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 <><