Should US Military Stay in Iraq - Essay Example

Our Military Should Stay in Iraq Most Americans now agree with what the rest of the world has known all along, that the invasion of Iraq was not in the best interest of western-Arab relations and was unquestionably illegal as defined by the International Court of Justice and the UN, the two most preeminent legal bodies on the globe. At best, the information provided to Bush was faulty, at worst his justification for war was based purely on fabrications. The alleged link between the terrorist group Al Qaeda and Iraq was referenced before the war and became the primary excuse of the Bush administration following the lack of weapons evidence. This flawed justification has since been proven to be untrue as well. However, because of the occupation of Iraq, the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda has grown in number, increased attacks worldwide and has infiltrated the borders of Iraq. The war was wrong on many fronts but withdrawing would be committing yet another wrong. Even those against the reasons the U.S. is occupying a sovereign nation, such as Rhode Island Senator Joe Biden, a democrat, admit that leaving would be a catastrophic mistake that would plunge the entire region into chaos which would ultimately heighten the chance for another terrorist attack on the U.S. The U.S. (along with its coalition of the coerced) invasion of Iraq has strengthened support for Al Qaeda in the Arab regions of the world and is the instigator of its growth but pulling forces out of Iraq too soon would not necessarily reverse this trend and would likely prompt a calamitous outcome on at least a regional and possible global magnitude. “Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq’s security forces are ready” (“No Safe Way”, 2007). The widespread civil war that would follow a premature withdrawal would likely affect neighboring countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey pulling them into a broad, regional conflict. Earlier this year, President Bush rejected a war funding bill offered by the Democratic-controlled Congress because it mandated a partial troop withdrawal beginning in October, 2007, and continuing until all U.S. military personnel in Iraq were back home by April 2008. Bush responded with a veto stating that deadlines for troop withdrawals would be “irresponsible.” The Congress soon acquiesced and approved an Iraq spending bill with ‘no strings attached.’ Even congressional democrats who are bitterly opposed to the war acknowledged that quickly withdrawing from Iraq would irreparably damage America’s long-held image of strength. This eventuality would be a political coup for Al Qaeda, as well as other terrorists groups, who could then credibly claim that the U.S. cannot back up its rhetoric with successful actions. CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen echoed the sentiments of the Bush administration by saying Iraq must not be another base of operations for Al Qaeda, that this would make this well-financed and growing terrorist organization much larger than ever. Leaving, in essence, would allow terrorism to become a much larger threat to the U.S. and western nations. (“No Safe Way”, 2007). Iraq’s neighbor Iran and Al Qaeda are predominantly Sunni Muslims. If the U.S. were to leave, the entire country would be ‘up for grabs’ dividing into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions. Militant Sunni groups would control certain areas and would quickly establish training bases and encampments from which to launch terrorist’s actions worldwide. This is the core reason that no reasonable, knowledgeable elected official is suggesting an immediate withdrawal. Political analysts insist the U.S., no matter the party of the person in the White House in 2009, will ‘get out now’ as the signs of protestors of the war implore. “Everyone wants the troops home -- the Iraqis, the U.S., the world but no one wants a precipitous withdrawal that produces a civil war, a bloodbath, nor a wider war in an unstable Mideast” according to Vietnam veteran and CNN analyst Maj. Don Shepperd who also addresses America’s image to friends and foes alike. “We do not want a U.S that is perceived as having been badly defeated in the global war on terror or as an unreliable future ally or coalition partner” (“No Safe Way”, 2007). The full-out civil war that would ensue immediately upon the departure of U.S. troops would envelope areas outside Iraq borders. Iran would accelerate its move on the southern part Iraq; Turkey is likely to resume an intense conflict in the northern region against the Kurds and in the west, Saudi Arabia would be inclined to initiate military actions to protect their interests in that region. One of Iran’s initial objectives after the U.S. vacates the region would be to take control of the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz which would severely slow the flow of oil leaving this oil-rich area of the world. “Oil prices would skyrocket, perhaps soaring from current prices of about $60 a barrel to more than $100 a barrel, with consequent rises at the gas pump” (“No Safe Way”, 2007). In addition, Iran would be ‘emboldened,’ a term borrowed from President Bush, and would hasten its nuclear aspirations. This would cause a modern-day ‘nuclear arms race’ among all countries in the Middle East, a daunting and dangerous scenario (“No Safe Way”, 2007). Those who insist on withdrawing before at least some degree of stability can be achieved are disregarding the human factor in addition to the geopolitical realities. Withdrawing now would send the region into anarchical bloodbath and would send the clear message to troops that their effort was in vain. More than 3500 have been killed, 25,000 wounded, about half of those very seriously. Leaving the mission in Iraq undone would be patently unfair to the soldiers who will know that their country did not support them. It would remind some of a war fought on foreign grounds not so long ago that was abandoned without a positive resolution. “This is what we did in Vietnam and it is the reason why some veterans are still having a hard time dealing with our actions there. It is only fair to the soldiers who are fighting so hard and those who died for a free Iraq, that we finish the job we started” (Haas, 2007). If politicians on both sides of the ideological aisle in Washington D.C. would fully commit to securing Iraq by staying until its police force and government are able to operate independent of outside assistance, Iraq will be a blueprint for democracy that the rest of the Arab regions will be compelled to follow because their respective citizens will be envious. As time passes, dictatorships will be replaced by democratic governments which will inevitably make the world a safer place. In conclusion, Iraq is in political and sectarian turmoil. U.S. troops are bogged-down in a bloody quagmire facing death, horrific bodily destruction and life-long mental issues. However, their sacrifice will not be in vain if they are allowed to accomplish the mission. To engage this war was wrong but with great patience and further sacrifice, the end-result could be viewed by future generations as well worth the terrible costs. The U.S. military is there and the only one in the world that is large enough and technologically advanced enough to effect positive changes, to bring freedom to this historically tumultuous region of the world. Works Cited Haas, Rebekah. “Why the United States Troops Should Not Leave Iraq.” Associated Content. (February 14, 2007). October 2, 2007 “No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn.” CNN. (May 3, 2007). October 2, 2007 Read More