Question 1: Your Views

Post a comment or submit your answer to Question 1 here. We'd love to hear our readers' views and we welcome your help in furthering the debate on the future of the Iraq War.

The Bloggers Debate:

Withdraw American forces from Iraq or leave them until our political goals have been achieved?

The bloggers have answered the question and it is now time for them to drop the gloves (it's Stanley Cup season) and throw some serious foreign policy punches...

Click comments to check up on this week's debate.

Withdraw Now!

To open, I do not believe the question of whether one agrees or disagrees with General Petraeus’ assessment that there is no military solution to the wide range of complicated problems can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” Instead of outright disagreeing with him – as I do believe there is an Iraqi military option to solve these same problems – I will qualify his statements in the context of the Bush administration’s goals for this mismanaged, ill-planned, and murderous venture into Iraq. General Petraeus obviously means that far more is needed than a military solution to achieve everything the Bush administration and most neo-conservative observers believe can be achieved when the final curtain has closed and America has claimed “victory” in the country. However, looking beyond the simple pipe dreams current American presidential administration (and much of Congress) propagates, it is clear to see that a military solution does exist to overcome the present and future problems facing Iraq. This solution will be planned and executed by strong-willed, ideological Iraqis who believe it is their duty to rise up against foreign elements causing trouble in their country (the American occupation included) and regain total control of their homeland. Maliki does indeed have a military solution to the problems facing him as Prime Minister. That solution is simple: by utilizing elements of the Iraq Security Force and various local militias loyal to the PM, Maliki can assert his will, bypass the broken, partisan, and dead-locked Iraqi legislature, and fight those who oppose him in the streets of Iraq. The military solution is a civil war Maliki believes he can win – mainly due to his ability to use some loyal militias he’s supposed to be disarming and the availability of American weaponry to forces loyal to him. It is currently unclear if Maliki could use force to become the next Iraq strongman, how long it would take him to consolidate total power over Iraq, and how Maliki’s rule would affect the lives of Iraqis – but it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that Maliki believes this is possible and is considering it as a legitimate solution to the problems plaguing him and his fledgling government. This program is already being carried out in a limited way against his main Shi’a opposition leader Moqtada al-Sadr. Maliki should not be viewed as the democratic vanguard of Iraq, standing strong for liberal, secular, pro-Western Iraq. The Bush administration trumpets him as such and this is surely a gross error, one of many they continue to make. To conclude, Petraeus is not incorrect in his assertion that there is no military solution in Iraq, but he makes his comment in the very limited scope of the majority of American coverage and analysis of the Iraq War. He speaks only in reference to American political goals in Iraq, disregarding the will of Iraqis and PM Maliki.

Now to the second more consequential, debatable, and pundit-attracting part of the question. I want to make my view very clear on this matter. While there does exist an Iraqi military solution to the political problems facing Iraq, the political solutions necessary to create a stable Iraq, safe for its people, with a government marginally responsible to its people cannot be achieved through further American occupation of the country. The Iraqi people and government must be given a clear timeline for withdrawal, based not on ambiguous “benchmarks” but on simple calendar dates. 90-95% of American troops must be withdrawn to achieve reasonable political and national goals in Iraq.

The reasons for unilateral withdrawal are compelling, and the facts supporting it are plentiful. A complete American withdrawal from the country will be good for the Iraqi people. Withdrawal will bring increased legitimacy to the shaky, less-than-popular Iraqi government, greater stability and “normalcy” for Iraq’s 20 million remaining citizens, decrease factional violence, undermine foreign elements operating in the country, and provide a foundation to empower democratic forces in Iraqi society. Full withdrawal will be good for the American economy, foreign policy, and standing in the world. Ending the Iraq War by returning the country to Iraqis will be righting a massive wrong and will begin to restore trust in the United States – especially in the Middle East where we need it most.

