We Are Making Progress There: It may be long overdue. It may be slower than some would prefer. It may not be all of our own doing. But it sure beats the alternative. The old "light-footprint" strategy, in which U.S. forces remained isolated on military bases and largely hidden from the Iraqi population, was a mistake. The new counterinsurgency strategy, in which U.S. forces are living out among the people, and working with the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to defend the population from al-Qaeda and insurgents, has had positive results. As Iraqi citizens have begun to realize that American soldiers will be staying for awhile to protect them, they have become more secure and open, coming forward with valuable tips and intelligence. As a result, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is being driven out of many areas and violence is down. The strategy has been sufficiently successful to warrant its continuation.
Al-Qaeda Is There: It is argued by some that AQI is not the "true" al-Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11, and therefore can be ignored. That argument, quite frankly, is absurd. Does it really matter if a terrorist swears allegiance to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan pre-9/11, or in Iraq in 2005, or in Germany in 2007? The result is always the same: a terrorist is operating in the name of al-Qaeda and bin Laden. We know that al-Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri communicated directives in a letter to AQI. We have that and other captured documents to prove it. There is new reporting which suggests that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was purposely sent to Iraq by Osama bin Laden before the 2003 invasion to fight the Americans. We know that bin Laden and Zawahiri sent people like Abu Ayyub al-Masri into Iraq to help AQI. (Al-Masri took over the leadership of AQI when al-Zarqawi was killed.) We know that some of them are still there. They have, for the most part, been pushed out of many urban areas by the "surge", but they have not been completely eliminated. The job is not yet done.
Iraq Is Al-Qaeda's Top Priority: Al-Qaeda has said, in their own public statements as well as in captured internal communications, that Iraq is their central front in their war against the infidels. Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a 2005 letter, gave directives to AQI leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: "The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate". In a public statement, Osama bin Laden said, "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand... The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers [Iraq]." He called it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and stated that it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." So then, will America or al-Qaeda be victorious? Will America or al-Qaeda be humiliated? (Personally, I favor American victory and al-Qaeda humiliation, thank you.) In May of this year, President Bush released newly declassified information that bin Laden sent Hamza Rabia, a top military aide, to Iraq. Osama bin Laden also released a video in September of this year, in which he chastised the American Democratic Party for not stopping the war in Iraq, and further said that al-Qaeda therefore, will "continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you. This is our duty..."
Our Enemies Want Us To Leave: Al-Qaeda wants us to leave. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants us to leave. Moqtada al-Sadr wants us to leave. The rogue militias want us to leave. The criminals want us to leave. They all want us to leave so that a power vacuum is created, which they will be more than happy to fill. This alone should be reason enough for us to stay.
The Iraqi Govt Wants Us To Stay: At the UN this September, President Jalal Talabani said Coalition troops should remain in the country until the ISF are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security. Only then will it be possible to talk about a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq." On August 28th, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, asked America to think very carefully about pulling out U.S. troops. "The premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq will be a disaster, not only for Iraq but for the region and for the international community as a whole. It will lead to an all-out civil war. It will lead to a regional war."
The UN Wants Us To Stay: Or at least, to not leave precipitously. In July, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged U.S. policy-makers to exercise "great caution" in considering any rapid withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. "I'd like to tell you that a great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people," Ban said at a UN press conference. "Any abrupt withdrawal or decision may lead to a further deterioration."
The Europeans Want Us To Stay: Or to be more precise, European Policy Experts want us to stay. This is in contrast to the European media which, like the American media, tends to be liberal and anti-war. These policy experts think a premature U.S. withdrawal could threaten Europe and its interests. Almost all of them agreed that terrorism would increase in Europe if the U.S. withdrew prematurely.
The Sunni Sheikhs Want Us To Stay: The Sunni sheikhs in Anbar province who recently aligned themselves with the Coalition have taken a bold stance against al-Qaeda and in favor of democracy. If we were to leave suddenly, they would find themselves without friends against both AQI and Shia militants alike.
Iraq's Neighbors Want Us To Stay: At least for awhile. According to a report from the United States Institute of Peace, "each of Iraq's neighbors has its own interests in Iraq, and all are concerned about the U.S. military presence in Iraq and would prefer that it not be prolonged. At the same time, there is general recognition that a peremptory American withdrawal before a stable interim Iraqi authority is in place would be disastrous, not only for Iraq, but for the region as a whole."
Iraq Is Not Ready For Us To Leave: The Iraqi Security Forces are not yet ready to face terrorists and militias on their own. While making great progress, the ISF lacks logistical support, vehicles, and air power to establish a dominant presence to maintain security. Without a capable military to defend itself, the government of Iraq would likely collapse were the U.S. to leave suddenly, and that could lead to chaos and civil war.
Potential Sectarian Civil War: In the event that the Iraqi government were to fall following a premature U.S. withdrawal, a sectarian civil war could result on a magnitude greater than that which occurred following the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara in February 2006. Sectarian conflict in Iraq would be likely to spill over into neighboring countries where Sunni and Shia live uneasily together. Most Iraqis now view U.S. forces as an impartial element preventing a disastrous sectarian struggle.
Potential Humanitarian Catastrophe: A premature withdrawal from Iraq could lead to the slaughter of our allies in Iraq; for example, the Sunni sheikhs referred to above. There are also the thousands of Iraqis who are volunteering to join local police forces. The continued presence of American troops is necessary to support these Iraqis who are associating with the Coalition, trying to end terrorism in their communities, and trying to establish a democratic government. The ISF would likely be unable to stop violence from escalating following a premature U.S. withdrawal. We should remember what happened when America abandoned the South Vietnamese and later the Kurds.
To Prevent Victory & Prestige For Al-Qaeda: Despite whatever the U.S. would say to spin a premature withdrawal from Iraq, al-Qaeda would claim it as a victory. That would have a dramatic effect on al-Qaeda's prestige. Al-Qaeda leaders would claim that they have defeated two superpowers on the battlefield: the Soviet Union in the Afghan war, and now the United States in Iraq. They would use this new-found prestige for recruiting purposes. Al-Qaeda would be emboldened, and they would get new recruits to expand their reign of terror.
To Prevent U.S. Defeat & Credibility Problems: Again, despite whatever the U.S. would say to spin a premature withdrawal from Iraq, the world would see it as a U.S. defeat. This would only reinforce America's already-tarnished image as a partner that cannot be relied upon to get the job done militarily. It would only add to the list of conflicts from which the U.S. has withdrawn prematurely: Vietnam-1975, Lebanon-1983, Iraq-1991, Somalia-1994. We need people to feel secure about aligning themselves with the U.S., both in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. They won't feel secure if we continue to cut-and-run.
To Prevent Safe Haven For Al-Qaeda: If the U.S. withdraws prematurely, we will leave behind AQI operators that have not yet been captured or killed. Al-Qaeda will use Iraq as a base from which to launch more attacks against the current Iraqi government, Iraq's neighbors, and then Europe and America. Al-Qaeda will also attempt to set up a Taliban-style emirate there, although that may now be more difficult to accomplish. The Shia majority and the Kurds are not likely to accept Taliban-style rule, and al-Qaeda has even turned Iraq's Sunnis against themselves. But things could change if the U.S. were to pull out suddenly. In a sectarian war, Sunnis would likely ally themselves with al-Qaeda against the Shia, even if only temporarily.
To Prevent Intervention Of Iraq's Neighbors: Assuming that a sectarian civil war were to erupt in Iraq, then Iraq's neighbors would intervene for sectarian reasons as well as in an attempt to restore order. Shia Iran has already publicly announced it would intervene. Sunni Saudi Arabia would no doubt intervene as well. Turkey might make an incursion into northern Iraq against the Kurds. Syria would no doubt enter the fray in support of the Iranians. The situation could rapidly devolve into a regional or world war.
The U.S. May Have To Return: It is quite conceivable that the U.S. would have to return to Iraq under much worse conditions than we are facing today. We could be going back into a conflict which is regional versus local; where allies don't trust us; where al-Qaeda is stronger than it is today; where Iraqis who aligned themselves with us in the past are either dead or angry because we abandoned them; where the conflict might include open combat against Iranians and Syrians as well as AQI and local militias.
To Prevent Disengagement: If we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, we will essentially disengage our enemies where we are now capturing and killing them successfully, only to face them in another location, such as Afghanistan. Wherever we go in the war against terror, al-Qaeda will make that their central front of jihad. In the process, we will have lost the current initiative and momentum. Al-Qaeda will simply shift its resources to wherever we go. If we go nowhere else and bring all the troops home, then they will follow us here. Either we stay on the offensive and continue to defeat them, or we go on the defensive and allow them time to regroup.
Oil, Money & The Economy: Considering the chaos that could develop in Iraq after a premature U.S. departure, it is likely that Iraqi oil production would be disrupted. This would put additional upward pressure on the price of oil in what is already an event-sensitive market. If al-Qaeda were to use Iraq as a base of operations to attack Saudi oil fields, the situation would only get worse. If money from Iraqi oil production were diverted to al-Qaeda, we can assume that the increased funding would be used to perpetrate more deadly acts of terrorism. Another concern is that a portion of Iraq's oil production could fall under the control of Iran. Not only would oil prices climb, but Iran could use this control as leverage against the West in its nuclear ambitions. Under a worst case scenario, economies around the world could be hammered.
To Prevent Increased Terror Risk: Again, if al-Qaeda finds a safe haven in Iraq, the risk of new terrorist incidents around the world will increase. One would assume that the attacks would start out against the current government of Iraq in order to destabilize it in an effort to effect its downfall. That would be followed by attacks on Iraq's neighbors in al-Qaeda's quest to establish the Caliphate. Ayman al-Zawahiri, in his 2005 letter, to AQI leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, he said: "The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate... The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq." Thus, oil-rich Saudi Arabia would be threatened. Nuclear Pakistan would be threatened. Kuwait and Jordan would be threatened. Our ally Turkey would be threatened. There would also be an increased risk of another catastrophic 9/11-type attack on Europe and/or America.
Obligation: As the old saying goes, "If you break it, you pay for it". In other words, if the U.S. can be blamed for "creating a mess" in Iraq, then the U.S. is obligated to clean it up. Running away and leaving the mess for somebody else to clean up (for example, Europe, the U.N., NATO, or Iraq's neighbors) is dishonorable, and unbecoming of a great nation.
To Prevent Betraying Our Friends: As stated before, those in Iraq who have aligned themselves with us depend on U.S. commitment to remain there. A premature and hasty withdrawal would place those who have put their trust in America, in jeopardy. Although groups such as MoveOn.org flippantly produce ads with phrases that suggest our generals or our President have betrayed us, they callously ignore a much more real betrayal. True "betrayal" is when one offers to support a friend who stands up in the face of death, and then fails to deliver - as in the case of the Kurds and the Shi'ites who rose up against Saddam following the liberation of Kuwait. True "betrayal" is when one turns a blind eye while hundreds of thousands of friends die - as in the case of (post-withdrawal) Vietnam.
