Should the U.S. pull out of Iraq immediately?

[cbacon 0]

I'm going to say no, but I could very easily be swayed to the yes side. It all comes down to how much the US is making the situation worse and the level of security Iraq would have if they did leave.

 

I think the insurgents are generally made up of two groups:

 

1. Foreign terrorists who have come to Iraq because this may be the best/easiest chance they ever get to attack American targets.

 

2. Iraqis who want the American occupation to end.

 

That being said, any time a situation as lawless and chaotic as the one in Iraq occurs, there are going to be people/groups who attempt to use violence to further their personal ambitions or political ends. Right now there's no serious way to determine how many of that kind there are or what their behaviour would be after an American withdrawal, except that it's almost certain they would step up their attacks. After all, even if the Americans aren't really stopping the insurgency, they are at least to some degree keeping it in hiding and on the run. It seems pretty unlikely that an Iraqi military or police force could adequately deal with such an insurgency. If that's the case, an American withdrawal put many innocent lives in danger

 

The other thing, and to me this is the real problem, is I'm quite worried about the possibility of genocide in Iraq. The situation closely mirrors those in places like Rwanda and Bosnia, and I've yet to see or hear anything to persuade me that the situation in Iraq is different enough that the same thing is unlikely to happen.

 

However, this may be a moot point since it seems like soldiers are not doing anything to make things better - they're making things worse, and the longer they're there the bigger the insurgency will get. Maybe it would be best to pull them out, bring in the UN and pay massive reparations. Iraqi standard of life has dropped way down since the war started (and ended?) and it's not going to improve any time soon with the US there.

 

Discuss.

[The Czech Republic 0]

We probably should, but we can't, because to "cut and run" at this juncture would mean everything we've worked so hard to fix in Iraq would fall apart in virtually an instant. Hindsight being 20/20, we probably shouldn't have gone over there, but at the time, it seemed like it was justified (and who's to say there aren't weapons still being concealed outside of the country?). That said, we might as well see this to its completion, but do everything to make sure it's a speedy process. But bailing out of Iraq isn't going to help anybody.

[SuperJerk 0]

I agree with Czech.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

I'm surprised that Iraq hasn't been made an official state yet.

[Jingus 0]

I think the insurgents are generally made up of two groups:

 

1. Foreign terrorists who have come to Iraq because this may be the best/easiest chance they ever get to attack American targets.

 

2. Iraqis who want the American occupation to end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You forgot the biggest group of all:

 

3.Various cliques and minorities bombing and killing each other in an attempt to get their way.

 

The insurgents aren't one big homogenous group of anti-American terrorists. Yeah, some of them really are strapping bombs to themselves because they think they're killing the enemies of Allah, but most of them have much more secular goals. The mistake in this is seeing the violence as America vs. Islam. It's not. The real war is being fought in between the different factions that are trying to take control of the country for their own gain. Why else do you think that the insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than foreigners?

 

If we pulled everybody out, it'd be the equivalent of pulling all the cops off the streets of LA. And we'd still get blamed for the massive civil war that would erupt afterwards.

[RepoMan 0]

I'd like to see a 6 month to a year pull out to be replaced with regional secuirity forces. US forces are the magents drawing in the Zarquawi type fucks. They wouldn't leave if the US left, but they'd burn out and not draw in new recuirts. Those who just want the US out would have nothing to do obviously. And if the Sunnis Shia and Kurds want to fight it out they will sooner or latter. I don't see why US troops should be in the middle of that. It wouldn't be the end of the world to divide the country considering it was just an invention of Europeans who drew lines that were only convinient for themselves.

[Dangerous A 0]

Jingus is pretty much all over it.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I'm with RepoMan. While I do think we should leave Iraq, we should wait a little more.

[NoCalMike 0]

I think one thing people are not willing to deal with is that it might be necessary for a full out civil war in Iraq for all the sides to weed their problems out. Hell we had one, and while it was a sad time in american history to see americans killing americans, one could say looking back that it might have been necessary to progress as a country. The question is, do we want our troops caught in the middle of that civil war that seems to be brewing in the early stages.

[Art Sandusky 0]

There's gotta be a way to accelerate the training of the army and other security forces. I know we're stretched already over there and no more soldiers means static manpower pools, but maybe a gradual switch from occupier to advisor is in order. Maybe that's what the "when they stand up, we stand down" plan entails in its details. I certainly hope so. We need to be out of there before 2008.

[cbacon 0]

I think the insurgents are generally made up of two groups:

 

1. Foreign terrorists who have come to Iraq because this may be the best/easiest chance they ever get to attack American targets.

 

2. Iraqis who want the American occupation to end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The real war is being fought in between the different factions that are trying to take control of the country for their own gain. Why else do you think that the insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than foreigners?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

a - Because they're in Iraq. The chances of killing an Iraqi are far greater than killing a non-Iraqi, when in Iraq.