The costs of continuing this useless military venture are staggering: $10 billion, 180-200 American military personnel, and approximately 3000 Iraqis dead every month. Since the invasion in 2003 the Iraqi people have suffered their own monthly (if not bi-weekly) 9/11. Roughly 1/5 of Iraqis are either dead or exiled from their homes because of the violence caused by the invasion and subsequent occupation. There are over four million refugees and as many as 650,000 Iraqis dead. The Iraqi Security Forces are well-equipped and experienced, yet their loyalties do not lie entirely with Maliki’s government. Electricity, sewage treatment, and access to safe water are still below pre-war levels. How can the Iraqi people trust American forces to secure their country when they’ve had trouble keeping the lights on and the water running? The Iraqi parliament is no closer to passing an oil sharing law than it was four years ago. Political reconciliation is simply not happening on a scale that will bring about stable democracy in the next 15 years. The Parliament does not need to confront tough issues while American forces are in the country while the US ensures Maliki’s military supremacy indefinitely. Providing a strict timeline to end the occupation of Iraq will provide a much needed impulse to the Iraqi government and especially PM Maliki. The prospect of American troops leaving the country will force him to either a.) consolidate power where he can and try to seize the country as I have talked about previously or b.) begin political reconciliation in earnest with the opposition factions and lay the groundwork for true Iraqi democracy. I believe Maliki can be persuaded (by trade agreements, military aid, economic aid, and even the threat of sanctions) to choose the latter choice. Furthermore, withdrawal will increase the legitimacy of the Iraqi government and cause moderate Iraqis who have been hesitant to support Maliki (because of his indifference to the US occupation of his country) to rally behind him. Pursuing political reconciliation and bringing opposition factions into the government will also increase the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the Iraqi people. Maliki does not need American promises to choose reconciliation over military force. He’s simply not strong enough to seize the entire country. Withdrawing before he reaches this point will insure that democracy, no matter how fragile, will have a chance to survive.

Withdrawal of American forces will also undermine the various militias, fundamentalist religious leaders, and foreign elements (such as Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia) currently running wild in Iraq. The opposition to the American occupation has become their strongest selling point to normal Iraqis and one of the major reasons citizens are supporting these groups instead of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government appears weak, indifferent to American occupation and a puppet to the will of American foreign policy. Setting a timeline for withdrawal and the Iraqi government beginning to take a stronger stance on security (as it recently has in Basra and Sadr City) will cause moderate, nationalistic Iraqis to support Maliki instead of the militias, who will certainly be linked with the instability and violence in Iraq. The Iraqi people have had enough of this and support for these militias and leaders will wane following an American withdrawal. If the government is seen as exercising the will of Iraqis instead of the American occupiers, its strength will greatly increase. Withdrawing troops will help put this in motion.

On a related note, Arab Iraqis are now and have always been strongly nationalistic – the same cannot be generally said for Kurdish Iraqis. Just as Iraqis have fought the American occupation, so too will they fight obvious foreign influences (especially from Iran and groups like Al-Qaeda. With a strong, legitimate government to rally behind Iranian pressures can be stemmed and increasingly unpopular foreign Jihadist elements chased from the country. Continued occupation only helps Iran and foreign groups in Iraq as the populace must look to them to end the occupation instead of the American puppet government they believe is running their country. As these groups tend to be far more fundamentalist, apocalyptic, and violent than mainstream factions, religious groups, Maliki’s government, and the Iraqi people, the American occupation only increases support for fundamentalist Islam and pushes many moderate Iraqis further into the arms of the militant Islamic leaders.

