Why can't America pull out now?

Are the new Iraqi police and army so inept that the US is unable to pull out right now?

The insurgents tactics aren't likely to change minus a US presence - plus, it may give the soon-to-be-elected Iraqi government and military more legitimacy to not have us there.

Sure, we could leave the Iraqis equipment and weapons, perhaps some military commanders. But why are we needed there anymore?

It's not as if the insurgents are a massive army - they're just guys that run around and set off bombs and throw grenades and fire mortars at buildings.

It seems highly unlikely that the insurgents have better weapons, training, or funding then the Iraqis. What is the problem??

Heck, these Iraqis are defending their country from traitors. They should have the heart to win, no?

iraqis are the insurgents if you haven�t noticed. And you can�t bail out now after you have trashed the place and started chaos...Besides you would lose all the oil youre after.
-ap

If most Iraqies were insurgents we wouldnt be in Iraq anymore there is now way they could stop 20 million insurgents.

I think we have to stay atleast until a goverment is put into place of the one we took out. We also have to help in the rebuilding of the stuff we blew up.

Nation building is not something that you can do quickly.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I think we have to stay atleast until a goverment is put into place of the one we took out. We also have to help in the rebuilding of the stuff we blew up.

Nation building is not something that you can do quickly.

Okay - elections Jan 30th, two months to set up, so March 31st, we begin sending the majority of US troops home.

I agree that we should help rebuild - we will foot most of the bill, while average Iraqis do the reconstruction - thus we've created jobs and mobilized the Iraqi communities, and they can have the joy of using their own hands to build their future.

Peace can not be given to a population through the barrel of a gun. The violence started by the United States and coalition forces with the "Shock and Awe" campaign has yet to cease and it will never cease. At least so long as there are Iraqis fighting against their occupational force. The end conclusion is that peace will never be created with U.S. and coalition forces staying in Iraq. Not to mention that soldiers are not peace keepers. They are trained only to kill and have no ability to peacefully deal with civil unrest of this magnitude.

There has been debate as to whom is actually fighting the occupation. The coalition has blamed the violence upon the minority Sunni population despite having an incredibly visible Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, inciting a violent rebellion. I suspect there is a great deal more that we do not know about the violence in Iraq and it appears that both majority muslim populations, the Shiites and the Sunnis, are engaged in violent rebellion against their occupiers.

Since the violence has been continuous and worsening as time progresses, there is no reason to believe peace will be achieved as long as coalition armed forces remain in Iraq. The slim chance of peace comes only through complete military pullout, but we all know that is not going to happen due to our political leaders wanting to continue this tragedy. At least gas prices have gone down recently, right?

Originally posted by quango
It seems highly unlikely that the insurgents have better weapons, training, or funding then the Iraqis. What is the problem??

Heck, these Iraqis are defending their country from traitors. They should have the heart to win, no?

Not so, not so at all, sir. If they were a simple rogue outfit they should have run out of weapons and supplies long ago.

The fact is that they are well organized and well armed. Look at how they hit the other parts of Iraq while we were busy cleaning out Fallujah. They are funded and sheltered by Syria and Iran, and aided by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

And I agree that the Iraqi security forces should be farther along in their training. But the police and new military recruits have been favorite targets of these terrorists, subjected to car bombs and whatever. Which some refuse to acknowledge, still holding to the belief that the insurgency is just loyal Iraqis that target only Americans and do not purposely kill other Iraqis.:shk:

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by quango
It seems highly unlikely that the insurgents have better weapons, training, or funding then the Iraqis. What is the problem??

Not so, not so at all, sir. If they were a simple rogue outfit they should have run out of weapons and supplies long ago.

The fact is that they are well organized and well armed. Look at how they hit the other parts of Iraq while we were busy cleaning out Fallujah. They are funded and sheltered by Syria and Iran, and aided by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

I'm not saying they're running on a bare-bones budget. Just that their weapons and training likely don't compare to the US-equiped, US-funded, and US-trained Iraqis.

And let's be honest - they hit other parts of Iraq with some roadside bombs. Maybe a rocket attack and some mortar fire. That doesn't exactly take the highest amount of coordination.

Originally posted by jsobecky
But the police and new military recruits have been favorite targets of these terrorists, subjected to car bombs and whatever. Which some refuse to acknowledge, still holding to the belief that the insurgency is just loyal Iraqis that target only Americans and do not purposely kill other Iraqis.:shk:

Agreed - especially those instances where many Iraqis were found dead together. There was atleast one instance of 30-40 police all found executed, no?

That almost smells like some sort of inside job. And maybe that's a big problem - how can we know if insurgents have infilitrated the police and military?

*double post*

[edit on 21-12-2004 by quango]

Originally posted by quango
Agreed - especially those instances where many Iraqis were found dead together. There was atleast one instance of 30-40 police all found executed, no?

That almost smells like some sort of inside job. And maybe that's a big problem - how can we know if insurgents have infilitrated the police and military?

There was an article recently about infiltration. A police officer of some rank was caught stealing attack plans and giving them to the enemy. I can't remember the exact details - I'll see if I can find it.