To Prevent Betraying Our Troops: If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq prematurely, it will be an act of betrayal against our troops. We have sent our troops into Iraq (with Congressional approval) on the basis that this was a just war to depose a tyrant and a brutal murderer who had used WMD in the past, and might use WMD again in the future. While the number of WMD found in Iraq was below expectations, there were indeed some. Coalition Forces also found: uranium ore which could have been used to make a dirty bomb, banned weapon delivery systems (long-range missiles), and evidence of WMD programs that were on hold just waiting to be rejuventated. There were also plenty of mass graves to support the belief that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and a mass murderer. Our troops who are now in Iraq: 1) believe their mission is a noble cause, 2) believe that they are providing essential aid and assistance to a fledgling democracy, 3) are dealing with extreme circumstances such as 120 degree temperatures, 4) have incredibly high morale, and 5) want to finish the job of defeating al-Qaeda and stabilizing the country. To suggest that their mission: 1) is wrong, 2) is not noble, 3) is a failure, or 4) should be ended prematurely when progress is being made, is reprehensible. These troops are volunteers and many have re-enlisted once, twice or three times to go back to Iraq and finish the job. The vast majority of the troops are disappointed or angered when they hear talk of immediate withdrawal.
To Prevent Betraying Our Beliefs: The United States was founded upon certain fundamental principles. Americans believe that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Americans believe that all human beings in the world are endowed with the same rights. Americans believe that Muslims are no less entitled to freedom than Christians. Americans believe that Iraqis are no less entitled to liberty than Americans. Since the Iraqis have overwhelmingly voted in favor of freedom and democracy, to withdraw from Iraq before the promise of freedom and democracy have been firmly established there, would be a betrayal of our beliefs. It would be a signal to the world that we as Americans do not care enough about liberty or freedom, that we should go so far as to assist others in securing it. Before the United States came into being, there were thirteen British colonies which sought, at great peril, to obtain freedom. Without the assistance of a "coalition" of French, Polish, German and Irish allies, it is quite conceivable that these United States would not exist today. It should be noted that France was nearly bankrupted by their support of America during the Revolution. As we are then beholden to others for our own liberty, we ought not to ignore the plight of others who seek our help in their courageous quest for democracy.
There Are Signs Of Reconciliation: Although they have largely gone unreported in the media, there have been definite signs of reconciliation occuring in Iraq. Within the last several weeks, the following items have surfaced. Incidents of sectarian violence continue to decline. Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish soldiers work well together in integrated Army units. Nouri al-Maliki and other top Shi'ite government leaders have met with Sunni Sheikhs from Anbar Province. Two of Iraq's most influential Shia leaders, Moqtada al-Sadr and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, have signed a deal to end the bloody violence between their groups. Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani met with Sunni vice president Tareq al-Hashemi, for the first time, to discuss a new initiative aimed at uniting feuding politicians over sectarian rifts that have hampered progress on the passage of key laws in parliament. Nouri al-Maliki, in his speech before the United Nations said, "National reconciliation is indeed stronger than the weapons of terrorism", and that the spirit of reconciliation has kept his country from "slipping into the pit of sectarian war". The Shia majority government has been offering job positions or pensions to former Sunni Ba'athists who were in the government or the army under Saddam Hussein. Sunni Sheik Ahmed Abu Risha has asked Sunni political leaders in parliament to tone down sectarian rhetoric, and reached out to the office of the Shi'ite cleric and political figure Moqtada Sadr. Many of these good things happening in Iraq are flying under the radar in American media.
There Is A Chance For Success: The situation in Iraq is not hopeless. The Sunni sheikhs in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. Military sources on the ground in Iraq are cautiously optimistic that AQI has been dealt a fatal blow. Thousands of Iraqis have volunteered to join local police forces. Approximately 50,000 Iraqis have signed up to be part of local citizen watch groups, looking for signs of terrorism. They are providing valuable tips and intelligence to the Coalition and the ISF. In some cases, they have gone so far as to stop terror attacks that were in progress. There have been acts of heroism, bravery and self-sacrifice among the Iraqis that are truly inspirational. The Iraqi Security Forces are working hard to protect the population and are gaining the confidence of the people. There are grassroots movements throughout Iraq to bolster the new government, to take responsibility for their own local future, to rebuild the infrastructure, and to generally succeed at democracy. Iraq's government may be having some problems at the top, but it is succeeding from the bottom up. The U.S. has a real chance to stabilize Iraq, develop the emerging Iraqi Security Forces, and improve the effectiveness of Iraq’s government. Ambassador Crocker put it best when he said, "I cannot guarantee success in Iraq. I do believe that it is attainable. I am certain that abandoning or drastically curtailing our efforts will bring failure.” |
94 Comments:
Ya nailed it! Cogent and salient, every one.
Of course your critic(s) will continue throwing out their retread "arguments", but what to you expect from those who gleefully backstroke their way through their sea of kool-aid?
OK, you've convinced me.
Well, actually I was convinced already, but you make some excellent points...
Hank,
Thanks for the kind words. And yeah, I expect the trolls to leave their droppings.
(:D) Best regards...
Camo,
Glad to be of service.
(:D) Best regards...
Very comprehensive and well done!
Why 26, though? One for every two week period of the coming year? One for all the letters of the alphabet? One for all the Fred Flintstones in Cleveland who voted for John Kerry last presidential election?
Beerme,
I was going to stop at (25), but then I thought of one more.
(:D) Best regards...
You make some excellent points about the reasons why the United States should stay in Iraq. I personally agee with you about the fact if the United States pulls out of Iraq then the troops we lost would be for nothing. Although the comment about the weapons of mass destruction I have found some different insight into that. I know that you will be very interested. In a report done by the Bush Administration with Charles Duelfer he said the only weapons of mass destruction that he found in Iraq on the eve of the attack was old chemicals that could not have been used for weapons of mass destruction.
You make good points about the Iraq War and why the United States should stay, but the fact is the United States has been in Iraq and cleaning there country up for two years. It seems as if there is no progress. Its as if Iraq is not trying to help themselves. So if the United States pulled out of Iraq it can be because Iraq has not wanted to help themselves not because the United States did not help Iraq.
I completely agree. Iraq is not ready for us to leave. If we were to leave now all hell would break loose and someone would just have to go back and try to fix it.
To emphasize on the last comment I made about pulling out of Iraq. Even though the United States has been in Iraq for six years. Two of the six years were used in rebuilding Iraq and you said that the United States needs to stay over there and "clean up what we messed up". Like I said previously the United States has been 'cleaning up' Iraq for two years. I think that the United States has the chance to gradually pull out of Iraq. However, it sounds as if you are saying that the Iraqi's can not run there own country without some other country helping them. It's as if you are suggesting that the Iraqi's are incampable of running there own government that the United States has established for them.
I agree with you, Amy. The assumption that Hawkeye makes is that Iraqis are too stupid (since their not as good or valuable as Americans) to fix their own country. It's that old American imperialist attitude, again. (And, no, Hawkeye, don't hate America.)
That attidue I'm referring to assumes we can export democracy (fair elections, structured government, building infrastructure, etc...) better than anyone else, right?
It's the same reason that the "liberal, drive-by media," never reports how many Iraqis have died since we freed them from Saddam's dictatorship (which was bad because he used torture and killed Iraqis). Oh well, MSNBC, owned by GE, the fourth largest defense contractor in the U.S. has no reason to press for that type of news report, when it rarely does inform the public that we're closing in on 4000 war casualties.
All I'm saying is the claim that we can't get out of Iraq because we've got to "fix it" is imbued with imperialist jingoism that Iraqis are worth less than Amerians. The citizens of empire, throughout history, often look upon all other peoples as barbarians. And, Amy and Hawkeye, just because I am the type of liberal all conservatives hate (armed with facts) here is a link to the most recent Iraq death toll from the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
amyb,
Thanks for your comments. Concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), I think you should check out these links...
Saddam's WMD Found
Iraq Shipped WMD To Syria
Hundreds of WMD Found in Iraq
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria
500 Tons of Uranium Found at Iraq Nuclear Facility
Head of Saddam's Nuclear Program Tells His Story
Best regards...
amyb,
You said... "It seems as if there is no progress. Its as if Iraq is not trying to help themselves."
It may seem that way, because a lot of news media organizations don't talk about it much. They like to report on the bad things and not the good things. Actually, many good things are happening there, and life is getting better every day. You have to look hard to find good stories about Iraq, but you can find them if you dig around.
Best regards...
katiepratt,
Thanks for your comments. Glad you agree.
(:D) Best regards...
amyb,
You said... "I think that the United States has the chance to gradually pull out of Iraq. However, it sounds as if you are saying that the Iraqi's can not run there own country without some other country helping them. It's as if you are suggesting that the Iraqi's are incapable of running there own government"
The Iraqis can run their own government, but the government there is new. It's like a young child... a toddler. They need to grow up a little bit and get stronger before they can run around on their own. They need a guiding hand (almost like a parent) to protect them from the dangers of the world (like the neighborhood bullies) until they can stand up and defend themselves better.
And the United States does have the chance to gradually pull out of Iraq, and we will gradually pull out of Iraq. It just depends on what you mean by that.
If we start immediately and get out completely by next spring (like Barack Obama wants to do)... well, that wouldn't work, because it's not gradual enough. We need to take our time and listen to the advice of General Petraeus, the commander there.
Believe it or not, we have already started pulling some of the "surge" troops out of Iraq. The 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit with 2200 marines and sailors has left, and there are no plans to replace them. More troops are expected to leave before the end of the year.
Benny,
Thanks for stopping by to rant. You said... "The assumption that Hawkeye makes is that Iraqis are too stupid (since their not as good or valuable as Americans) to fix their own country."
False. Please try to avoid thinking that you know what I'm thinking, OK? And don't try to put words in mouth (it's very unsanitary and I might bite). Nowhere in my article did I imply that Iraqis are stupid. To accuse me of that reveals your own ignorance.
"That attidue(sic) I'm referring to assumes we can export democracy (fair elections, structured government, building infrastructure, etc...) better than anyone else, right?"
First of all, let's get something straight. We didn't go into Iraq with the idea of "exporting democracy" there. We went there with the intention of deposing a brutal tyrant and mass murderer who had used WMD in the past, and might use WMD again in the future... or, who might sell WMD to terrorists.
Secondly, we have technically been in a state of war with Iraq since 1991. We were merely observing a "cease-fire" from 1991-2003, the terms of which were continually being violated by Saddam Hussein.
As for democracy, the Iraqi people themselves voted in favor of it in a free and fair election. And they voted for a constitution. And they voted for a new government. And they are learning how to deal with one another using politics rather than violence. It takes time, but reconciliation is happening.
As far as your "facts"... they are bogus. Your "most recent Iraq death toll" is dated October 11, 2006. (A year old is not so recent if you ask me.) Not only that, but those numbers have been proven to be erroneous.
The "death toll" to which you refer, was a study that was published in "The Lancet", a British medical journal. In the study, a calculation was made by taking a poll of 1849 households in Iraq and asking them if somebody in their family died by violence. They then multiplied the percentage of positive responses by the total population of 26 million Iraqis.
The study immediately came under criticism. Even the anti-war website Iraq Body Count only put the civilian death toll for the same period at just under 50,000 (similar to that estimated by the UN Development Agency). Then it got more bad press when the analysis started coming in, suggesting that it might even be fraudulent. But I like this article the best out of the bunch.
