Have you heard every single Con except for Ron Paul running for POTUS say that we should STAY in Iraq? It seems that the longest war in US history isn't long enough for them. 77% of Americans say that we have done enough and should come home. Even a large majority of Cons think we should be out of Iraq. Why are these people so attached to us staying in Iraq when even the military says we should be out? Does being against everything Obama is for and George Bush set in motion (the withdrawal date) really make anyone think that they have the best interests of the country in mind? Welcome to bizzaro world. How many people here think we should stay in Iraq and for what possible reasons?
I do not want to stay there and think Ron Paul is the only one who has it right. The current President wanted to stay in Iraq too past this year. The only sticking point was the SOFA (jurisdiction, really) for the troops we would continue to have there. Iraq wouldn't budge on the issue and that is the real reason why we are 'leaving'...really we are just turning it over to 'security contractors' (mercenaries) under the control of the State Department but we are calling it 'leaving' anyway.
I'm one who believed the decision to invade the country was a major mistake, and said so (to my family) even before the decision was publicly known. Once I saw our troops mustering into the area for the invasion, I looked to what would most likely occur as a result. I knew we could gain control of the cities relatively quickly, but expected a continuous guerilla-style counter by Iraq's troops and militias. Looking towards the time when we could successfully pull-out was more complicated, and still remains that way today, since far more variables come into play. I reasoned that we'd remain in Iraq, as an occupying force, while the country attempted to stabilize itself. Knowing the various factions would be vying for power, and waging a guerilla war against our troops, it wasn't difficult to envision a minimal ten-year occupation ...and a less than satisfactory removal of our troops sometime after that... leaving a country with severe internal power-struggles. A border with an influential Iran was also a factor, as it wasn't that hard to imagine that they'd want to *poof* with the U.S., and factions in Iraq, in order to destabilize the situation and affect the outcome more in their favor. Now, you're asking if I believe it's necessary to remain in Iraq as an occupying force. Honestly, at this point, I'm of two minds on the idea. On one hand, I realize that leaving now may be a mistake we'll regret making... if Iraq becomes even worse than it was pre-invasion under Saddam. They may begin slaughtering each other's faction (like Saddam did with the Kurds), or become aggresive towards the U.S., aiding groups like al-Qaeda, siding with Iran ...and no one wants that. On the other hand Iraq is demanding we leave, and is relatively stable. Our soldiers are dying there (I have a distant relative who died from an IED there). It's expensive, and we borrow money to fund the occupation. And we never should have invaded the country. So while I may regret the decision... I have to agree it's time to leave Iraq (and hope for the best). I'd keep a close watch on what's happening there though, and do what we can to maintain that hard-earned stability.
I think war is simply profitable to a small sector of our society and they want the gravy train to go on as long as possible. War profiteering is nothing new to this country and has played a role in just about any conflict this country has ever been in. Like they say, war is good business. It doesn't surprise me that those on the Right want to keep their wealthy donors happy by shoveling our tax dollars into a war that has no purpose and only creates more enemies. They estimated that 150,000 Iraqis died in the last 9 years. I just have to wonder how long it would have taken Saddam to kill that many Iraqis? What exactly did we get out the 9 years of war anyway? Are fuel prices lower? Do we now have a friend in the region? Is there more stability in the middle east as a result of this war? I think the answer is a resounding NO! I guess the phrase Mission Accomplished will never have the same meaning again.
Don't forget the generals in our military need their war-bonuses. After ten years most of them have retired, earning this coveted reward for their service, but there are probably a few more waiting to get their bonuses too. And the military needs wars. It needs it every so often to get those bonuses as well as to grow the product (weapons caches, new technology enhancments, etc.). Life in peace becomes too stale for the military in general. A shake-up every so often keeps the armed forces nimble... and stuffed with cash.
