Spring Break
U.S. Must Cut Losses And Leave Iraq
Jason Polaski
Issue date: 2/26/08 Section: Commentary
Iraq isn't going well for America, relatively speaking. The country isn't stable, and just about 4000 American soldiers have died in three-and-a-half years. There are people who say that America cannot win, and they are wrong. Of course America can win. The United States has better technology, a larger population, and much more money. It could deploy a million more ground troops into the country, and through a process costing lives and dollars, America could stamp out enough resistance from various militias so that we would be left with a semblance of peace.
Knowing that America has the ability to win, it is now faced with a choice. The war under the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld was a fiasco. The war under current Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and General David Petraeus is slightly less of a disaster, but we're talking about less of a negative, not anything positive. The United States can't bring Iraq to heel with 150,000 troops. It's a shame we didn't get a meaningful coalition to help us before going in, but that's no longer here nor there.
So our two choices are these: America can push for immediate withdrawal, or immediate escalation. There isn't an effective middle ground. The last four years have proven that. If you are for the war at this point you should be for a serious escalation in military presence. If you are against the war, you should be for a speedy withdrawal. Anything else is a waste of money and lives'.
The benefits of victory seem paltry. A weak Iraq, plagued by infighting - Sunnis Shiites and Kurds don't play well together. If America deployed 10,000,000 troops we could probably get them to stop shooting each other, but we couldn't make them like each other, and that fact will always show in the legislation the Iraqi government passes.
This government, however, would be friendly toward us, and would probably cut us a break on oil. Some say that's exploitation, but America is directly responsible for putting them into power, so perhaps it's just the repaying of a debt. Finally, the U.S. presence in the country deters Iranian attack, because attacking Iraq at this point would result in an open war with the U.S.
Knowing that America has the ability to win, it is now faced with a choice. The war under the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld was a fiasco. The war under current Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and General David Petraeus is slightly less of a disaster, but we're talking about less of a negative, not anything positive. The United States can't bring Iraq to heel with 150,000 troops. It's a shame we didn't get a meaningful coalition to help us before going in, but that's no longer here nor there.
So our two choices are these: America can push for immediate withdrawal, or immediate escalation. There isn't an effective middle ground. The last four years have proven that. If you are for the war at this point you should be for a serious escalation in military presence. If you are against the war, you should be for a speedy withdrawal. Anything else is a waste of money and lives'.
The benefits of victory seem paltry. A weak Iraq, plagued by infighting - Sunnis Shiites and Kurds don't play well together. If America deployed 10,000,000 troops we could probably get them to stop shooting each other, but we couldn't make them like each other, and that fact will always show in the legislation the Iraqi government passes.
This government, however, would be friendly toward us, and would probably cut us a break on oil. Some say that's exploitation, but America is directly responsible for putting them into power, so perhaps it's just the repaying of a debt. Finally, the U.S. presence in the country deters Iranian attack, because attacking Iraq at this point would result in an open war with the U.S.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Joshua
posted 2/27/08 @ 7:35 AM EST
With due respect to the author, I disagree that the situation the United States now faces is bipolar - escalation or withdrawal. I also believe that the author does not understand the current counter-insurgency that is being waged in Iraq. (Continued…)
John E
posted 2/27/08 @ 5:22 PM EST
The Iraqis themselves overwhelming voted in favor of democracy in the 2005 elections. Their duly elected officials want us to stay as the country gets on its feet. (Continued…)
Frank Warner
posted 2/27/08 @ 5:55 PM EST
The biggest advantage of a liberated Iraq is that, as long as it remains democratic, its government will not return to murdering its citizens by the hundreds of thousands and will be much less likely to attack its neighbors without good cause. (Continued…)
Troublemaker
posted 2/27/08 @ 6:12 PM EST
I think Jsshua and John have stated the situation sufficiently. I might also add some unexpected advantages we, the West, have gained from this difficult fight in Iraq. (Continued…)
Post a Comment