Why Should We Leave Iraq?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism, War
Personally, I’ve been struggling with this one for quite some time now, but I can never come up with a good enough answer to justify pulling out of Iraq. Forget cut and run, and forget the partisan, spin-machine nonsense. Let’s talk nuts and bolts. Why should we leave?
Also, if you don’t think we should leave, why not?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 15th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 15th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Tough question. We get out because the status quo is crippling our foreign policy right now. We’re spending an enormous amount of money to keep the troops in Iraq which will eventually be felt in our economy. Lastly the soldiers there have the impossible task of refereeing a civil war. Pull them out before more get killed pointlessly. All the pain and suffering inflicted, all the lives lost and the money spent are sunk costs and we need get over them. That means getting out.
The problem is I don’t fully buy my own argument. The status quo is killing us but I wonder if the results of our departure would be worse (stronger Iran) and result in bigger problems down the road. What I’d like to see is the maximum possible effort expended first. Can we try to do some serious mending of fences with the other Arab nations and the rest of the world? They don’t want a stronger Iran any more than we do. I’d also like to know if we can’t get more boots on the group. Are we really tapped out at ~125K soldiers? Can we get that number to 300K? If the answer to those questions is no, then I’m back to sunk cost and getting the hell out.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I disagreed with the Iraq decision (I believed our concentrated effort should have been in Afghanistan), but believe much like the distinguished Mr. Powell state, “You break it, you own it.” I personally want our soldiers home so that we can regroup, develop an hopefully coherent strategy, and move on to something effective.
The ultimate question –regardless of your belief in whether or not the war was based on a just cause — is this: Are we at a point where anything that resembles a “victory” can be achieved? And, if so, what kind of commitment will it take, in terms of economic investment, manpower, and time.
As much as I do agree with some of those on the other side of the isle that leaving could open up the door for more violence, I also believe that we are only serving as a bandaid in Iraq, and as soon as we leave, regardless of when that might be, the country will undergo a rebellion of some sort.
Are we fighting a futile war? Are we wasting precious resources that could be utilized elsewhere? And is our country suffering because of the current status of the Iraq war. To my dismay, it is difficult to answer “No” to any of those questions.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
I can’t disagree with anything in the first two posts except I lean more towards pulling out. The reason is because I have yet to hear a coherent plan from anyone how we will achieve our objectives and prevent a civil war/rise of Iranian power/greater tensions with the regional neighbors if there was an amicable splitting of the country. What can 300K soldiers do that 125K can’t since it is now almost completely a domestic political issue? How can we work to get the different groups to not slaughter each other the second we do eventually leave? How will we prevent Iraq from becoming a pawn of Iran especially since the two most politcally powerful groups were cultivated by that country? (I think one objective that we can do is combating foreign terrorists such as Al Qaeda and we have been doing that brilliantly from what i’ve read…but right now that’s not the main issue.) It’s all too easy to point out the negatives that will probably happen if we do pull out in arguing for status quo, but we have no stated measurable goal for success. If someone could answer any of these questions then I think most Americans would support staying.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Huh, I haven’t been reading right wing prowar blogs for a few weeks and have missed a very curious (but hopeful) change in setiment. Whereas a few months ago, any suggestion that we weren’t winning in Iraq was seen as defeatist and comforting the enemy, now military-minded blogs are outright begging for change. A pretty good example where they are having the same problem as the posts here. Of course I have yet to read any mea culpa aimed towards the people that were saying these exact same things over a year ago, but that isn’t nearly as important as getting war supporters to start confronting the Administration about their plan as well.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
“Why Should We Leave Iraq?�
Because throughout the history of the world, occupation forces always lose. You either destroy the entire civilization and kill all of its people to conquer the land, or you eventually leave and usually at a high cost.
While certain neo-cons want the USA to unleash a total hell-fire genocide, not just on Iraq, but on the entire Arab/Muslim population and all their territories in the Mid-East, it just isn’t going to happen. The Bush Administration doesn’t have that kind of Pol Pot bloodthurst. That leaves withdrawl.