I respect your opinion completely, however, I don't feel that it is America's job to play the World Leader role. It is not really up to America to tell the rest of the world how to run their countries and that is the reason that the Bush administration sent troops there. There was no connection between Iraq and the events on 9/11 and is it just a coincidence that there is evidence that the Bush administration had been discussing changes to Iraq before the attacks in 2001? Paul O’neill, former Treasury Secretary for President Bush, states that just ten days after Bush was brought into office and 8 months prior to September 11th, getting rid of Hussein was a priority. Bush just used the attacks on the U.S. to persuade the American people that invading Iraq was the answer.
You have shown that these other countries want us to stay so we should stay. If they tell all of us to jump off bridges, you won't catch me near one. Also, if we concentrated a little more on Homeland Security in the first place, maybe we would not have to focus so much on going into countries to prevent them from acting out against us.
I agree with you that withdrawing from Iraq now would be pre-mature and result in chaos. Like you said, whatever the reason we went into Iraq to begin with, we're there now, so let's do something about it.
The misgiving I have is about your multiple comments about the U.N., the Europeans, and Iraq wanting us to stay. Frankly, this is not our job. We have become the police of the U.N., Europe, and Iraq. What country do we attack next? When does it stop? If America says "We will stop when there aren't any terrorists left?" we will end up fighting every country known to harbor terrorists. For that matter, why aren't we fighting Saudi Arabia (the country that had the most hijackers on 9/11). Is this really the purpose of our country, to be the world police?
On a side note, I think it is extremely hypocritical and irresponsible for the U.N. and the European countries to rely on the American troops to "protect Europe and its interests." If Europe and the U.N. are so worried, they should do more to help resolve the conflict. We have let ourselves be set up as the international police. Are we fighting for the world now? I don't think it's fair to our troops, I don't think its our responsibility, and I don't think it's our calling.
You have some really good reasons as to why the United States should stay in Iraq. I definitely agree that Iraq is not stable enough for the U.S. to leave at this point in the war. Unfortunately, I do have to argue with the point you made about al Qaeda being in Iraq. First of all, a report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was released and declassified that stated otherwise. The report informed that intelligence analysts were unsure of the supposed links between Iraq and al Qaeda that the Bush administration was so adamantly dramatizing, even before the war began. The report also stated that Hussein had tried to capture former head of al Qaeda Musab al-Zarqawi. So why would Hussein want capture a man that he was allegedly harboring and supposedly had cooperation with?
The Bush Administration is beginning to change their story a bit now, too. After a report was released that had failed to find significant ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, Vice President Cheney declared, "We have never been able to prove that there was a connection to 9/11." So then why invade Iraq if al Qaeda is not there? If al Qaeda did attack the U.S. on 9/11, there was absolutely no need to go to war with Iraq because al Qaeda and Iraq have no connections with each other. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html
EricaH,
Hello. Thanks for stopping by. I respect your opinion completely too, but America has no choice as to whether or not it wants to be the "World Leader". By default, America is the only remaining superpower in the world. As such, America is in a position which no other country finds itself. America must decide how to use (or not to use) its vast power.
For example, America can sit idly by, watching repressed peoples around the world be beaten into submission by petty dictators, and overrun by agressive neighbors... or, it can use its power to liberate those who are invaded and oppressed. That's what America did when the country of Kuwait was invaded by its neighbor Iraq. In 1991, George H.W. Bush (George W's father) sent Americans to liberate Kuwait.
We have technically been in a state of war with Iraq ever since. We signed a cease-fire agreement with Iraq in 1991. The terms of that agreement were routinely broken by Saddam Hussein between 1991 and 2003. He was firing missiles at Coalition aircraft, using helicopters to enter the "No-Fly Zones", etc. He also ignored more than a dozen United Nations resolutions. He failed to meet the requirements of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). He hid weapons of mass destruction from UN inspectors (UNMOVIC). He had active programs to develop weapons of mass destruction right up until 2003 when the U.S. entered the country for the second time.
George W. Bush did NOT send troops to Iraq "to tell the rest of the world how to run their countries". He did it to protect America from the possibility of another terrorist attack like those of September 11, 2001. He did it to depose a brutal dictator who was known to be a mass murderer, who had used WMD in the past, and who might use WMD in the future... or might sell them to terrorists.
No one ever said there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11... including George W. Bush. Such a connection may have been theorized, but it was never proven. George Bush acknowledged that no connection was ever established. The reason for our incursion into Iraq was not based specifically on 9/11. It was based on the potential for a future attack by a mad man who was completely unpredictable.
And concentrating on Homeland Security will not prevent another terrorist attack. We can only do so much to try and prevent a terrorist attack, but the terrorists can always find a way to get around our security. The best way to prevent a terrorist attack is to make sure that the terrorists are always on the defensive. A terrorist who is constantly running for his life and hiding out from military forces who are eagerly trying to capture him, has no time or resources to plan or implement a terrorist attack. We must attack and they must retreat. Or we will retreat and they will attack.
In a nutshell, the Islamic jihadists want to kill us. They don't like Jews or Christians or Hindus or Buddhists. They don't like freedom or democracy. They don't like Americans or Britons, the French or the Polish. They want to kill us all and set up a world-wide Islamic Empire (or Caliphate). And you are one of their targets. It's as simple (and unpleasant) as that.
Regards...
BrittG,
Hi. Thanks for "Viewing". You said... "The misgiving I have is about your multiple comments about the U.N., the Europeans, and Iraq wanting us to stay. Frankly, this is not our job. We have become the police of the U.N., Europe, and Iraq... We have let ourselves be set up as the international police. Are we fighting for the world now? I don't think it's fair to our troops, I don't think its our responsibility, and I don't think it's our calling..."
I know it may seem unfair. It may seem like it's not our responsibility. It may seem like it's not our calling. Like you suggest, "Why us?"
Well, in a way, I believe it IS our calling and our responsibility. So let me explain... We are the only remaining superpower in the world. We have more power and influence than any other country in the world. No other country in the world can be called upon in an international crisis to do what we can do. Therefore, in some circumstances, America is the only hope in the world for resolving certain kinds of crisis.
I know this sounds kind of dumb, but think about it this way... Have you ever seen one of those "super-hero" movies, like Superman, Batman, Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four, etc? Have you ever noticed what seems to be the common theme in a lot of these movies? OK, think about it. You have a person, or persons, who find themselves with extraordinary powers. They can do amazing things either with enhanced personal abilities, or with lots of fancy gadgets. Either way, they are not typical human beings.
So the question always seems to be... "What do I do with these powers?"... or even, "Should I use these powers?" Most of the characters in these movies seem to be conflicted between wanting to have a "normal" life and feeling some kind of obligation to use their powers for the good of mankind. They are torn between wanting "normalcy", yet feeling that they were destined to do great things. In most cases, they choose to use their powers for the good of mankind. They don't want people to die needlessly if they can do something about it. They don't want criminals to "get away with murder" if they can prevent it. They choose to be "selfless" rather than "selfish". They choose to serve the needs of others.
And it is no different with America... the only "super-power" in the world. Do we as Americans stand by while criminals around the world rape and pilage? Do we as Americans stand by while the bad guy gets away with murder and laughs in our face? Do we as Americans stand by while innocent people are devasted by tsunamis, or earthquakes, or oppressive regimes, or terrorists? No. We as Americans feel that we are endowed with certain abilities and powers and blessings from God, which imposes on us a certain obligation to use those blessings for the good of mankind. We will go out of our way to help the victims of tsunamis and earthquakes and hurricanes and draughts. We will go out of our way to help the victims of oppression and injustice and brutal dictators... even though we would rather have a normal life and ignore all the bad stuff (just like those other super-heroes).
I respect your optimism and opinions. However, I believe you are wrapping yourself in the American flag with this post. Being the sole superpower in the world does not translate into playing the world police or belligerently invading nations on our president’s caprice.
In your post, you note that Europe has supported our actions and interventionist policies regarding Iraq. The truth is that the war that has severely marred our image in Europe. A poll of Germans shows an overwhelming 87% that oppose the war, 57% view America as a “nation of warmongers”, and 6% view George W. Bush as trying to maintain peace. The U.S. is strongly jeopardizing its key European allies by staying in Iraq. In Britain, 51% of those polled believed Tony Blair was a U.S. lapdog and only 25% felt there was sufficient evidence to invade at the outset. (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747175.stm)
Another point you made was that a U.S. presence would obstruct the intervention of neighboring countries. Turkey has already pushed into northern Iraq to fight the Kurds. Israel has bombed locations in Syria. Iran refuses to impede its development of a nuclear weapon. The U.S. is already embroiled in a regional conflict that has become to large to maintain.
In addition, you cited the fact that in Saddam Hussein’s reign, he used banned weapons to murder his citizens. What you neglected to mention, was the fact that America provided him with numerous illegal weapons in the past.
During the Iraq-Iran conflict of the early 1980’s, Ronald Reagan began exporting weapons to Iraq through Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia thus violating the Arms Export Control Act. In 1983, the U.S. government was given intelligence reports of Iraqis using chemical weapons against the Iranians daily. This was a month before Donald Rumsfeld met with Hussein to assure him of strong U.S. support in the war. In March of 1986, The U.S. was the only country refusing to sign a statement condemning Iraqi use of chemical weapons. Later that year, the U.S. Department of Commerce approved the shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. Did you also state that we can’t lose our credibility? (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php)
Your ideas on America as a superpower are a little disturbing. Your points assume that the US is in an indestructable force. In the eyes of almost all the UN nations, America went into Iraq unjustly. When does this superpower begin to look like a bully? How do we know these countries that disagree with our actions won't join together and act upon the "Evil Empire" we have become in the eyes of foreigners. We may be the most powerful country, but we are not more powerful than a collection of countries.
The exportation of democracy has always been troubling for me. How can the US successfully back the idea of the extermination of the Iraq dictatorship, when we support a corrupt monarchy like Saudi Arabia. Our use of selective world democracy leads me to the thought that the leaders of America our looking to achieve other goals. The U.S. says it stands for democracy, but it goes out in the world and acts on cynical self-interests.
You are right that the time has come for people to stop arguing about if we should or shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. Those answers are for another time. The fact is that the United States have become involved with Iraq so it is time to decide how to handle the current situation we are in. Though, after this fact, we split on opinion. Many items on your list make Iraq sound like the headquarters of al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator who did not have ties to any of the religious fanatic groups. Iraq has only become a main priority of al-Qaeda since the US has become involved with that country. We are there giving them a target to attack. Since we are fighting this ‘War on Terror’ against al-Qaeda it is time to explore, but not invade, other places that al-Qaeda may be operating. Wouldn’t finding al-Qaeda’s root, ie. Osama Bin Ladin, be more productive then fighting his robots?
I understand where you are coming from, but please realize that Iraq is not ours to fix. We have spent more than 2 years over there trying to "fix" things. We are only making things worse. Of course Iraq's neighbors don't want us to leave them...we're the "police" over there. If our military left and came home, new order would restore and Iraq would no longer be our problem.
The 26 reasons that you have sought out has convinced me that the United States should stay in Iraq. I agree that if our troops were to leave right now then it would be an act of betrayal, because this war was meant to depose a brutal murderer who has been said to have used weapons of mass destruction in the past.
