Soldiers

[obviousman]

I was wondering if many Americans like me supported the War. But now I feel like Americans have over stayed their welcome. Our soldiers are not policemen. We didn't have to leave our soldiers in to patrol post war Japan and that worked out good. I mean all its doing is giving terrorist targets. The only reason you need troops in another country after a war would be to colonize it. Force is needed to get a tyrant out, but to use force would be to put one back in. Do our soldiers and the Iraqi's a favor and bring our soldiers home.

 

[jimnyc]

I support the war and their continued efforts. I think everyone will agree we would prefer to have the soldiers home and under different circumstances. They got rid of the leader and his regime, but force is still necessary to maintain that they don't retun. Also, leaving now while the country is in disarray would be disastrous.

 

[jimnyc]

By the way - Welcome to the board, Mr. Obvious!

 

[janeeng]

It's just a shame to have to send even more in though - if I read correct it said another 86,000 GI's heading to Iraq or being called upon. I agree with you both, yes, I believe we were there for other reasons than OIL, and yeah, I kinda feel it's time to get the soldiers out, but Jim is right about it being disastrous if we did! I sometimes feel that too if countries want to live the lives of killing one another and not having any freedom, then stay out and let them do just that, kill one another, but what would that make us then?

and welcome to the board obviousman!

 

[lilcountriegal]

Well... so far its unanimous then. I hate listening to the news and hearing the casualties, etc. I would love to have our soldiers all home with their families (especially coming up on the holidays). I do, however, believe that wouldnt be a good thing to do. The minute we step out of that country, Saddam would be back in power and it would just be a vicious circle. We need to finish the job this time. I support(ed) George Bush, Sr. during his entire Presidency, however, I think we left too early the first time. I think we need to bite the bullet and stay over there to make sure the job is done right this time.

and Janeen: the call-ups of the new troops (I believe) are just a "shift change" of sorts. They are bringing more home from Iraq than they are sending back... this is more a "fresh supply" than adding to the numbers already there.

Welcome to the Board Mr. Obvious!

 

[janeeng]

Thanks for that lil, I wasn't sure, I thought that's what was going on - either way, agree with you 100%

 

[obviousman]

What about Japan after WWII. We didn't leave troops over there. We got the Communist dictator and his leaders out. To be honest I don't know exactly the process for restoring Japan, but we did not leave troops over there. I just think we could try to implement that plan. Unless its totally different from Iraq.

 

[eric]

Not to mention if we left now it would look to the world like a repeat of vietnam. Make it tuff on the Americans and they pull out.
This does not send a good message to the world.

War should be choosen after exhausting all diplomacy, but once commenced it needs to be followed till its objectives are met.

 

[NightTrain]

Japan wasn't a communist government during WWII, they had an Emperor / God, Hirohito. In 1946, he publicly renounced his divine status, much to the shock of the Japanese populace.

After Japan's unconditional surrender, we did indeed maintain a military force there, rounding up war criminals, rebuilding and restoring order to the country, while introducing a pacifist democracy that is one of the leading economies to this day.

IMHO, to pull out of Iraq now would defeat one of the main objectives of the war in the first place - to introduce a liberal democracy to a region plagued with medieval governments and human rights abuses.

We would lose the confidence placed in our word as a nation by not finishing the job. If we did pull out of Iraq now, we may as well shut down the borders and embrace an isolationist stance & let the world do as it will - and I really don't think isolationism is a viable option in this day and age.

 

[Mark K]

What about Japan after WWII. We didn't leave troops over there.