 

b - it's pretty difficult to get at Americans and other foreign nationals

 

c - American troops are better protected than Iraqi civilians

 

U.S. forces come under attack dozens of times on any given day, far outweighing terrorist attacks that kill civilians. We've also been over the fact that targets of suicide bombings, car bombings, etc. tend to be related to the occupation in some way, but I'm not going to continue pulling up articles to re-prove this. It's in the papers, on TV, etc., every single day.

 

f we pulled everybody out, it'd be the equivalent of pulling all the cops off the streets of LA. And we'd still get blamed for the massive civil war that would erupt afterwards.

 

That's a terrible comparison.

[Ripper 0]

thats a very accurate comparison. The troops are there stopping the insurgents from taking over. They are targeting members of the new government, the citizens that support the new government and the us troops. The troops are the police force there now, and they have protect the people which they are trying to do. That "they are in Iraq, so they are going to kill mostly Iraqi's" bullshit you just tried to spew was nonsense. They are killing more Iraqi's because they are aiming for Iraqi's. you don't blow up a mosque trying to kill american troops. you don't blow up a market place trying to kill american troops. You attack the goddamn american troops.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Agrees with Ripper.

 

They are attempting to seize power. That's what all this is about. A group of people who once had favor with a predatory style government who have lost that power and will do anything to have it back.

 

You've got to be kidding me when you think that pulling out is the best action. NoCal's right, there's a civil war brewing, and itll spill out if we abandon. So if we really care about the Iraqis, we stay.

[RepoMan 0]

I'm sick of the logic that sense going in made Iraq a haven for terrorists means we now have to stay to fight them. The occupation is fuling the insurengany and recuirtment of forgein terrorist to come into Iraq.

[Justice 0]

I'm sick of the logic that sense going in made Iraq a haven for terrorists means we now have to stay to fight them. The occupation is fuling the insurengany and recuirtment of forgein terrorist to come into Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The only things stupider than that statement are the spelling mistakes.

 

The occupation isn't 'fueling' the insurgency now; The brand-new government is. If we pulled out of Iraq, attacks wouldn't stop, they'd increase tenfold because they wouldn't have to worry as much about US forces being there. This entire thing is no longer about Americans being there, it's about a new government taking hold that the terrorists don't want.

 

We have to stay there. If we don't, that'll just lead to more problems. We need to stay until the Iraqi government has the tools to keep itself reasonably stable for an indefinite amount of time.

[NoCalMike 0]

Question: Aren't Shiates more fundamental and "old-school" as far as Islam goes then Sunni's? I mean what if we put in place a more fundamental group then was there before? I could be wrong as I don't know much about Islam.

[Justice 0]

I don't believe that's a definite thing. I mean, they are more fundamental as there are more there, so there will naturally be more clerics and hardcore believers out there. More a matter of percentages than a cultural thing.

[Art Sandusky 0]

My understanding is that Shi'ites would be more strict and fundamentalist simply because they don't accept non-descendants of Mohammed to be the true leaders of Islam.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Question: Aren't Shiates more fundamental and "old-school" as far as Islam goes then Sunni's?  I mean what if we put in place a more fundamental group then was there before?  I could be wrong as I don't know much about Islam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kotz is partially right, but it mostly comes down to the clerics in power on either side...

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I don't really see the problem of having the terrorists come to fight us in Iraq. After all, isn't it better to fight them in one place than all over the globe. I say that if the terrorists from Syria, Lebannon, Iran, etc. want to come and duke it out with us in Iraq bring 'em on.

 

Also, I think we could easily be squashing this insurgency right now if our damn political leaders would start fighting this thing like a war. Ever since World War II we have abandoned this doctrine of "unconditional surrender" and have fought on purely political terms. Since then, we've seen the Korean War end in a stalemate, Vietnam end in defeat, a pullout from Somalia, a messed up first Gulf War (which is why we had to go into Iraq AGAIN), and now the Iraqi insuregency mess. I say screw international law, screw civilian casualties (they're collateral damage and in WW2 we didn't care we when bombed the crap out of Drezden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.), and screw this political b.s. Let our troops and military do their job and win this fight and worry less about stupid poll numbers.

[Ripper 0]

Problem with this logic is that in a war and conflict that the government has claimed is existing to help the iraqi people, you would have a hard time justifiying killing all the iraqis to protect them.

[Justice 0]

Oh, and while I don't see it yet, I'm sure the idea of a UN Peacekeeping force is going to be mentioned, and does anyone have an HONEST example of them doing even a manageable job of not being corrupt or completely inept?

 

Seriously, does anyone not remember the numerous failures in Africa, Bosnia, and other places around the world? The UN isn't going to bring order. It's going to bring collapse and yet another pullout.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I don't really see the problem of having the terrorists come to fight us in Iraq.

 

Yeah, because that's why we were told we were sending troops to Iraq--as terrorist bait.

 

screw civilian casualties

 

Yeah they look and talk different, anyway, who needs 'em.

