We bring the troops home...then what?

[Plasticman]

The title is pretty explanatory but I see a lot of people on here and on a personal daily basis who are in direct opposition to the Iraq war and our continued presense there. So for all those who carry the "Support our troops, bring them home now!" banners and opinions, suppose we do just pull them out. What happens then with the war on terror (yes it is more than a bumper sticker)? What happens to Iraq? What happens to the surrounding region? Etc.?

[Gusterfell]

If we pull out of Iraq tomorrow, what happens with the "War on Terror?" It refocuses on bringing justice to the people who attacked us, namely al Qaida and the Taliban, both of which are stronger now than they were five years ago. By our pulling out, Iraq would no longer be the terrorist recruiting ground it has become under American occupation.

What happens to Iraq? most likely the current civil war continues until another strong dictatorial figure emerges that can quell the sectarian squabbling. The only thing that kept the peace in Saddam's Iraq was his secular regime's ruthless intolerance for anyone who provoked religious infighting. We are fooling ourselves if we think our presence in Iraq will do anything to stop the civil war, so why are we leaving our troops in the line of fire?

There were predictions during the Vietnam war that an American pullout would lead to a greater regional conflict. That obviously did not materialize, and I see no reason to think it would happen with a pullout of Iraq either. Most likely a pullout of Iraq would be similar to that of Vietnam: a short period of turmoil followed by a return to stability guided by neighboring countries. That's right, we should welcome the indervention of Iraq's neighbors in sorting out the mess. They understand the politics of the region far better that we could ever hope to. They understand each other, and while they may each have a different idea of what an ideal solution would look like, they are far more likely to come up with a workable conclusion than anything American outsiders could hope to achieve. Iraq's neighbors have an immidiate vested interest in a return to stability in Iraq (who wants a warzone on their doorstep?), so I predict they will work toward that goal if we let them.

[Captain Worley]

I don't think they can be pulled out without dire consequences, and I think the Democrats are beginning to see that. I have to give Bush credit for trying to get a democracy started in an area of the world that people believe isn't hospitable to the concept.

Powell said years ago that we'd be there for 5-10 years. It hasn't even been five years yet. I say give them (the Iraqis)a good shot at it. They haven't done a great job so far, but give them time.

[Plasticman]

If we pull out of Iraq tomorrow, what happens with the "War on Terror?" It refocuses on bringing justice to the people who attacked us, namely al Qaida and the Taliban, both of which are stronger now than they were five years ago. By our pulling out, Iraq would no longer be the terrorist recruiting ground it has become under American occupation.

What happens to Iraq? most likely the current civil war continues until another strong dictatorial figure emerges that can quell the sectarian squabbling. The only thing that kept the peace in Saddam's Iraq was his secular regime's ruthless intolerance for anyone who provoked religious infighting. We are fooling ourselves if we think our presence in Iraq will do anything to stop the civil war, so why are we leaving our troops in the line of fire?

There were predictions during the Vietnam war that an American pullout would lead to a greater regional conflict. That obviously did not materialize, and I see no reason to think it would happen with a pullout of Iraq either. Most likely a pullout of Iraq would be similar to that of Vietnam: a short period of turmoil followed by a return to stability guided by neighboring countries. That's right, we should welcome the indervention of Iraq's neighbors in sorting out the mess. They understand the politics of the region far better that we could ever hope to. They understand each other, and while they may each have a different idea of what an ideal solution would look like, they are far more likely to come up with a workable conclusion than anything American outsiders could hope to achieve. Iraq's neighbors have an immidiate vested interest in a return to stability in Iraq (who wants a warzone on their doorstep?), so I predict they will work toward that goal if we let them.

[Gusterfell]

Would you include Iran's wacko leader in taking part in stabilizing Iraq? This is the man who wants to destroy Israel.

[swh1972]

Iran's wacko leader is more likely to work toward a stable Iraq than our own wacko leader is.

[Raintree21]

Back to the topic at hand, what would you do with our troops when they are withdrawn from Iraq.

I would set them to work in the United States doing public works projects (many are doing that right now in Iraq) (building schools, roads, etc.) as well as civil defense projects such as securing our borders.

[Gusterfell]

I just see that they both have a different view of what they want Iraq to be in 10-15 years. Bush would like a place where you could get away with saying what you just did...

[Plasticman]

No he doesn't. That bit of neocon propaganda has been so thoroughly refuted that even the Bush administration hasn't repeated it in over a year. Do some research before you start making wild accusations.

Iran's wacko leader is more likely to work toward a stable Iraq than our own wacko leader is.

[monsoon]

Tell that to the thousands and thousands who were tortured by Saddam and his kids.

....

[monsoon]

This thread was closed because it was a duplication of this thread. If you want to discuss this topic please do it in that thread but don't repeat the arguments that have already been made.