We can do it soon or we can draw it out in some sort of Nixonesque “peace with honor” bullshit way that only ensures more losses of blood and treasure.
What were the objectives in attacking Iraq??
Eliminanate WMDs — Done.
Regime Change — Done.
Install Democracy — Done.
Mission Accomplished!! Now can we focus on getting Osama bin Laden??
August 15th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
The answer to that is simple. Is Iraq hurting us more than it’s helping us right now?
I think the answer is yes. The direct cost to us, the recruiting bonanza to our enemies, the radicalization of an entire new generation of young Mideasterners…. our occupation is actively damaging our national interest.
Can we change that by changing our strategy? In other words, is the fight yet winnable?
I think the answer is “maybe.” We can at least try something else and see if we make any headway.
Hence my position of “either get serious or get out.”
Add into that mix whatever value you place on our moral debt to Iraq for invading in the first place. I think we have such a debt, but I do not think that debt is open-ended.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Tough call–I’m very concerned because it’s pretty clear the reality is a LOT worse than the Administration is willing to admit. And that’s coming from the Iraqi Parlaiment.
I’m pretty sick of this “stay the course” mentality, by those who blatantly admit that if our mission fails they’ll blame those who aren’t supportive. As if to say, no matter how f’d up the situation is, if we keep pounding we’ll win–and if not, we’ll blame the liberals.
Thanks for asking for some honest opinion.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
The greatest threat to peace anywhere is the Middle East. The greatest diplomatic challenges are in the Middle East. The threat of military force can aid diplomacy. Military force is used when diplomacy fails.
I believe having our troops closer to where they may be needed is a darn good idea. If we leave, and we have to return, there is not going to be a friendly staging ground. Our enemies will likely chose when the next war starts. Having an available force in the region is preferable to having another D-Day.
August 15th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Bernie, it seems that you’re saying the reason we should stay in Iraq is simply so we can control a country for our own militay needs, which I hope even the most cynical neocon would see as going against what this country stands for. From a practical standpoint, our forces in Iraq aren’t “available.” They’re overwhelmed trying to deal with an impossible situation. If the situation in Iran were to blow up right now, our forces in Iraq would be of no help.
I favor withdrawal now, but that certainly isn’t unequivocal. I really resent the Bush administration for putting us between a rock and a hard place, and his sympathisers for claiming that the onus is now on the Democrats to come up with a solution. The war supporters say “Stay the Course” as if that’s a solution, when the course itself is a disater, and most of the American people know it. I truly think that the equivocation seen in a lot of Democrats comes not from a lack of spine, but because they can recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both courses of action.
Although our departure from Iraq is likely to open a can or several of worms, I’m not sure that things will play out the way the right is claiming. The notion that Iran will suddenly rule Iraq if we leave is a hard one for me to figure out. I really don’t think al Qaeda in Iraq is powerful enough to take over the country, although they can certainly wreak havoc. And I know that the Shi’ites receive support from Iran. But it seems to me that a lot of the resistance we are meeting in Iraq stems from the fact that we are an occupying force. It’s somewhat arrogant to presume that we are the only country that would rise up if occupied by a foreign army. And the memory of the incredibly bloody war with Iran must still be in a lot of people’s minds. We’re talking about a million casualties on both sides. It’s hard to believe that the Iraqi populace is in any mindset to embrace Iranian control.
Add to that the fact that the rest of the Middle East would be dedicated to limiting Iran’s influence, and the scenario presented by the right seems simplistic and unlikely.
The caveat in all of this is that I am far from an expert, and these are just gut feelings. I’d be interested to know what someone more knowledgeable than me about the situation thinks of all this. Thanks for initiating a reasonable discussion.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:13 am
[...] I asked the $87+ billion question yesterday and now M. Takhallus of Sideways Mencken has a few ideas of what we might be able to do in Iraq. However, as expected, none of them are pretty, and it appears as if only one of them is truly feasible. I don’t think I have to tell you which option that is. [...]