[cbacon 0]

I say screw international law, screw civilian casualties (they're collateral damage and in WW2 we didn't care we when bombed the crap out of Drezden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.)

 

I think this takes the cake as the most ignorant comment i've seen on these boards, and thats saying something.

[Justice 0]

Indeed. I mean, you've made so so many, and yet this still might have a chance at the top.

 

Oh, and responded yet to my UN thing? Because it's useless to try and substitute a working police force for one that has basically failed in every one of it's missions.

 

You know, just to remind you.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't really see the problem of having the terrorists come to fight us in Iraq. 

 

 

Problem is, I am not sure innocent Iraqi civilians appreciate bombs going off where they buy coffee in the morning, or where their children play. It's not like we asked and polled Iraqis beforehand, "Would you mind if we turned your country into a blackhole for terrorists to try and ensure that they can't come over here for awhile? Thanks"

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Not to worry. The republicans will pull out our troops just in time for the 2006 election. Cuz you know... they really do believe in making this work. It's not a ploy for votes. Nope, not one bit.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

The problem is that today Americans don't have the stomach for a war, that's just the brutal truth. We live in an age where fighting a protracted battle for years on end isn't very appealing. However, I think the negative media is finally getting into the poll numbers. We hardly ever hear of anything good our troops are doing there. It's just the same old, death and death and more death.

 

Problem with the invasion in the first place was not sending enough troops. However, we just can't be like "oh sorry we screwed up Iraqis, let's just leave you to fight and kill yourselves." All of that is just simply impossible.

 

Plus, if we do find a link between the London bombings and what is going on in Iraq that is a HUGE mistake b/c that's going to strengthen British resolve to stay there. After all, I don't think the Brits are going to chicken out from a fight like the Spanish.

 

I also don't think my comment about civilian casualties is stupid. I think name calling doesn't get you anywhere in a debate either. What I said is simply grounded in historical fact. Civilians get killed in war, unfortunately, especially if it's fought on their turf. It's not like civilian casualties are a new phenomenon as they've been going on in every war in the history of mankind.

[Justice 0]

I don't really see the problem of having the terrorists come to fight us in Iraq. 

 

 

Problem is, I am not sure innocent Iraqi civilians appreciate bombs going off where they buy coffee in the morning, or where their children play. It's not like we asked and polled Iraqis beforehand, "Would you mind if we turned your country into a blackhole for terrorists to try and ensure that they can't come over here for awhile? Thanks"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think that was ever the intent, though. I don't think it's proper reasoning with the focus shifting towards the Iraqi people for us to want terrorists sneaking into the country. We need to start moving to stabilize and move towards where the terrorists are coming in from: Syria.

 

Yes, I'm advocating the eventual invasion of Syria, because it does need to happen as well.

 

And Cheesala: Shut up already.

[Justice 0]

The problem is that today Americans don't have the stomach for a war, that's just the brutal truth.  We live in an age where fighting a protracted battle for years on end isn't very appealing.  However, I think the negative media is finally getting into the poll numbers.  We hardly ever hear of anything good our troops are doing there.  It's just the same old, death and death and more death.

 

I'll trust to that, though to be honest, it's not an 'all-good' thing. There are problems over there, though death count is an inaccurate way of looking at it. If they wanted to focus their problems, they should look at things like the Syrian Border, which needs better securing. We need to move more troops in to completely cut off the Syria Terror Pipeline that has sprung out of Western Iraq.

 

Problem with the invasion in the first place was not sending enough troops.  However, we just can't be like "oh sorry we screwed up Iraqis, let's just leave you to fight and kill yourselves."  All of that is just simply impossible.

 

Agreed.

 

Plus, if we do find a link between the London bombings and what is going on in Iraq that is a HUGE mistake b/c that's going to strengthen British resolve to stay there.  After all, I don't think the Brits are going to chicken out from a fight like the Spanish.

 

Indeed. The Brits aren't the type to back down from a knock. When you make a strike against English and American civilians, the public takes it much more personally.

 

Then again, it doesn't seem to be that way with the rest of the world. Weird.

 

I also don't think my comment about civilian casualties is stupid.  I think name calling doesn't get you anywhere in a debate either.  What I said is simply grounded in historical fact.  Civilians get killed in war, unfortunately, especially if it's fought on their turf.  It's not like civilian casualties are a new phenomenon as they've been going on in every war in the history of mankind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I disagree with this, though, intensely. We can't go in and say 'Damn the civilians, full speed ahead!' We aren't C-Bacon's wet dream, nor should we aspire to be. If we are going over there to help them, then we have to keep them alive and safe. So far we've gone well out of our way to do that, and I'm very proud that we've been incredibly successful in minimizing civilian casualties for the most part.

 

Just because people die in war doesn't mean we can't stop caring, and that we can't aspire to try and minimize the harm we inflict to only that which is necessary. We have to take the high ground. That's what type of country we are, and I'd be sad to see that go.