Far from being only good for Iraq, withdrawal in the best option to strengthen American soft power, increase trust, and relieve the American people and economy of a massive, counter-productive burden. Occupation has undermined our power in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, decreased our ability to fight Jihadist groups where they actually are strong and able to train largely unharassed (Afghanistan and Pakistan), and strengthened Iranian influence in the region (and made it much harder to seriously press Iran and address their civilian nuclear program from a position of strength). An Iraq independent of US occupation will serve as a counter to Iranian monolithic influence in the Middle East. Ending our military venture in Iraq will increase our international standing and allow us to repair our strained relationship with our European allies and Middle Eastern friends (Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and one day Iraq) alike. Economically, $10 billion per month can be spent on a great deal else aside from occupation of a foreign country. These funds can be used at home, in Iraq to help with reconstruction (Iraqi-led reconstruction), in Afghanistan to combat Jihadist elements more effectively, to care for Iraq War veterans, and to rebuild American military forces.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for most Americans, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will make the Middle East and the United States safer. The US occupation has been the greatest recruiting tool imaginable for Jihadists because it increases funding and recruiting while reinforcing their apocalyptic, violent beliefs. These groups believe the US is out to dominate the Middle East through imperialistic campaigns (Lebanon, Iraq), and colonial ventures (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq again). These Jihadists believe the US seeks to control Middle Eastern oil and greatly weaken or destroy Islam. We are acting just as they prophesize in Iraq. They perpetuate stories to gain recruits and funding and we only help them by making every last one of their predictions come true. Advocates of continued occupation argue that, “if we don’t fight them there, we’ll be fighting them here” (in the US presumably). This is nothing more than circular logic. Foreign militants attack American forces in Iraq for the very reason that they are foreign forces occupying a Muslim country. Iraqis will stop killing Americans when Americans stop occupying and killing Iraqis. The foreign elements are the ones our intelligence community and military must keep an eye on. Currently, these fighters are attempting to kill Americans in Iraq. If Americans leave Iraq, they may try to plan attacks inside the US – that is true. But, this is no reason to indefinitely keep Americans in Iraq. Leaving Iraq and ending the occupation will undermine the funding and recruits that are pouring into these groups and in turn, make Americans safer. The argument that a withdrawal from Iraq will be viewed as a victory for the terrorists is as stupid as it is simplistic. Groups like Al-Qaeda will view their battle in Iraq as a victory whether we withdraw tomorrow or in 100 years. They mistakenly believe we are there to destroy Islam and steal Iraqi oil. If Islam is still standing when we leave (as it certainly will be), they will claim victory. As for regular Iraqis, Middle Easterners, and the rest of the world – their views will be much different.

What I am calling for is full withdrawal of all American troops as soon as humanly possible. Barack Obama says 16 months. This is too long. If possible, we should announce our intentions to leave Iraq to the current Iraqi government in as soon as 6 months (let’s shoot for Christmas 2008). We should surely retain close diplomatic, economic, and security ties to Iraq and help them to rebuild their own country through aid packages for infrastructure, economic development, and security arrangements. This is not about placing blame for faulty intelligence, the decision to go to war, the execution of policy and strategy. This is about moving on, getting out of Iraq, saving lives, saving face, restoring trust in American foreign policy and trying to salvage the best possible outcome out of a very bad situation. We must stop viewing our occupation in terms of victory and defeat – a disgusting debate – but more in terms of what can reasonably be achieved, what serves American national security, and what will help save lives (Iraqi and American).

Question #1

First and foremost, I agree with General Petraeus' statement. Alone, military occupation is not the solution to the problems in Iraq. However, I believe it to be a faction when it comes to peaceful stability within the country, and surrounding regions, of Iraq. Although the Bush Administration can be blamed for many faults involving the conduct and execution of this operation, the U.S. military should be commended for not giving into the 'bleeding heart' ideology and removing troops just to fill a leftist agenda. Personally, is General Petraeus really the 'know all' military mind? Who's to say we haven't got the wrong people in the wrong places in our military hierarchy?