Though i don't agree with the fact that the weapons of mass destruction would have been very brutal to us. Yes, they have found WMD but it was very limited, in fact they found old chemicals that wasn't even useful. I believe that President Bush just used that accusation to rouse the American citizens, so that we would have a bigger excuse to enter Iraq.
Moreover, i do agree that if we were in a great hurry to withdraw from the War in Iraq, then it would cause total chaos. I think we should let time gradually go by, while fixing sites in Iraq, then see what happens. With more time, after their government "grows up" (since he's new as you've mentioned), hopefully there country will be stable.
Though, it would be nice to leave now, but with reasons you have mentioned it makes my decision skeptical. I've always looked at it at a point where, we are in Iraq because of false information given by the executive. That is true, but since we've been in Iraq fighting in the war, we've caused lots of damage and we need to stay there to fix it. As doing so, our troops also need to be on the lookout for any suspicious acts.
Hawkeye said “Do we as Americans stand by while innocent people are devasted by tsunamis, or earthquakes, or oppressive regimes, or terrorists?” Let me get this straight for a moment. You are comparing terrorism ( a tactic ) to natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis? The ground will cease to tremble, the seas will subside, but the idea and belief that has been growing in the heads of radical fighters is indestructible. Terrorism is a tactic, terrorism is an idea, it is the only way someone with an automatic small arms weapon can compete with a country pumping billions into bombs, missiles, tanks and other impressive tools of destruction. Yet no matter how much cash you toss into building weapons, no amount of money can build a weapon that can cease this kind of idea. Tell me how the “only superpower” should go about destroying a tactic. All we are doing in Iraq is making more and more enemies for everyday we spend there. By the time we kill 2 terrorists, 4 more will take their place.
And as much as I love spider-man and other great comic book characters, America is nothing like them. Not once ( sorry for this ) did I ever see spider-man leave his town yet alone his country to go kill bad guys. Maybe he knew he should fix his own home before he fixes someone else’s. But alas, this is not an argument of analogies this is an argument of facts and the fact is that America does not have the right nor the responsibility to go and save the world from disaster brought by man. Its sad that people around the world have to live under their own conditions but we should not let our fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, etc. die for someone else’s war.
Although some of your points of why the U.S. should stay in Iraq are convincing there are a few statements that I do not agree with. I do not believe that anyone appointed the U.S. to "fix" Iraq. It is not our job as Americans to stay in Iraq to set up the government as we want it. If the people of Iraq are incapable of setting up their own government then how are they supposed to run a government that the U.S. sets up? It is not our job as a nation to decide how foreign lands dictate themselves.
Also, the government have come out and said that there was never a proven like between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. So if there was no 9/11 Iraq connection then what is our justifiable cause for being in Iraq in the first place?
All the reasons you gave as to why the United States should stay in Iraq are pertinent, but I would like to argue against the fifth one “The Iraqi Govt. Wants Us To Stay”.
First; the American government was established by Americans for their own good. As a democratic country, America should value the people’s interest more than anything else. The country’s young men and women are being traumatized, and being killed in the war. Therefore, parents are asking for the troops withdrawal, the only way to save the country’s future leaders (the youth) from this nightmare. A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted October 10-11 finds that nearly three in four Americans (73 percent) agree that U.S. troops should start to come home.
Second, the Iraqi government will never wish for the withdrawal of the troops that established and support it. That government is taking advantage of U.S. troops. It is time for Iraqi to step up and take care of their own responsibilities instead of counting on Americans to rule their country. It has often been said “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for life.” If Iraqi did not know how to rule, their sure have learned how through the four-year occupancy.
I personally agree with on that fact that the U.S. has an obligation to clean up the mess that it has created. However, I disagree with you on the point saying that the U.S. may have to return. The U.S. is not the Iraq police we can not just go run over there everytime someone dies or something happens in Iraq. You are right we may loose some of the people we have befriended and some people may die however, we can not stay in Iraq forever. We established them a gov't now we have to let them run it.
I think you have a very good argument,however, I disagree with your assumption that the U.S. is the world police. Your right we may loose the trust of the people that we have befriended and innocent people may die after we leave, but we can not run to Iraq or any other county everytime there is a problem. We need to get our country and gov't in order before we cam tru and pass anything on to anyone else.
Do we stay, or do we pull out? People have their own opinions about what they think should happen. Honestly, I like how you put the 26 reasons for staying in Iraq, here is the main reason I believe that we should pull out.
We are not the "World's Police". It is no longer our problem to be over there fighting. We've done what we wanted to do,which was finding Saddam Hussein and looking for WMD's. On 5 November 2006 Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence was upheld after appeal, and Hussein was executed by hanging in Baghdad on the morning of 30 December 2006. (http://who2.com/ask/saddamhussein.html) As for the WMD's, the U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq. MSNBC says that "intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere". (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/)
Since no WMD's could be found and Saddam has already been taken care of, we should pull out and come home.
I have read your 26 reasons and they are interesting, but all your reason goes on one warrant we are the world police. You stated “the job is not yet done” why is it our job? We have jobs at home. And if it is our job who the hell hired us because I sure as hell know Iraq did not. The Iraqi Govt. wants us to stay to end terrorism? That’s not going to end it is a war tactic. You stated if we leave it will lead to a CIVIL WAR. Civil is the key word how is it a civil war if we are there. And in the civil war their killing our troops, we are in the way. They have always had problems about civil war because of their religions "not our problem". See I look past all this civil war stuff and see the real intentions the original reason "oil". We are sure as hell greedy why the hell do we care about them and getting their country straight, we don’t we just want to make it easier to get oil. I think you just need to think about how many of these reasons you truly believe. And if you truly believe we are helping this country out of the goodness of our hearts your wrong everything is about money!!!! We want it all and that will bring us down.
In your second reason, you insinuate that there is a September 11 connection to Saddam Hussein. I would disagree with you on that. Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda have nothing in common. Some people have been tying Iraq to Al Qaeda to justify the invasion of U.S. troops. They assume Saddam had a part of responsibility in what happened to the twins towers.
In spite of the arguments to explain the righteousness of the war, we all know that the Hijackers were not Iraqi, the planes that crashed in the towers did not come from Iraq, Osama Bin Laden (the 9/11’s mastermind) does not live in Iraq, and no evidence found on the scene has been connected to Saddam Hussein. Bob Graham, former Chairman of the Select Intelligence Committee, stated in an interview with CNN's Larry King Live on March 19, 2004 : "As former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I can tell you there's no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any role in September the 11, and there's scant evidence that there was any serious contacts [with Al Qaeda]." The idea of 9/11 and Iraqi connection is a set up by the government to incite people to support the war.
I think you are right about preventing our troops from premature pull out from Iraq, but I respectfuly disagree with your assumption that US had to take responsibility for Iraq and start the Iraq War. Yes, there was a tyrant and a brutal murderer who used WMD in the past but there was not 9/11 connection. If Saddam really did not have WMD, then why did he fail to cooperate with UN Weapon inspection teams, leading the public to believe he had something to hide. He had never cooperated with UN inspctors, and 2002 was no exception. Further, if there had been WMD or nuclear components, we would have found them in the last two years.
We should send to Iraq secret agents to find and capture those leaders and destroy them. I argue that there was not needed war to destroy a terrorism in Iraq. We not need to blow up a building to capture a mouse.
I think you are right about preventing our troops from premature pull out from Iraq, but I respectfully disagree with your assumption that US had to take responsibility for Iraq and start the Iraq War. Yes, there was a tyrant and a brutal murderer who used WMD in the past but there was not 9/11 connection. If Saddam really did not have WMD, then why did he fail to cooperate with UN Weapon inspection teams, leading the public to believe he had something to hide. He had never cooperated with UN inspectors, and 2002 was no exception. Further, if there had been WMD or nuclear components, we would have found them in the last two years.
We should send to Iraq secret agents to find and capture those leaders and destroy them. I argue that there was not needed war to destroy a terrorism in Iraq. We not need to blow up a building to capture a mouse.
Hawkeye,
I think that you bring up compelling points, even to those who are anti-war and respect your reasons for wanting to stay in Iraq. That being said, however, I have to disagree with you on the issue of America having a responsibility to the world. You claim that it is our responsibility to police the world because we are the only remaining superpower. I fail to see how this fact gives us any right to invade countries because it is our duty, or upon the belief in assumptions.
Because we have the military backing, the weapons, and the ability does not conclude that we should be in Iraq. To go into a country because it is our "responsibility" to save the world seems somewhat absurd, no offense. We also invaded because assumptions pointed to Iraq having all sorts of WMD's and other weapons programs that proposed a world-wide threat. This was not the case.
It was assumed that Iraq had wmd's and a myriad of weapons. You say that this posed a threat, therefore we needed to come in and intervene. It is one of the big busts of this administration that no WMD's or other claimed illegal weapons were found. We were lied to from the beginning. Yet, the administration claimed they never concluded that there were no WMD's, but the assumptions or possibilites were prudent to consider.
This set aside, you have several claims that bring up compelling ideas. Your metaphor with the superheroes is what really struck me as interesting. You say that we have the power, why shouldn't we use it for the greater good? It would be our responsibility.
However, I just cannot believe that this is the case. We came to Iraq for the greater good, to do away with terrorism. The bottom line, you cannot defeat terrorism. As long as people disagree, or have different beliefs or religions, turmoil will arise. This in turn will spark terrorist attacks. This is ultimately inevitable.
a little something about the wmd bust:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
In your paragraph, “The Iraqi Govt. Wants Us to Stay,” I agree with your thoughts on the ISF and their incapability to control Iraq right now. I also think it is reasonable to wonder when they will have control. With respect to your thoughts, America is not the world police and we have spent too much time in Iraq. You also stated that the UN wants us to stay and not reduce our troops. The United Nations is supposed to be the world police, not us. It is their job to run countries without control like Iraq, but instead we are there and the UN hasn’t told us to leave. It is not America’s responsibility to help Iraq but since we are, we shouldn’t be the only country trying to stabilize Iraq.
Many people believe that America is trying to act like the world police, inferring that the U.S. is the prevailing country in the world. We have been in Iraq for six years, but we haven’t stabilized the country and the ISF still doesn’t have control. In his article, “A Soldier’s Funeral makes War more real,” John D. Foster argues, “And without adequate troop levels and a governing plan after toppling Saddam, the war quickly became the debacle we see today.” The UN should take more control in stabilizing Iraq and though it might cause a disturbance, American troops should start coming home because we are not the world police.
As someone who has straddled the fence as well as gone from one side to the other about this topic, your reasons for staying in Iraq prove quite convincing. In your first paragraph, you make possibly the strongest point of your entire argument: "The time for debating our entry into the Iraq war is over". This could not be more true. What makes this point so strong is that no matter what someone's view on the war is, this point is one that people everywhere would agree on.