We have a large permanent military force stationed in Japan today. The island of Okinawa, among others, is virtually one long US combined-forces base. I was there for a year in '83. Essentially we told Japan at the end of the war that we would guarantee the defense of their country, and for them to only worry about rebuilding non-militarily. It actually seems to have worked out well in this particular case. There are occasional large protests/demonstrations by students, mostly peaceful, against US bases being in Japan. But they mainly seem to be aimed more at the principle of a US presence in their country, and not at all any ill will towards Americans as people.
As far as Iraq goes, I feel that what is done is done, and had to be done, Hussein really left no options. Or I should say he let them expire. As long as we don't let this war stagnate I honestly feel things will work out for us, and I really wish the Iraqi people a government they are content with. (hell, nobody is happy with their government) You never know when a good strong tree will take root on a barren cliff.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by obviousman
I was wondering if many Americans like me supported the War. But now I feel like Americans have over stayed their welcome. Our soldiers are not policemen. We didn't have to leave our soldiers in to patrol post war Japan and that worked out good. I mean all its doing is giving terrorist targets. The only reason you need troops in another country after a war would be to colonize it. Force is needed to get a tyrant out, but to use force would be to put one back in. Do our soldiers and the Iraqi's a favor and bring our soldiers home.

Interesting - I opposed the war but now I want the US to send more troops to rebuild the country, especially more engineers and medics. Since you supported the war, might I ask, just what did you think would happen once Bagdhad fell? If you look at targets of Iraqi hatred, they seem to be divided between two main targets: Saddam and the USA. We were taking one of them out of the picture, and putting the other one on every street. So unless there's some magical way to make Iraqis like America, how can we invade and then expect a cheery departure six months later, leaving behind a pro-American democracy?

 

[obviousman]

I supported the war for the simple fact that we can't trust Sadam or Al-Quaeda. More Americans have been killed after the "war" then before it. Their so vulnerable now just walking around like policeman that any radical anti-American Muslim believing in the proclaimed Jihad can kill with a grenade or even 1 bullet. The post-war efforts in Iraq are failing miserably. Iraqi's are never going to accept a government set up by Americans. Our best bet would be to equip as many Iraqi's as it would take to govern themselves. The reality is though the Middle East is in a state of chaos and outsiders can't help it. We would have to lock up every terrorist and every radical muslim, but for diplomatic reasons we won't do that. Now we don't have a centralized enemy now we have a bunch of seperate groups.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by obviousman
I supported the war for the simple fact that we can't trust Sadam or Al-Quaeda. More Americans have been killed after the "war" then before it. Their so vulnerable now just walking around like policeman that any radical anti-American Muslim believing in the proclaimed Jihad can kill with a grenade or even 1 bullet. The post-war efforts in Iraq are failing miserably. Iraqi's are never going to accept a government set up by Americans. Our best bet would be to equip as many Iraqi's as it would take to govern themselves. The reality is though the Middle East is in a state of chaos and outsiders can't help it. We would have to lock up every terrorist and every radical muslim, but for diplomatic reasons we won't do that. Now we don't have a centralized enemy now we have a bunch of seperate groups.

So we can't trust Saddam but we can't trust the way the cards fall after we re-shuffle the deck. This seems a fairly pointless reason for expending hundrends of American lives, thousands of Iraqis, and several hundred billion dollars in the end. Why not first try to clean up the mess left behind in Afghanistan? There are still lots of untrustworthy people and anti-Americans there.

 

[obviousman]

There's so much wrong in the Middle East, It's hard to know where to start. One reason why the task to get peace in the Middle East is impossible. No matter what our Government does everyone is going to be able to say oh he should have fixed this first, or he should have solved this first.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by obviousman
There's so much wrong in the Middle East, It's hard to know where to start. One reason why the task to get peace in the Middle East is impossible. No matter what our Government does everyone is going to be able to say oh he should have fixed this first, or he should have solved this first.

Suppose that instead of going into Iraq we had spent $60bn and sent 150,000+ troops to Afghanistan - not so much tanks and artillery but engineers and military police to help restore order and rebuild infrastructure, work to bring safe drinking water, improve orphanages, work with NGOs, etc. Would the ME be a better place today?

