An Ordinary Citizen's Questions and Answers
Photo by David Leeson 2003 © (Copyrighted)
1. Why is the U.S. in Iraq?
We are not in Iraq to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction (there are none) or to fight terrorism (al-Qaeda is located primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan). We are in Iraq because President Bush wanted to demonstrate U.S. military power and to establish a pro-American government to protect our interests in the region.
2. Can the U.S. achieve victory?
That depends on how victory is defined. If we define victory as toppling Saddam Hussein's authoritarian regime and showing that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction, we can declare victory now. If we define victory as establishing a stable democratic government that can stop the horrific level of violence, we have had little or no success and will probably never succeed.
3. How many casualties is the U.S. willing to accept?
That depends on how long we pursue a victory that is unlikely to be successful. The longer we fruitlessly pursue our current objectives, the less acceptable will be our casualties. If we recognize that Bush's war has not reduced the threat of terrorism and has not been successful in establishing a democratic government, then it is morally unacceptable to allow American deaths to climb above the more than 4,000 men and women who have already died.
4. Can U.S. troops leave safely?
It is unlikely that U.S. casualties will increase during a reasonable period of withdrawal. It is more likely that casualties will be reduced as we move our troops out of harm's way.
5. Will civil war break out after the U.S. has withdrawn?
Civil war already exists between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, between Shiite militias and Iraqi forces, and among the various Shiite militias themselves. It is only made worse by our presence, which is perceived as an occupation by all groups.
6. Will Iraq become a safe haven for al-Qaeda?
Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group run by Sunnis. The Shiite majority in Iraq is unlikely to tolerate their presence after the U.S. leaves. Iraq would not be as safe a haven for al-Qaeda as their present camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
7. Will the Shiite majority commit genocide against the Sunnis?
Shiites are already killing Sunnis now that the Shiites are in power, just as Sunnis killed Shiites when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq. It is unclear whether ethnic cleansing will increase or decrease after we leave, but our presence has not been successful in reducing that violence.
8. Can our strategic interests in the Middle East be protected if we leave Iraq?
Our supply of oil has decreased and its cost has increased because of our presence in Iraq. The situation is unlikely to worsen due to our departure. It is also widely acknowledged that we need to become much less dependent on oil whether we stay in Iraq or leave. As for our interest in protecting ourselves from terrorism, that fight can be carried out more effectively in Afghanistan where the most extreme anti-American terrorists are located.
9. Can we leave Iraq now with honor?
Admitting our mistake and withdrawing from Iraq is more honorable than continuing the war with the attendant unconscionable loss of thousands of more lives. Just as people can, countries can gain respect by honestly admitting their mistakes and correcting their course of action. We should do the right thing instead of trying to save face by pressing on.
Comments
Posted by: McKee
Posted on: May 5, 2008 12:36 PM
We could keep countering each other's points, but I think it is clear that we will probably never convert one another. You have faith that we will ultimately succeed and I don't believe we even know what we are fighting for.
Comments from other readers would be appreciated, but I don't want to cut you off John.
Posted by: John Field
Posted on: May 5, 2008 11:45 AM
Sure. Depending on ABC's polling questions and sample area, they could get those numbers. They don't seem unreasonable though. It is the Iraqi government that wishes us to stay, and if you were to ask about public opinion of Al Qaeda or Saddam's rule, I would bet most Iraqis would not like them either. And it is a good sign that less Iraqis are killing our soldiers and that refugees are returning to their homes in US controlled areas. People vote with their feet and actions. While most Americans do not support President Bush, I have not heard of flocks of people moving to Canada, nor have their been widespread calls for Impeachment. Most Americans still have faith in their security and political system. Likewise, Iraqis seem to have faith in American success judging by their support and acceptance of our military presence. Yet, monitoring Iraqi public opinion is of utmost importance for success in the region. As support slips, we should change strategies, rather than retreat. During the super bowl, did Eli Manning give up when the patriots started winning? No! He changed strategies.
Posted by: McKee
Posted on: April 30, 2008 06:32 PM
Although Iraqi public opinion is difficult to measure validly, an ABC poll in Iraq in Feb. 08 does not support your statement that Iraqis do not wish us to leave: "Indeed, on a basic level, the presence of foreign forces remains unwelcome: Just 26 percent of Iraqis support having U.S. and coalition troops in their country, up a scant 5 points [from Aug. 07]. But this doesn’t mean most favor immediate withdrawal. Well under half, 38 percent, say the United States should leave now, down from a peak 47 percent in August [an additional 35 percent say the U.S. should leave as soon as security is restored]." The ABC poll also finds that 50 percent think our invasion was wrong (49 percent say it was right). Furthermore, 79 percent do not have much confidence or have no confidence in the US. And 61 percent say the presence of U.S. forces is making security worse. Although there have been some recent improvements in opinion toward the U.S., all in all, we are not looked upon very favorably.
Posted by: John
Posted on: April 28, 2008 02:11 AM
Our purpose in Iraq is vague, yet it is certainly clear. When we went to war with Germany, was our purpose defined or clear? We are an occupying force in Iraq. But we are not an unfriendly one. The Iraqis do not wish us to leave. There are minority protests. When Bush took office more than 20 of the worlds intelligence agencies believed that Saddam Hussein was a priority for the Bush administration. The weapons inspectors also had no guarantee that Saddam did not posses left over weapons, which everyone knew he had in 98 when inspectors were there last.
Posted by: McKee
Posted on: April 26, 2008 06:57 PM
John, you are much more optimistic about how the war is going than was our commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, when he recently testified before Congress. He could not even specify what our objective is and how we would know when we had achieved it. When we invaded Iraq, weapons inspectors had no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and the Bush administration suppressed information that indicated Iraq was not trying to obtain materials for nuclear weapons. Our fight against terrorism should have been focused in Afghanistan and just across the border in Pakistan. Now American soldiers continue to die while the U.S. is widely perceived in Iraq as an occupying force.
Posted by: John
Posted on: April 25, 2008 11:25 PM
I don't know if you have been following the news recently, but we are winning the war. The Sunni's have turned against Al-Qaeda and are returning to the government, and the Shiite militias have declared a cease fire. They do not want war. The current fighting is against rogue segments of the militias separate from the Shiite leaders. The Iraqi government is using humanitarian efforts to usurp power from the militias in the slums. We are in Iraq to combat international terrorism. This is not a war against a country, but rather, against a corporation. Saddam's regime sympathized with terrorist groups and was willing to provide them with a WMD. Inspectors were unsure of whether he still possessed them or not. A UN coalition invaded his country to uphold international law and ensure that he did not wage de facto war against the developed world. To win the war the US may have to occupy the country indefinitely that is what it took to win WWII. If you remember, we still have major troop presences in both Germany and Japan.