One idea of yours I do not agree with however, is that withdrawl would be seen as a "U.S. defeat" that would "reinforce America's already-tarnished image". I understand the idea of our government wanting to finish what we started, but just because troops would be brought home does not mean it would be viewed as a defeat. And, in all reality, is there really a way of winning this war anyway? The troops are doing good things to help the citizens of Iraq and I understand your views on exporting democracy to them, but if we wait until someone stands up and says "Okay, we have won" we could be in Iraq forever. There is no real way to win. We may help fix a lot of their problems, but there will always be problems there no matter what. Your idea of the U.S. as a superpower, needing to take charge, is an understandable one, but the U.S. cannot fix all of the problems in Iraq.
There are countries all over the world with problems and even if the U.S is seen as the World Police, it is impossible to believe that we could go around to every country fixing everything and have a feeling of completion and satisfaction. I am not saying we need to rush out of Iraq tomorrow, but if we wait for that feeling of completion and satisfaction, we will never leave Iraq because human kind in itself is never satisfied.
I agree with you on the most parts of your argument. In the other hand, i disagree with your assumption that there would be an increased risk of another type catastrophic 9/11 type attack on Europe or U.S. I want to point out that Iraq has nothing to with the 9/11 attack. Saudi Arabia and Afganistan are the ones reponsible for it. Therefore, if there would be any immiment attacks, i think they will be the ones reponsible for them.
You make very valid points in your argument, however, one idea of yours I do not agree with is your assumption of the U.S. as a superpower needing to take charge. It is an understandable one, but the U.S. cannot fix all of the problems in Iraq.
There are countries all over the world with problems and even if the U.S is seen as the World Police, it is impossible to believe that we could go around to every country fixing everything and have a feeling of completion and satisfaction. I am not saying we need to rush out of Iraq tomorrow, but if we wait for that feeling of completion and satisfaction, we will never leave Iraq because human kind in itself is never satisfied.
I also disagree with your statement that withdrawl would be seen as a "U.S. defeat" that would "reinforce America's already-tarnished image". I understand the idea of our government wanting to finish what we started, but just because troops would be brought home does not mean it would be viewed as a defeat. And, in all reality, is there really a way of winning this war anyway? The troops are doing good things to help the citizens of Iraq and I understand your views on exporting democracy to them, but if we wait until someone stands up and says "Okay, we have won" we could be in Iraq forever. There is no real way to win. We may help fix a lot of their problems, but there will always be problems there no matter what.
Although some of your points of why the U.S. should stay in Iraq are convincing there are a few statements that I do not agree with. I do not believe that anyone appointed the U.S. to "fix" Iraq. It is not our job as Americans to stay in Iraq to set up the government as we want it. If the people of Iraq are incapable of setting up their own government then how are they supposed to run a government that the U.S. sets up? It is not our job as a nation to decide how foreign lands dictate themselves; therefore you can not assume that it is our job to export democracy to Iraq.
I also disagree with your assumption that there was a 9/11 Iraq connection, the government has come out and stated that there was never a proven like between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. So if there was no 9/11 Iraq connection then what is our justifiable cause for being in Iraq in the first place?
The United States has no right to attempt to export democracy. You point out that Iraq is welcoming our government structure with open arms, but who wouldn’t after everyone in the world witnessed what happened to the last man that opposed the new government plan? If exporting democracy is the newest trend, perhaps Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba need a face lift as well.
It is odd that, “Fear of nuclear strike from North Korea rises” is only a week long discussion on our beloved FOX-NEWS, while the search for terror cells in residential areas is being televised repeatedly. Also, you point out that citizens are eager to volunteer for police forces. Let me point out that, last month, gunmen dressed in police commando uniforms robbing armored trucks and getting away with almost 2 million dollars in two separate attacks. If we used the honor system like this more often maybe a few more women and children would be alive to see the day when the civil war is over.
Earlier this month, 15 women and children were killed by American soldiers during an attack on a possible terror cell located in the Lake Thar Thar region. Democracy is a government for the people. Before we try to mold a government around trusting your neighbor, perhaps the US needs to try and build that same credit with their people.
I thank you for thought provoking arguement, however, Iraq is not a part of the war on terror, Al Queda is. The only reason we are attacking Iraq is so we have more sites to take over the oil. Therefore, we are trying to become a super power country. Just because we are the biggest country and have a bigger army does not mean that we have the right to invade other countries without probable cause.
I think you have some great points about the Iraq War but, all these reasons are saying that there is a 9/11 Iraq connection. Also, the CIA found out Saddam was not connected with Al Qaeda. This was the basis to the 9/11 Iraq connection that the Bush administration used to justify the war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
It basically comes down to many foolish reasons for going to war like, Iraq having WMDs. United States would have known about them during the years that the CIA was monitoring activities in Iraq, which would include the Gulf War in 1991. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
Did the United States just hang itself by going to war?
I completely agree that pulling troops out of Iraq right now would be disasterous. As many enemies as America has made by entering this war, abandoning the fledgling democracy now would only leave a vacuum for another well established power to fill such as Al Qeada. This would be very harmful to many countries, not only the United States.
I do not agree however that a superpower's responsibility is to free the rest of the world. It is simply not realistic. We as Americans have been indoctrintated with the ideaoligy that democracy is the only acceptable form of government. It is a nice thought to wish that the whole world could one day live peacably as working democracies where all humans enjoy freedom and unalienable rights but the fact is not all people agree that this is best. History has taught us this with religion and politics again and again. Religions such as Buddhism, a major religion of Korea (another alleged threat), and Hinduism that focus on detatchment from the things of this world have little concern for individualism and more concern for the greater good of all(sounds socialist to me). There is a reason dictators in other countries obtained their power in the first place. Different religions support different ideaoligies. And even if we can effectively export democracy in Iraq, who are we to choose which country is worthy of being freed from their evil dictators and which ones are not. If we're so altruistic in fulfilling our responsibilities as the only remaining superpower then why are we only freeing countries that we believe threaten our security or, dare i say it, our economy?
I am not arguing that the people in Iraq are not happy to be rid of a dictator, but if we continue this war on every country that does not have democracy we won't have to worry about our responsibilties as a superpower much longer. We can and will be beaten if we engage in a war with the rest of the non-democratic world.
You're points are well thought out and are understandable. We started this war saying Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction. We went in, did our job, but found no weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence was wrong or falsified about that one. "The Washington Post" reports that the 9/11 Commission couldn't link WMDs to Iraq. We should not have to fake intel just to have a reason to invade a smaller country who stands no chance of defending themselves. Just because you have the power to go around and topple other countries does not mean you have the right to do so. We are one of the strongest governments on this planet, how do we look in the other government's eyes beatin up on smaller less stable governmennts?
Your argument is thought provoking however, I disagree with your assupmtion that we are an empire that can go around the world and do whatever we want. We may have the power to do that but that does not mean we have any right for that.
Also Hawkeye, in your comment about the US being a superhero your assuming that we are the world police. I would like to inform you that this is wrong. The United States is nothing like the World Police. It is not our job nor our responsibility to keep track of the planet.
I think you make some interesting points, but I disagree with your assumption that the United States is the world police. We might be the only superpower left in the world, but that does not give us the right to invade any country we please. We entered Iraq claiming they had wmds and were planning on using them on our people. The statement that the Sunni Sheikhs want us to stay is something I agree with. They definitely want us to stay because they gain power in our presence. Being the world police we are, we decided to put them into power in Iraq. If we leave Iraq, they will lose all the authority they have gained in Iraq. It benefits us to have them in power because that is our only hope of establishing a democratic society in a sectarian region.
You are right that the time has come for people to stop arguing about if we should or shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. Those answers are for another time. The fact is that the United States have become involved with Iraq so it is time to decide how to handle the current situation we are in. Though, after this fact, we split on opinion. I can not agree with your supposition that just because America has the power and ability to place itself in the middle of a region, then that also gives us the right to do so by tearing Iraq down to rebuild it for democracy and capitalism, something all dream for. I’m sure that the power over oil or the needs to counter the 9/11 attacks have nothing to do with our overwhelming desire to spread democracy to all over the world.
I think you make some convincing points throughout your argument, however i disagree with your assumption that the United States' job is to export democracy to Iraq.
Iraq is their own country. We shouldn't have to be over there making decisions for them. The United States' should just let Iraq dictate themselves, it's not our responsibility. Our troops went over there for a reason and one of them was not to help mold Iraq's government back together,but to find WMD (which was not even there). Moreover, Iraq is a foreign country and they may have certain beliefs that differentiate from the U.S. Therefore, we should let them set up their country the way they want it to be.
While I agree that the United States needs to do what it can to aid other countries in their fight for freedom, we also can’t charge into every oppressed nation and force our ideals on them. Exporting democracy to a nation that is not prepared for it will simply never work. Democracy, if it is to have any staying power must come from an internal desire for it. If the Iraqis are so in favor of establishing a democracy, why did they not pursue it before the US invaded Iraq? Who are we to decide that a democratic government is right for another country, just because it works for us does not mean it will work for them.
You compare Iraq to the thirteen British colonies in America, but the colonists were already trying to gain their freedom before the French, Germans, etc. joined the fight. France did not invade us and tell us that we needed to separate from Britain and establish a new government. Besides if we are so concerned about the plight of oppressed peoples why haven’t we gone after Fidel Castro, who is right off our own coast, or Kim Jong-il of North Korea, or one of the 70 other dictators that are in power around the world today?
Source:
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_02-11-2007/Dictators
Although your argument is very thought provoking, we have a difference in our opinions on the issue of the al-Qaeda is in Iraq. I believe that there is no Iraq-9/11 connection. There was not one Iraqi in the 9-11 attacks, for starters. So, how did our attention shift from al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to liberating Iraq?
Then, it has been proven time and time again that Colin Powell doctored his “case” to the United Nations. Powell was quoted in The Washington Post saying “He (Colin Powell) doesn't know whether he would have recommended the invasion of Iraq if he had been told at the time that there were no stockpiles of banned weapons.” False reports were all he had: he sure ran with it. The only reason we as Americans believed him was because we as a nation wear scared of what could come next.
Left out link
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml
I agree with your opinion that Iraq is not ready for us to leave. They do have poor use of equipment, but that doesn't mean that we are superior to them, and that we should stay to help out a country that doesn't want us there.
In one of your reasons you state that the enemies want us out, but that is not entirely true. It's not just the enemy that wants us to leave, it's the actual people who live there that want us to leave. We are bombing places left and right, and killing innocent people for reasons that aren't even justifiable. We are not the world police. If they don't have the ability to protect their country from terrorits, which, us killing innocent people pretty much makes us their terrorits, or have the strength to fight off a militia, that is their problem, and they should find their own way to solve their own problems.
The U.S. can't be resposible for fixing all the problems of other countries. We made it on our own, they can make it on their own.
This comment has been removed by the author.
To All,
Thanks for "Viewing".
Now, for those of you who have not been "regulars" here, I "completely respect your opinions", as you would say, but I must disagree with your disagreements... and, for a variety of reasons.
I started out in an attempt to respond to each of you personally, but it is clear now that this would be a lengthy and tiresome effort. Therefore, I will try to respond to all of you at once...
First of all, say "Hello" to your teacher "Ms. Benny" for me, will you? Second, you might want to suggest to Ms. Benny that she should not use "English Composition" class as a thinly-veiled disguise for pushing her political viewpoints upon you.