First, let me respond to the idea of continued deployment. I strongly believe in the philosophy 'you broke it, you fix it.' Simply, by any means possible. For one, reputation has been tainted. International assistance should be sought. This includes low-level discussions (meaning exploratory discussions with low level diplomats, not president to president) with surrounding threats (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia). Successful use of diplomatic sanctions. U.N. assistance in human right issues. Political intervention that teaches how to govern Iraq, not how to govern like the U.S. And open policies involving the approach of the U.S. intervention in Iraqi affairs. New blood is definitely needed. However, new blood that is willing to continue the sacrifice for improvement. The key word is improvement. The left has labeled this war under the pretense of win or lose. Neither are obtainable. Improvement is the only avenue. Only one candidate acknowledges the sacrifices needed to obtain improvement. Two candidates want to regress and to expose vulnerabilities that are more and more influential to the idea of global terrorism.
Currently, there are 2.7 million displaced Iraqis caused by the development of insurgent cells and dominance over specific regions within Iraq. The U.S. military should be used to provide a stable environment for these families to move back into areas that now harbor terrorists. Unfortunately, the Iraqi military is unable to perform this task alone. Bringing the Iraqi people back into their land, safely and responsibly, can strengthen the political, economic, and military actions of the Iraqi government. Continued deployment is also needed because of recent developments involving Iran. There has been documented proof of the Iranians assisting insurgent cells within Iraq and aiding in the killing of American forces and Iraqi civilians. A withdrawal, especially rapid, would surely cause a ethnic civil war/genocide. Even the two Democratic candidates have backed away from their initial proposal of such actions. Barack Obama has said on numerous occasions that a withdrawal process would take at least 16 months and would have to be rethought if civil war or genocide resulted. Basically, it is a statement saying "OK, we made a mistake, so here is your good-bye...but we'll be back in a few minutes when everyone is killing each other." The idea is dangerous and irresponsible. Personally, I believe there are only two options to this issue. 1) Stay and improve conditions. 2) Withdrawal and never look back. There should be no talk of anything inbetween and the only logical, responsible, and moral thing to do is choice #1. In order to safeguard life, liberty, community, and security for its own citizens and for the world, the United States must demonstrate moral leadership in protecting the human rights of the most vulnerable, strengthening the rule of law in the international community, and seeking diplomatic negotiations with allies and enemies alike. Peace does not exist by itself. "Although 'peace' is something we should all strive for, it must be within a context that includes a candid reading of reality: Whether it was Hitler moving his army into the Rhineland or Napoleon taking the Spanish peninsula, if there's no one there to stop them, they'll do it. But, when it comes to the practical matter of safeguarding the peace, it's best left to people who understand that it's a fragile thing that is only maintained by military might(cc)" and diplomatic sanctions.

Second, the issue of withdrawal. Before I comment on this, I want to make it clear that the Iraqi people must be willing to cooperate and learn to protect themselves first. More should be done (on our part) regarding this avenue than any other pressing issue. Iraq cannot be saved if they do not, first, save themselves. Like I have mentioned before, this philosophy of thought (withdrawal) is dangerous and irresponsible without first knowing that Iraq is able to sustain peace and carry out government responsibilities on their own without the threat of civil war, genocide, or insurgent and terrorist influence in daily life. A withdrawal would serve what purpose? What outcome is desired from this action? Saving U.S. money? Saving U.S. lives? Admitting a mistake? Shouldn't the issue be saving Iraq and influencing Iraq to influence those countries around them? To show the oppression of human rights and democratic responsibilities that are casualties in the Middle East? Shouldn't we be thinking about the 8 year old Iraqi boy that has a life to look forward to? Withdrawal, what influence does he follow? The influence of terrorist propaganda? Or, continued deployment that gives him a chance to live on his father's and grandfathers land with the idea of living freely and safely in a region that was once dominated by despots that only thrived when taking advantage of the inferior? This is not a 7 year war (2002-2008), this is a war that will affect generations for years to come. Which road do we, as a global community, want those generations to travel? To say that insurgency is caused by our occupation is irrational. It is an even bigger dream to think that all will be fixed by pulling out U.S. troops. What rational or conclusion does that really obtain besides the image of the U.S. putting its tail between its legs?

Ryan K <><