We technically can pull out, but to do so would be to admit failure and it would also leave Iraq in a state of civil war. In my personal opinion we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we stay, we will continue to incur losses while the insurgents re-organize and become stronger, but if we leave then Iraq will be a breeding ground for not only domestic terrorists but international ones as well.

I think the best thing we can do stragegy wise is to train the Iraqi troops to a level comparable to American Army infantry and actually equip them with operational equipment. This won't produce large numbers of Iraq security personnell but the quality will be there and that's what matters. We should build major bases in Iraq much like we have in Turkey and South Korea for example to maintain a presence in the country and gradually develop the Iraqi military. But there is so much more to the problem than what I addressed, I recognize that, but it's the start to an idea.

Originally posted by quango
Okay - elections Jan 30th, two months to set up, so March 31st, we begin sending the majority of US troops home.

I agree that we should help rebuild - we will foot most of the bill, while average Iraqis do the reconstruction - thus we've created jobs and mobilized the Iraqi communities, and they can have the joy of using their own hands to build their future.

That's a good timeline to start a massive reduction of troops with a full pullout by the end of 2005.

I also think the US should foot the bill for rebuilding but unfortunately they aren't putting that much forward.
$18 billion was allocated to reconstruction but almost $4 billion of that was diverted to security, debt relief and democracy programs.

The majority of the burden of paying for rebuilding is going to be put on the shoulders of the Iraqis.

[edit on 21-12-2004 by AceOfBase]

OK look at it this way, every anti US potential terrorist will be thinking ....


The US ....

settled for a draw in Korea
got whipped at Vietnam
Fled Lebenon
ran from Somalia...

and now ...

... beaten in Iraq?

not a good look.....

be a wonderful incentive for every crackpot and wacko religious political group...

Islamics already see americans as weak and unable to suffer losses. Want to prove them true and incite more?

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Netchicken]

I don't think staying and killing muslim extremists, or at least alleged muslim extremists is going to go over very well either.

You could also look at the situation and note that the U.S. is highly dependent upon the rest of the world for its well being having such a huge and ever growing trade deficit. If a country so dependent upon others for its survival alienates itself from the rest of the world, how can it survive? The invasion/occupation of Iraq is seen fairly universally as a negative subject and with the dearth of evidence of Iraq being a threat in the first place, it looks downright criminal to many to continue this farce.

Should the U.S. continue to stick in there for issues of "pride" or nebulous security issues, or would it be better to stay and have the rest of the world that keeps it on life support be given more reasons to pull the plug?

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Frith]

Originally posted by beretboy22
We technically can pull out, but to do so would be to admit failure and it would also leave Iraq in a state of civil war. In my personal opinion we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we stay, we will continue to incur losses while the insurgents re-organize and become stronger, but if we leave then Iraq will be a breeding ground for not only domestic terrorists but international ones as well.

Pulling out is not admitting failure - it is admitting that the hardest part (regime change and liberation) is done.

As to civil war - Iraq is already in a civil war, only the US is fighting the insurgents instead of the Iraqis.

Originally posted by quango
I agree that we should help rebuild - we will foot most of the bill, while average Iraqis do the reconstruction - thus we've created jobs and mobilized the Iraqi communities, and they can have the joy of using their own hands to build their future.

Yes... "Work shall set you free."
Where have I heard that before...
Oh yeah... Never mind...

As for the topic, at least the Americans have the opportunity to pull out of Iraq if they so decided, for the resistance however can only end in two ways, total victory or total defeat with no in-between. Which one do you think they are going to strive for?

The US, or more specifically the present administration went in to prove a point. They went in on the justification of WMDs (which does not exist) and addtional padding as getting rid of a mass murderer, tyrant, at the request of the Iraqi people, for world peace, democracy, etc etc

Quite apart from the fact that there are no WMDs and it seems a hell of a lot of Iraqis don't want them there and are prepared to drive them out usng the same language, ie: violence, pulling out of Iraq now would be a total disaster, both in terms of foreign and domestic policy.

It must be remembered that the UN, most of Western Europe, Russia and the most of the rest of the world were not in favour of this campaign. Even before the 1st ordinance was dropped, there were unpleasant scenes between these leaders of the so-called "free world". The "coalition of the willing" were made up of some pretty obscure nations.

The administration chose to disregard those dissenting views. Domestically, though it was obvious that the administration felt the pulse of the nation as needing to go into Iraq to kick some ass, the administration badly over-estimated their intelligence and also forgot just how fickle domestic politics can be. Another Vietnam would not happen.

Against that backdrop. There would be more damage done to the United States (on a world stage) than to the Iraqis themselves. Domestically, the administration would be also wiped out. So, pulling out is not on the cards.

Originally posted by dixon
Domestically, though it was obvious that the administration felt the pulse of the nation as needing to go into Iraq to kick some ass, the administration badly over-estimated their intelligence and also forgot just how fickle domestic politics can be.

The "pulse of the nation" is largely created by the media. Had the Bush Administration not pushed an agenda of invading Iraq, there would have been little public support.

Against that backdrop. There would be more damage done to the United States (on a world stage) than to the Iraqis themselves. Domestically, the administration would be also wiped out. So, pulling out is not on the cards.

On no! Not our reputation!

Sadly though, you are correct.

Maybe because they have a HUGE stockpile of ammo they need to get rid of before the "best use by" date expires?