Having said that, I don't know how much of what you've written in your comments is honest and forthright, and how much is designed to please your instructor. My sincere hope is that you believe what you have written, and not that you have just produced something to please your instructor in hopes of getting a good grade.
Nevertheless, I understand the awkward position you must be in. Your teacher exerts extreme power over you. She has the power to "make you or break you" with a good grade or a bad grade. No doubt you are all eager to get a good grade, and might be willing therefore to conceal your TRUE feelings in favor of what the instructor will be pleased to hear.
You are not stupid, and I know that. Sometimes it's just not worth the effort to say what you REALLY feel, because there is no up-side. You ask yourself, "What's in it for me?" There's potentially a GOOD grade for me if I please the teacher. There's potentially a BAD grade for me if I displease the teacher. So you say to yourself, "Sorry Hawkeye, gotta go with what's in it for me."
No problem. I understand that. I've been there, done that. There are times to fight, and times when discretion is the better part of valor.
Now, down to the particulars...
Many of you have stated that "We are not the world's police"... and "that is not our responsibility"... or that I assume it IS our responsibility, etc. The mere fact that so many of you have repeated this "mantra" suggests to me that this is something Ms. Benny has stressed and reinforced in the classroom. (Especially considering that I said nothing in my article to suggest such a responsibility.)
Well, I agree with all of you. We have NOT been appointed "World Police". It is NOT our "responsibility" to be the world's police. It is NOT our calling, and I assume NO such responsibility for America. America has always "chosen" to get involved in world crises, albeit they may have been pushed...
America was minding its own business when it was drawn into the current conflict (i.e., the Global War on Terror). The events of 9/11 were a signal that we had better get involved. Pearl Harbor was the signal to get involved in WWII. News photos from concentration camps were our signal to get involved in Bosnia during the Clinton administration. Tanks rolling into Kuwait were our signal to get involved against Iraq in 1990.
Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), see my comment at 10/30/2007 7:48 PM. The WMD WERE there in Iraq. Some were old, but some were "in pristine condition". They were all deadly. Any one of the toxic nerve agents could have been transferred from their "old container" to a "new container". They were all potentially capable of being used against Americans. Some of the uranium was refined enough to create a nuclear weapon. The rest could have been used to make a "dirty bomb". The illegal long-range missiles found in Iraq could have been used to deliver a "dirty bomb" or "chemical WMD" against neighbors in the region.
Some of you said that Al-Qaeda is NOT in Iraq. Well, I beg to differ. All you have to do is ask General David Petraeus. He is our commander on the ground in Iraq. Don't listen to your teacher (who has probably never been to Iraq).
Now, I am not saying that there is a direct link between Al-Qaeda in Iraq and 9/11... or Saddam Hussein and 9/11. I don't think there was one (at least none that can be proven yet). However, there IS a group known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" or AQI for short. Some of those people who are there now were sent to Iraq by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri (the REAL Al-Qaeda -- who are hiding out in the caves of Pakistan). AQI has pledged its allegiance to Osama bin Laden. That's good enough for me.
For those of you who questioned my statement that Europeans want us to stay in Iraq, and then quoted all kinds of polls... let me remind you that I qualified my statement by saying that "European policy experts" want us to stay as opposed to the liberal news media and/or public opinion. In other words, I was referring to the "smart" Europeans as opposed to the general "riff-raff".
Someone asked: "Did you also state that we can’t lose our credibility?"... No, I don't think so.
Someone else said: "Your ideas on America as a superpower are a little disturbing. Your points assume that the US is in an indestructable(sic) force"... Well, not quite indestructible, but pretty darn tough. America's main enemy is itself; that is, the anti-war, liberal, left-wing traitors.
"In the eyes of almost all the UN nations, America went into Iraq unjustly"... Yeah, and so what? In the eyes of almost all the UN nations, Israel is the ONLY country that commits acts of aggression and human rights violations. Gimme a break!
A couple of you said "We have spent more than 2 years over there". Well, YEAH! The most recent incursion was in March, 2003, so that would make it over 4 years (going on 5)! And in reality, we have been there since 1990... (when Operation Desert Shield was first implemented). You guys really need to do some research before you open your mouths.
"Let me get this straight for a moment. You are comparing terrorism (a tactic) to natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis?"... No. Your assignment for today is to go back and read what I wrote. I was talking of general things to which the U.S. has responded, varying from such divergent crises as natural disasters to man-made wars.
"Not once (sorry for this) did I ever see spider-man leave his town yet alone his country to go kill bad guys."... No? Well that's because the bad guys in the comics were not from out-of-town. I can guarantee you that if the bad guys came from the suburbs... or the next state... or another country... then, Spiderman would have gone after them there to insure that justice was done. And we didn't go to Iraq "to kill bad guys". We went there to depose a tyrant. We have. He was captured not killed. The Iraqis killed him for his crimes.
"we should not let our fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, etc. die for someone else's war"... Sorry, but if you didn't notice, it's NOT someone else's war. It's OUR war. Whose war do you think it is? France's? Belgium's? Germany's?
"the American government was established by Americans for their own good. As a democratic country, America should value the people’s interest more than anything else"... It DOES. George Bush decided to go to war in Iraq to protect YOU. He went to war in Iraq because he valued "the people's interest" more than anything else. He didn't care about what critics would say. He didn't care about the cost. He had "your interest" in mind, because he didn't want Saddam Hussein to sell a nuke to al-Qaeda so they could blow up your butt.
"parents are asking for the troops withdrawal"... Oh yeah? Prove it. The vast majority of the troops' parents are supporting their children in this conflict and are proud of them... not begging for them to come home.
"A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted October 10-11 finds that nearly three in four Americans (73 percent) agree that U.S. troops should start to come home"... "Start"? -- Yes, I agree. And they have already started. The 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit has already left with no plans to replace them. More to leave before the end of the year.
"you insinuate that there is a September 11 connection to Saddam Hussein"... Nothing of the kind. That is YOUR interpretation. But it is not correct.
"I think you just need to think about how many of these reasons you truly believe"... If I didn't believe them, I wouldn't have stated them.
"And if you truly believe we are helping this country out of the goodness of our hearts your wrong everything is about money!!!! We want it all and that will bring us down"... I'm sorry to disappoint you, but not EVERYTHING is about money. I used to think that too, when I was your age. But think about this: America is the richest nation on earth. It's not about the money. Study up on George W. Bush. For him, it's about the SAFETY of Americans.
"we have spent too much time in Iraq"... Oh, then I guess we have spent WAY TOO MUCH TIME in Germany (62 years), South Korea (57 years), and Bosnia (13 years).
That's about it. I can't take any more. Some of your arguments are so childish as to be unworthy of response.
Learn, study, do research, analyze, click on links when they are provided... and READ THEM! Stop thinking you know everything. Stop listening to your teachers as if THEY know everything. Start thinking for yourselves. You are adults now. You are not children anymore. Don't take the crap that gets spoon-fed to you by "organized education". The liberal instructors in the universities are the REAL terrorists.
Ask yourselves if oil was the ONLY reason we went into Iraq... and if so, then why does the price of oil continue to go up? ...and where is all that oil that we supposedly stole?
Ask yourselves why democracy around the world is such a bad thing. Is dictatorship better? Is theocracy better? Should people be ruled by Islamic mullahs? Should people be ruled by Socialist tyrants, like Hugo Chavez? Should people be ruled by madmen like Ahmadinejad? Should people be ruled by military juntas like in Burma? Should people be ruled by Communist authoritarianism like in China? If you said yes to any of these questions, then I suggest you go live in those countries for a few years... then get back to me.
Best regards to all...
Hawkeye,
You've made a lot of good, solid points throughout your argument, however, in your tenth reason why the U.S. should stay in Iraq, you stated that:
"Iraq Is Not Ready For Us To Leave: The Iraqi Security Forces are not yet ready to face terrorists and militias on their own. While making great progress, the ISF lacks logistical support, vehicles, and air power to establish a dominant presence to maintain security. Without a capable military to defend itself, the government of Iraq would likely collapse were the U.S. to leave suddenly, and that could lead to chaos and civil war."
I disagree with you completely on that. We are not the world police, it is not or place to fix every country that is broken. You asserted that if the U.S. left Iraq, it would cause a civil war. If it is the U.S.'s place to avoid civil wars within other nations, why haven't we "occupied" Sri Lanka, which has been at civil war since 1983? There is a terrorist organazation in Sri Lanka called The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam that has been banned in 32 different countries, and more than 60,000 people have died throughout the course of Sri Lanka's civil war. Who's place is it to say that a civil war within Iraq is worse than the civil war that has been ongoing in Sri Lanka for 24 years? The answer is no one's, especially not ours.
SOURCES:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5249.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ltte.htm
http://eelam.com/
Hawkeye,
I am not here to counter your argument. I'm just trying to clear up a misunderstanding about my teacher Ms. Benny (although she can defend herself, thats for sure, but I'm in a blogging mood right now.) I am a pro-war student in her class and feel that maybe you just don't know the whole story. That's not your fault because you really don't know any of us, and we don't know you.
Anyway, let me start off by saying that I completely agree with everything you said in your argument and I think it's great. The reason you are seeing so many anti-war comments is because Ms. Benny has many more anti-war students this year (trust me, I know) and you were a suggested pro-war blog for all the anti-war students. (Isn't it great to be popular?) All the pro-war students are off somewhere posting on the anti-war blogs. Ms. Benny is definitely anti-war, and isn't afraid to show it, but you don't have to agree with her to get a good grade. We had this discussion in class because of the many misunderstandings. I am a pro-war student and had F's on my first couple papers, but so did all the anti-war students. The point of her harsh grading was to help us strengthen our arguments. I've been getting A's now due to the fact that I got rid of the stupid mistakes that made my argument weaker, not because I changed my standpoint. I wouldn't have, even if it meant my grade. I'm sure all the students here believe in what they're written. Ms. Benny is a hard teacher and she voices her opinions, but she encourages us on a daily basis to do so for ourselves as well.
Hope this clears up everything.
Hawkeye,
You said...
Ask yourselves why democracy around the world is such a bad thing. Is dictatorship better? Is theocracy better? Should people be ruled by Islamic mullahs? Should people be ruled by Socialist tyrants, like Hugo Chavez? Should people be ruled by madmen like Ahmadinejad? Should people be ruled by military juntas like in Burma? Should people be ruled by Communist authoritarianism like in China? If you said yes to any of these questions, then I suggest you go live in those countries for a few years... then get back to me.
In answer to your comment...
No, I have nothing against democracy. I think that democracy(demo-kratos) which came from Greek people is GOOD.
I lived in country ruled by atheists-communists from 1962-1989
And believe me, it wasn’t pretty. My country Poland had a martial law from 1980 and was ruled by gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski who was ready to confront Russians in case of their invasion. Where was USA in that dramatic moment?
Of course you helped us with food and other supplies, thank you!
My country was in trouble and all Worlds were watching us. This is untrue that USA intervenes in every conflict on the earth. Also I don’t believe that Iraq is the most important country on the earth and needs American’s intervention.
What about UN-the World Police? Why UN not take care Iraq’s problem?