 

[obviousman]

Too be honest I don't think so. There's no way for us to keep those things running. You can't expect warring Muslim sects to care about each other. The Middle East is full of radical groups that as soon as we leave, their going to try to regain control. We can't possibly plan to stay there forever, so I feel like all we're doing is delaying the inevitable. Reform in Iraq has to start with Iraqi's. Enough Iraqi's have to decide that Jihad is wrong and that they would rather have peace.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by obviousman
Too be honest I don't think so. There's no way for us to keep those things running. You can't expect warring Muslim sects to care about each other. The Middle East is full of radical groups that as soon as we leave, their going to try to regain control. We can't possibly plan to stay there forever, so I feel like all we're doing is delaying the inevitable. Reform in Iraq has to start with Iraqi's. Enough Iraqi's have to decide that Jihad is wrong and that they would rather have peace.

So then what was the good in invading Iraq? To get rid of one hypothetical threat and hope other ones don't replace him?

 

[RMW]

Originally posted by obviousman
I supported the war for the simple fact that we can't trust Sadam or Al-Quaeda. More Americans have been killed after the "war" then before it. Their so vulnerable now just walking around like policeman that any radical anti-American Muslim believing in the proclaimed Jihad can kill with a grenade or even 1 bullet. The post-war efforts in Iraq are failing miserably...

I supported the Iraq war effort, too. Saddam's behavior had always seemed to be erratic--he behaved like madman--and I believed our governing classes when they said he posed an immanent nuclear threat. Now one encounters evidence that certain people had been wishing for war with Iraq long before 9/11 for varying reasons, good and bad, depending on the source. Getting at the truth is not easy, but I am certain that we owe it to the Iraqi people and our soldiers to ensure the current effort is carried out with competent leadership at home and in Iraq.

I have come to believe that the US must concede economic control of Iraq to the UN, because only then would our European allies be willing to participate with assisting the Iraqis in their pursuit of democratically-elected government. It would also go far toward ccnvincing the Iraqi people that US intentions are not economically motivated, and that they'll play a role in building their nation.

I have never been a fan of the UN, but in this case, I think a lot of lives would be saved if we pursued that route. I don't understand why our government refuses to concede economic control? Do you? Does anyone?

rmw

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by RMW
I supported the Iraq war effort, too. Saddam's behavior had always seemed to be erratic--he behaved like madman--and I believed our governing classes when they said he posed an immanent nuclear threat. Now one encounters evidence that certain people had been wishing for war with Iraq long before 9/11 for varying reasons, good and bad, depending on the source. Getting at the truth is not easy, but I am certain that we owe it to the Iraqi people and our soldiers to ensure the current effort is carried out with competent leadership at home and in Iraq.

I have come to believe that the US must concede economic control of Iraq to the UN, because only then would our European allies be willing to participate with assisting the Iraqis in their pursuit of democratically-elected government. It would also go far toward ccnvincing the Iraqi people that US intentions are not economically motivated, and that they'll play a role in building their nation.

I have never been a fan of the UN, but in this case, I think a lot of lives would be saved if we pursued that route. I don't understand why our government refuses to concede economic control? Do you? Does anyone?

rmw

Some of us who think it was all economically motivated to begin with certainly think we do!

 

[obviousman]

Hypothetical? Hardly Sadam for years has shown he has no problem violating a treaty. I think by removing you don't have to worry about the Middle East invading parts of the world outside the Middle East. You would have civil war for a few years till someone similar to him takes over and we have to oust him. The only thing we can do is to start a powerfull government. It couldn't be a democracy it would have to be powerfull. It would have to also be fair though. If the Iraqi people had a hint at actually knowing how to rule themselves then maybe peace would have a chance. The reason it would have to be powerful is that it would have to be strong enough to turn down all opposition because their would be lots of attacks. This is very hard to do though because we would have to be absolutely sure we could trust the government we set up. But definitely getting Sadam out was a good idea.