August 16th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Because it’s the most likely course to weaken Iran. We leave Iraq –> the Shia take over –> Iraqi Shia claim leadership of Shia Islam (based on the fact that most of the Shia holy sites are in Iraq, not Iran) –> Iranian mullahs move their attention from Israel to a bigger direct threat closer to home.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
I’ll say it here for the first time. If there is a reason to leave Iraq, this is it: So long as the administration refuses to recognize the reality on the ground, and refuses to address the problems we are encountering, the mistakes made and change its strategy to address them and rectify them, then our staying in country is only making things worst. I’ve supported the administration so far, but given the reality on the ground, and the fact that they have failed to provide adequate support and troops for the task at hand, then there is no alternative but to begin to think about a strategic withdrawal, where we decide the terms and conditions of our withdrawal rather than let events decide them for us. Unless we are willing to send more troops (about 70-100,000) to Iraq and bring in more international troops to aid in pacifying and rebuilding the country, there is little point in watching our guys dying everyday in country. Ultimately, regardless of anything that happens, through his actions or lack thereof, the president seems to have made a choice, and unfortunately for all of us, its the wrong one.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
I understand everyone’s point of view. There are good arguements for both staying and leaving. But my greatest fear would be that by leaving before Iraq is truely stable, we are negatively influencing the people of Iraq. Our military had gotten rid of a terrible leader who would ruthlessly murder when ever he felt it was right. If we leave now Iraq is going to fall. There will be a civil war and a big blood bath will follow. Hostility toward the US will grow even stronger in the Middle East because we failed to do what we sought out to do –> make a stable democratic government. When we leave democracy will fail in Iraq. There culture wasn’t influenced from the same history that the Western world was. We had an era when democracy was invented, with the French philosphes. The Middle East had no such movement so they aren’t going to truely be able to grasp the whole idea of democracy. The sad truth is, is that the US needs to be in Iraq for about three generations. This way the whole population had become used to the idea of democracy and have lived it. The child is most influenced by his parents and grandparents. If both of those generations live through successful democracy then we can finally leave. The thrid generation will have heard the stories of what it was and know that they would never want to go back to such a violent time, so they keep up the government that protects them. If we were to leave too soon this “generation effect” would never happen.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Leavi ng Iraq would be a victory for those mentalities who attacked us on 9/11/01, BEFORE we were in Iraq. Granted, Iraq has not be proven to be affiliated with those who attacked us. Granted there were no WMD’s as Buash told us, and he must be accontable for such a blunder.
Al Quaida was behind 9/11. Al Quaida appears to be in Iraq. They appear to be behind the violence in Iraq. They are chomping at the bit to hit us again in America. To just walk away is an Al Quaida victory, both physically & morally. Leaving Iraq will make them bolder, and give them the belief they are indestructable and unstoppable. We must not let that happen. If we do, we will be forever at their mercy.
We must mend all fences with our allies, and convince them that extremeism is a global threat, not just an American or British threat. Extremeism must be confronted by all peoples of the world, and completely destroyed.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
The original question, ‘Why should we leave Iraq’ is easily answered with valid reasons such as continued high loss of life, high monetary cost, and loss of respect (right word?, you know what I mean) from other countries.
The bigger question is, ‘now what do we do’? We are there, our leaders took us in. That was not the right decision, but it does not necessarily mean the best move is to walk away. We must attempt to implement the best option with respect to the long term implications. Unfortunately this is not always what feels right or makes the most fiscal sense, though I hope this time it is. However sometimes I wonder if leaving an area basically ungoverned only supplies terrorist orgs a bigger pool of desperate people to recruit from and a bigger space to train in/occupy.
On the other hand the war costs an estimated 10 billion per month as reported in a recent episode of News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Couldn’t we spend that money here improving cities, schools, healthcare? Essentially rebuilding the U.S. instead of rebuilding Iraq.
Yet if after careful analysis it is determined that staying is really the best idea, maybe we can allow illegal immigrants to serve X number of years in the military as an option to gain citizenship.