Hawkeye, I agree that we are making progress in Iraq and that it may be to soon to pull out because we have gained land and made peace in some places that would be taken back over by Al-Qaeda. You make some really good points about being in Iraq that I have never considered. However, your claim that we need to stay in Iraq to fix it is ludicrous. Have you ever heard the quote “give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he’ll eat forever.” Well we have been trying to establish a democracy and Iraq really seems hesitant about pulling it all together. Yes they have agreed to elections and are trying to establish a democracy, but no one can seem to get along. Are they going to lean on us forever? Are we ever going to be able to leave Iraq? Every country has their problems, including the US (we have a ton), but that does not mean that it is our job to police the world and decide who needs us. We are not better than anyone else. It is not fair to the innocent people who are dying daily over there and it is not fair for the United States to literally be paying for it. It cost 330 million dollars a day. If you don’t believe that check this site out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx6YbNYaINU. But like I said before, you have some really good points, I personally just don’t agree with a few, especially us staying there because we have to fix it.
USA News
11/4/07, 8:05 PM EDT
U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,850
11/4/07, 7:25 PM EDT
Message Boards now!
U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,850
Published: 11/4/07, 7:25 PM EDT
By The Associated Press
(AP) - As of Sunday, Nov. 4, 2007, at least 3,850 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes eight military civilians. At least 3,131 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
The AP count is 10 higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Friday at 10 a.m. EDT.
The British military has reported 171 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, South Korea, one death each.
I agree with your opinion that we are not ready to leave Iraq, nor are the Iraq’s ready for us to leave them. While I do agree that the U.S. needs to do what it can to aid other countries in there fight for freedom. We also can not charge into every oppressed nation around the world, and force our ideas on them. The U.S. can not be expected to fix problems of other countries around the world, especially when Iraq was not even ready to help its self.
I do have to argue with the point you made about al Qaeda being in Iraq. I believe there is no Iraq/ 9/11 connection! When al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, that was no excuse for us to put a huge target on Iraq, because al Qaeda and Iraq have no connections with one another. Even now that we have been in there, and done our so called jobs we have found nothing to even indicate they have WMD.
Hawkeye,
With respects for your beliefs and values on America's engagement with Iraq, I must disagree with you on almost every point. First of all, you are saying that we need to be in Iraq for our own safety. You are basically assuming that had we not invaded Iraq, Iraq would have invaded us. With what army? How in the world was Iraq a threat to the United States? Oh yeah, they could have sent nuclear and biological weapons ACROSS THE ATLANTIC OCEAN and killed untold millions. But you see there is just one problem there: Saddam didn't have any WMDs. By using the WMD argument to justify the war, you are assuming that the Bush administration was truthful with the American public when it asserted that Iraq had WMDs and was capable of using these weapons to kill Americans. In fact, in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 2003, President Bush claimed, "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein has the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agents. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials." Yet on December 18, 2005, almost three years after making the claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he could use on the United States, Bush admitted in an address to the nation, "[W]e found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, but we did not find those weapons… It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." Now how can you tell me that the Bush administration is credible?
I also have to disagree with your assertion that Iraq was harboring al-Qaeda terrorists. This was yet another false pretense that the Bush "regime" used to get the american "sheeple" to support an unjust war. Cheney himself admitted in a press statement that there were no al-Qaeda cells in Iraq. In fact, al-Qaeda did not show up in Iraq until AFTER we invaded the country.
You claim that you are not making the assumption that there is a connection between Saddam and 9/11, yet you compare the reasons for us going to war with Iraq with the same reasons for us getting into WWII: we were attacked by the foreign invaders. You are saying that because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, it was right for us to go to war. Now you are saying that because of the 9/11 attacks, it is right for us to go to war. By making this comparison, you ARE assuming that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, which is completely false. On March 19, 2004, Bob Graham, former Chairman of the Select Intelligence Committee, stated in an interview with Larry King, "As former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I can tell you there's no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any role in September the 11, and there's scant evidence that there was any serious contacts [with Al Qaeda]."
I enjoyed reading your ignorant remarks about my professor's bias and "liberal anti-war rhetoric". Unless you attend college, let the educated students who are actually IN the class make their own judgements about the teacher (who, by the way, ROCKS). Nobody cares about what you think about our class. We are happy to be receiving a college education. Too bad you can't enjoy the same pleasure so you have to instead do your little blog-bashing.
Leah M
So you are saying that US troops have to be there inorder for the Iraqis to have a working police force and a working government?
Well I do believe that Iraq already had a working police force and government before we got there. It was when we showed up that everything got messed up. Was it not us that came in and distroyed towns, cities, and a whole government system? Now we are trying to rebuild a systematic government that the Iraqis are unfamiliar with.
Maybe if we never put our nose where it does not belong we would not have to be dealing with the shit that we are in. We, the United States, believe that it is our job to be the go to guy, the world police of all. Why are we trying to help a country that clearly does not want us there, when our very own is on the verge of a break down?
Your argument for staying in Iraq is quite convincing, but on the contrary, too many of our soldiers have died fighting this war. The U.S. needs to withdraw in order to bring our troops home. James Dao, of the New York Times reported, “it took 18 months to reach 1,000 dead, it has taken just 14 to reach 2,000.” Two years have passed since and now we are up to almost 4,000. My concern is (I’m sure you will agree) at what cost will we finally withdraw. While many take the sympathetic route for the Iraqi people and thus feel we should stay in Iraq, my reply is we need to get a humanitarian effort together to help the Iraqis, but only after their civil war has ceased, the death toll of Iraqis diminishes, and the acts of insurgence have become less frequent. The Iraqi people are the only ones that can resolve this conflict. This administration’s foreign affairs policy, aka conquer or be conquered, has cost too many lives already…its time for our loved ones to come home.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/international/middleeast/26deaths.html
Hawkeye,
I think that you make some very good points in this blog, but I must also disagree with the "superhero" assumption you seem to be making. The United States is not the world police, and shouldn't ever be. We can't force our own laws and opinions on another government. I think that simply goes against everything this country was founded upon.
Anonymous
You said... "Unless you attend college, let the educated students who are actually IN the class make their own judgements... We are happy to be receiving a college education. Too bad you can't enjoy the same pleasure so you have to instead do your little blog-bashing."
FYI, I have been to college twice and have 2 degrees, thank you.
Wieslawa,
You said... "What about UN-the World Police? Why UN not take care Iraq’s problem?"
Good question. I wish they would, but they can't and they won't. They are not strong enough. They are not organized enough. They don't have the will to do it.
Kelly L,
Thanks for the input. I'm glad to hear you are doing well in class. Keep up the good work.
Hawkeye, your blog points some great ideas to stay in iraq. Yet, the idea of assuming it is our job, as the U.S., to export democracy to Iraq is disagreeable. Our troops are not trained to force and maintain democracy over in Iraq. The United States does not need to babysit Iraq and decide for them. Furthermore, Iraq's culture very much different than our culture. As a result, democracy may not be a suitable government for them. In conclusion, I say it is best to allow Iraq to decide for its own by choosing their a government that works best for their culture.
Hawkeye,
You failed to respond to my post. I would love to hear your defense for your own accusasions.
Hawkeye, you made the statement, "Sorry, but if you didn't notice, it's NOT someone else's war. It's OUR war. Whose war do you think it is? France's? Belgium's? Germany's?" Umm.... the answer is "None of the above". It is IRAQ's war. It is THEIR problem. They are in a civil war, and our troops are caught in the middle of it. They need to come home.
Hawkeye, you bring up some thought provoking points as to why America should stay in Iraq, but I respectfully disagree with the assumption that we should stay to prevent potential sectarian civil war. We are not the world police. We entered the war under false premise (WMDs & 9/11 connection) now we should stay to avoid a secular civil war. These peoples have been in conflict for years, what makes us the 'big dog' to stop the fighting. It is not our country. We cannot take it upon ourselves to regulate another nation. Or force upon our ideals or way of thinking. As a superpower in the world we can offer assistance to those who are aiming for positive principles and standards. Thus, America cannot situate itself every and anyplace there might possible be a conflict.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Still no response... sigh... you disappoint me.
Dear Hawkeye,
I found your article very compelling and interesting. It really made me think about my position and stance on the war. I agree with you on the fact that we are making MUCH NEEDED progress in Iraq; however, I respectively disagree with you on some issues.
-I don’t believe that it is the United States of America’s job to go into Iraq and act as the world police. What gives us the right to go into a foreign country and bestow our beliefs on those who don’t even want us there in the first place? It is not our job to go in and clean up other people’s mistakes. America’s first priority should be ourselves. We should look after our own best interests above anything else.
-Going to Iraq has costs hundreds lives and has given us nothing back in return. Although I agree with you that we should not pull out of the Iraq War now, (because we have to finish what we started and pulling out will just make more problems), there was never any real reason to start a war with Iraq in the first place.
I enjoyed reading your article and i hope i didn't offend you in any way.
I'm not comfortable with you assuming that not only Iraq and the UN want the US to remain in Iraq, but also that it is even our responsibility. I understand your claim that the Iraqi prime minister came to the UN and asked US to not pull troops out at this time and cause chaos, but who has ever declared US military the world police? Out of 192 countries in the UN you are trying to claim that ours is solely responsible for the restoration of Iraq defense policies. If Iraq needs to be helped, why is it America's responsibility?
Another claim you make about Europe and Iraq's neighbors wanting us to stay bothers me. I recognize that their is a problem in Iraq as well as most the people in this world, but Europe and Iraq's neighbors are ultimately just thinking... "Well, if America is busy trying to help them, we won't have to fool with America or Iraq."
I also thing your reason about betraying the US troops is completely bogus. You are subsequently stating that it is better to stay in Iraq because we wouldn't want all the families with lost loved ones to think it was for nothing... What about all the families that WILL lose loved ones before the war ends? If we pull out now we could save the lives that haven't been lost yet.
And... your "chance for success" is exactly that, just a mere CHANCE. So, taking the higher risk of losing more soldiers and wasting more money is nothing compared to the minor chance America has to actually help Iraq... But like I stated earlier... Who declared America the world police?
Your argument is very thought provoking, however, I disagree with your assumption that the United States is the world police. Why is the U.S. always the one who has to do all the dirty work? It is our responsibility to protect our country. We are not responsible for protecting other countries. The U.S. should not be allowed to do anything it pleases. Invading foreign countries for false reasons is unacceptable. Some would say it is abuse of power. In your reasons for staying in Iraq you wrote of many people who want us to stay there. Well, we are not the world police and it is not our duty to work out everyone else's problems. We have enough problems of our own and need to concentrate on fixing our own country.
You assume that you are the world police, but why haven't you went over to Iraq.
P.S. Iam a african american
Mary,
Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad you found my article "compelling and interesting". Most of all, I'm glad it made you think. That's what it was meant to do. And don't forget that this article was written several months ago, and we have made much more progress in Iraq since then. Regarding your disagreements, please recognize that as I respond, I am doing so in a polite and intelligent manner. I hope you will not think I am angry, sarcastic, or otherwise emotional in any way. OK? (:D)
Many people share your opinion that the United States should not act as the "world police". And regardless of my own personal opinion on the subject, nowhere in the article did I suggest that it is the responsibility of the U.S. to act as the world's police force. Nowhere in the article did I suggest that the reason we went into Iraq was because we were acting as the world's police force. Nor did I suggest that a reason we should stay in Iraq is because we are the world's police force. That concept of the U.S. acting as the "world's police force" is a subject which you (and many other commenters here), have repeatedly brought up. [If my suspicions are correct, this concept was one of the topics of discussion in the curriculum at a certain University of West Florida.]
