them to adopt them.

Answer 8

First, they have been fighting amongst each other in that country for a thousand years..you really think they are just all of a sudden going to stop because we invade them? They have deep religious issues that we can not resolve regardless of how long we stay.
Also, we are building a $600 million dollar Embassy (Bush asked for $1 billion) in the heart of Baghdad. it will be the largest most opulent embassy in the world, meanwhile the Iraqis around them live in squalor with no water or electricity. do you think that might cause some resentment? and Do you know how many troops it will take to guard this :Palace" described as being even bigger than Saddam's? regardless of who gets in office we will be there for a very, very, very long time. The embassy is also being built by Halliburten with slave labor (real slaves)provided by Kuwait.

Answer 9

I don't think we should ever bring them all home.

I see those bases over there and the ability to react swiftly to Iran as being imperative to our national safety here at home.

I believe it was part of the plan to begin with. I believe it was part of Bush's master stroke of genius in entering Iraq. Definitely a big bonus on the side.

Answer 10

by the standards which the war was started on that is saddam had wmds and needed to be ousted i'd say we already won.he didn't have wmds and we found him,and he's been hung.so why r we still over there?why don't we draw done our troops and let the iraq sercurity force handle their own while we leave a few military ads to advise the people.i mean in the 80s when the soviet union was in afghanistan we sent a few cia operative to act as advisors for the afghans.we gave the weapons they needed to take on the soviets and guess was they ousted the ussr without america invading afghanistan to fight russia ourselves.