As a practical matter, when commenting on a blog article, it is best to concentrate on the facts presented in the article, rather than talking about a concept that is not presented or defended by the author. To do so diminishes your comment to the category of an unsubstantiated, judgmental opinion which bears no relationship to the text at hand. This is a mistake that is made quite frequently by "trolls" who hang about certain blogs merely to cause trouble, and I'm sure that an intelligent person like yourself would not want to be found in such company.
You asked: "What gives us the right to go into a foreign country and bestow our beliefs on those who don’t even want us there in the first place?" Well, my answer can be found right there in the article: "whether you agree or disagree that U.S. involvment in Iraq was the right thing to do, it makes no difference... we are there now. The time for debating our entry into the Iraq war is over. We simply cannot go back in time and change history."
Again, as a practical matter, when commenting at a blog, it is a good idea to avoid discussing a subject which the author has specifically stated is off-limits, or is not worth discussing. Again, it diminishes your comment by suggesting that: a) you did not read the article and are only commenting to make yourself heard, b) you did read the article but just didn't "get it", or c) you did read the article and could care less what the author said. In other words, you look: a) pompous, b) dumb, or c) discourteous. And since I know that you are none of the above, I hope you will appreciate my efforts to illuminate these things.
You said: "America’s first priority should be ourselves. We should look after our own best interests above anything else." I find your statement to be quite disheartening. As a Christian, my value system is apparently much different from your own. My faith tells me...
"I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think." --Romans 12:3
"Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. --John 15:13
You also said: "Going to Iraq has costs hundreds lives and has given us nothing back in return." I would have to disagree with that statement. First of all, I think that history will look much more favorably on Iraq than we see it today. We are too close to it right now, but when we look back at it, we will remember with pride that: 1) We deposed a cruel dictator, who was a murderer and an eco-criminal. 2) We liberated 27 million Iraqis and gave them an opportunity for self-governance. 3) We officially ended the 1991 Gulf War, which was still in a state of "cease-fire" until March 2003 when we entered Iraq. 4) We eliminated any possibility that Saddam would acquire weapons of mass destruction, or that he would harbor or give support to terrorists. 5) We fought al-Qaeda on foreign soil rather than here at home. 6) We have dealt al-Qaeda a serious blow, not only militarily, but to their prestige around the world. 7) We have helped bring about reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites who have been feuding ever since Saddam Hussein took power in 1979. 8) We have created the possibility for a stable Iraq which will be an American ally in the war on terror.
Finally you said: "I enjoyed reading your article and i hope i didn't offend you in any way." Allow me to reassure you that I was not offended in the slightest way, Mary. And hopefully nothing I said offended you either. I am only trying to provide you with constructive feedback.
Good luck and thanks for sharing your thoughts.
gnp2,
Please read my response to Mary's comment (just above). The "world police" issue is your assumption, not mine.
Britney,
Please read my response to Mary's comment (just above) regarding the "world police" issue.
You said: "but why haven't you went over to Iraq." I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. I'm 55 years old, and therefore too old to enlist in the armed forces. I also have a full-time job working 5-1/2 days a week, so it's not easy to just jaunt over there, even though I'd like to.
You also said: "P.S. Iam a african american". I'm not sure exactly what that has to do with anything, but thank you for sharing that. Although I have managed only a small department in my company, I have hired many African Americans, as well other minorities over the years... if that means anything.
KKC11,
As I respond to your comments, please be aware that I not being angry or sarcastic in my responses. I am merely defending my positions, and hope you will accept my comments on an intellectual level. OK? (:D)
I'm not comfortable with you assuming that not only Iraq and the UN want the US to remain in Iraq, but also that it is even our responsibility.
It is not an "assumption", it is a "fact". I'm sorry if the truth makes you uncomfortable, but the truth does that sometimes. Americans are great at denying their responsibilities and obligations, but covering one's eyes and ears to them does not make them go away. It only means that we are not facing them.
who has ever declared US military the world police?
Please read my response to Mary above regarding this issue of the "world police".
Out of 192 countries in the UN you are trying to claim that ours is solely responsible for the restoration of Iraq defense policies.
Not at all. I never said that anywhere in the article. Please do not try to put words in my mouth. I actually believe that every democratic nation in the world has a responsibility to help Iraq become a stable self-governing nation. But since very few of those 192 countries seem willing to assist us, we cannot simply ignore reality and allow chaos to reign.
Also, I think you need to fully consider the ramifications of your statement. Do you imagine that if the U.S. pulled out immediately those other 192 nations would run in to do the job? I hardly think so. They would merely continue to complain and bad-mouth the U.S. (some countries are very good at that). In their opinion no matter WHAT we do, it is wrong.
If Iraq needs to be helped, why is it America's responsibility?
Please read the article again, find the answer to your question and report back to me. It's in there.
Another claim you make about Europe and Iraq's neighbors wanting us to stay bothers me.
Again, I am sorry that you are bothered by the truth. I'm not making this stuff up. I have provided links to document my statements.
Europe and Iraq's neighbors are ultimately just thinking... "Well, if America is busy trying to help them, we won't have to fool with America or Iraq."
There is some truth to your statement. Europeans and Iraq's neighbors are more than happy to have us deal with the problem. In their defense, some of them can legitimately claim that they objected to our going into Iraq in the first place. This merely provides more support for my claim that America is ultimately responsible for "cleaning up any mess we made".
I also thing [sic] your reason about betraying the US troops is completely bogus.
If you talk to the troops, you will find that it is hardly "bogus". They feel very betrayed by people such as yourself who oppose their mission and their success without having any knowledge of what is happening on the ground in Iraq. I can provide links if you wish.
What about all the families that WILL lose loved ones before the war ends?
A tragedy to be sure. The death of anyone by violence is sad, especially when it is our best and brightest. But terrorism must be stopped, and it will never be stopped unless it is faced head-on. Radical Islamic terrorists who are unwilling to see reason will only continue to use violence in an effort to intimidate and bully. They want to establish a "Caliphate", and will not yield to anything but a superior force.
And if we are successful in Iraq (as it now appears we will be), then we will have dealt a serious blow to al-Qaeda. The world will be a safer place for everybody, and the sacrifice of our men and women will not have been in vain. The position you advocate GUARANTEES that their lives will have been wasted. My position is optimistic. Yours is pessimistic. My position believes in the hope of success. Yours is a position of gloom-and-doom, and guarantees only failure.
If we pull out now we could save the lives that haven't been lost yet.
You seem to forget that the job of the military is to "go into harm's way", and that we have an all-volunteer military. A significant portion of those who now serve in Iraq volunteered for service following 9/11, and many even volunteered after we entered Iraq five years ago. They knew full well when they volunteered that they would most likely serve in a dangerous war zone. It is not the job of the American people or the Congress to "protect" our soldiers from danger. If we are protecting the soldiers, then who will be protecting us?
And... your "chance for success" is exactly that, just a mere CHANCE.
It is now more than just a "mere CHANCE". It is a very good chance, and I am cautiously optimistic that it is more like a "probability". I can cite plenty of sources, but for starters I would read the articles HERE, HERE, and HERE.
I should also point out that there is concrete proof that reconciliation is happening among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Also, the Iraqi Parliament has been having success passing the "benchmark" legislation that the U.S. Congress has been looking for. In fact, at one point in time very recently, the Iraqi parliament had introduced and passed more legislation than the U.S. Congress did for the same time period. Links available upon request.
So, taking the higher risk of losing more soldiers and wasting more money is nothing compared to the minor chance America has to actually help Iraq
I will reiterate that it is no longer a "minor" chance for success. Success there has been very real and palpable. If we are in fact succeeding, then we are not "wasting money", and the risk is worth the very real reward of: dealing a serious blow to al-Qaeda, creating a stable democracy in the Middle East, and having a friend and ally in the war on terror.
Thank you for reading the article and sharing your thoughts.
You have no backing for your warrant! The reasons you give for staying in Iraq are pure opinion-based... and STUPID! How does anyone know it isn't all made up?
Your view point on the Iraq War is interesting and very informative. However, I must disagree on your point of view and reasons for staying in Iraq. The American military should have not entered Iraq in the first place for Saddam Hussein was not the reason at all for our so called "war on terror," but Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda alone was the cause. Going into Iraq started a war that was unneccessary and cost countless of American lives for no reason whatsoever. Staying in Iraq will only allow the death toll of "our" soldiers, not Iraq military, to continously rise.
kristycrowley,
There, there now. No need to blow a gasket. You said...
You have no backing for your warrant!
I provided links to articles which supported many of my statements. Did you read them?
The reasons you give for staying in Iraq are pure opinion-based... and STUPID!
Well, I certainly have my opinions (and so do you). Apparently your opinions do not agree with mine. But to say that my reasons are "pure" opinion-based is not correct. If I provide a link to an article, then it is not merely based on opinion, but on facts. (unless of course the article quoted is itself pure opinion). But in this case I tried to stay away from opinion pieces.
And to suggest that my opinions are "stupid" without providing any examples of why they are "stupid" is simply name-calling. Try a more rational approach next time.
Thanks for reading though.
Darkangel,
Thank you for your comment. You said...
The American military should have not entered Iraq in the first place for Saddam Hussein was not the reason at all for our so called "war on terror," but Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda alone was [sic] the cause.
Your statement is technically correct when you say that Al-Qaeda and its leadership were the sole cause of 9/11, and hence the "war on terror". Nevertheless, the conclusion you draw from this fact (i.e., that "the American military should have not entered Iraq in the first place") is in error.
In fact, in my opinion, your statement is a "non sequitur". In other words, it does not follow to say that Al-Qaeda caused the "War on Terror", therefore going into Iraq was wrong.
I should remind you that in my article, I began with these words... "whether you agree or disagree that U.S. involvment in Iraq was the right thing to do, it makes no difference... we are there now. The time for debating our entry into the Iraq war is over.
However, it can be argued quite logically that the "GLOBAL War on Terror" was indeed a perfect basis for our entry into Iraq.
You may recall that President Bush in his State of the Union speech in 2002 (shortly after 9/11) labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea an "axis of evil". Iraq he said, was among those "regimes that sponsor terror". He said our "goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies". He also said "these regimes pose a grave and growing danger". He said "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons". And he was applauded.
LOL TERRORISM IS AWESOME LOL I HOPE TERRORIST IDK RAEP YOUR MOM FOR LIKE TEN HOURS. ROFL ROFL
LOL YOUR COMMENTS R FRAIL. ALL REPUBLICANS ARE LIKE SUPER GHEY!!!11one! NO BLOOD FOR OIL UNLESS ITS BLACK PEOPLE'S BLOOD.
LOL DO YOU WEAR GIRLS PANTS SOMETIMES? BECAUSE PEOPLE WITH MUSTACHES ARE GHEY, AND GHEY PEOPLE WEAR GIRL PANTS.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home