Another reason which would make the withdrawal of U.S. troops important would be from the perspective of the United States. At the moment the war cost more than many officials had expected. According to unofficial sources the financial cost rose to "$500 billion in spending, at a rate now of more $2 billion a week" (King, 2007). The initial price of the war in Iraq had been considered by the White House to be at around $60 billion, although officials from the Administration admitted at the time of the invasion in 2003 that there could be no absolute measure for the costs of the war (Bash, 2003).
Notwithstanding the inability of the Administration to foresee such costs, there are other additional elements which make the war in Iraq appear to be a lost cause and would demand a withdrawal of the troops. For instance, the high number of victims in the American camp has made the public opinion withdraw the support for the war. In this sense, according to certain voices, there are "more than 3,500 Americans (who) have died in Iraq (and) more than 25,000 have been wounded" (King, 2007). From this perspective it is important to consider the eventuality of the withdrawal of troops because the Bush Administration cannot afford to support even more casualties among the Americans. Should the death toll rise, the Vietnam syndrome can reappear in the American society, a possibility which may determine a completely reconsideration of both foreign policy and the governing party in Washington.
Yet another argument for withdrawing the troops from the Iraqi territory is the fact that they are seen at the moment as incapable of achieving the aims set at the start of the mission, that of creating a democratic state in Iraq. There is little evidence to show a successful military campaign of the Coalition. As a result of this perception, more and more countries have already withdrawn their troops. States including Poland, Denmark, and Bulgaria have stated their intention to bring back home their militaries. Even U.S.'s strongest ally, Great Britain, announced the pull out of 1600 troops (Jordan and Partlow, 2007).
Indeed, these types of measures can also be propagandistic in nature and destined to draw the votes of the electorate. However, an eventual decision to withdraw the U.S. troops would also have a practical ground, taking into account that the U.S. will eventually remain on its own on the theatre operations. Its allies have either succumbed to the choice of their own electorate which was disappointed by the lack of evidence on the weapons of mass destruction, or decided to take a different approach on the issue of violence and dealing with it in Iraq. On the other hand however, the U.S. lacks the political lucidity to establish a withdrawal deadline with a possible framework.
There can be many arguments both to maintain the U.S. troops in Iraq and to withdraw them. The raises complex issues that cannot be discussed from a singular perspective, and the point-of-view of the U.S., that of the Coalition, and most importantly that of the Iraqi officials must be taken into account in order to establish a proper motivation for either stands. Nonetheless, there are obvious arguments that support the withdrawal of the U.S. troops. In this sense, there is the failure to attract the public opinion in supporting the war efforts, the large costs of the war, both the human and the financial one, and, yet another crucial issue, the lack of international support, as the Coalition is slowly breaking apart.
Bash, D.(2003) What would war with Iraq cost? Showdown Iraq. 2 January. 21 November 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/sproject.irq.war.cost/
CNN. (2006) Poll: Iraq won't be governing itself soon. Iraq: Transition of power. 11 January. 21 November 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2006/U.S./01/11/iraq.poll/
Jordan, M, and Partlow, J.(2007) Blair Plans to Withdraw 1,600 Troops From Iraq. Washington Post Foreign Service. February 22. 21 November 2007 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/21/AR2007022100201.html
King, J. (2007) Battlefield breakdown: the full price of war in Iraq. CNN. 29 June 21 November 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2007/U.S./06/27/battlefield.breakdown/index.html
Lind, W.S. (2004) Civil War in Iraq? Antiwar.com. 22 July. 21 November 2007 http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=3120
Public Agenda. (2007) Iraq: Public Attitudes Remain the Same. Confidence in U.S. foreign Policy Index. 21 November 2007. http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/foreignpolicy_iraq.htm[continue]
"Troops From Iraq The War" (2007, November 21) Retrieved December 10, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/troops-from-iraq-the-war-34101
"Troops From Iraq The War" 21 November 2007. Web.10 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/troops-from-iraq-the-war-34101>
"Troops From Iraq The War", 21 November 2007, Accessed.10 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/troops-from-iraq-the-war-34101
S. To quit Iraq, sectarian genocide (or some lesser form of mass murder would ensue. As prediction, this warning is highly plausible, given the incipient balkanization of mixed Iraq neighborhoods and the great profusion of blood let therein. As ethics, the warning rests on the unstated premise that America has an obligation not to abandon Iraq to genocide (Steorts, Jason Lee, 2007, p. 43)." From a U.S. perspective, to pull U.S.
Iraq War- Why America Should Have Never Gone to War With human rights violation reaching its peak in Iraq and with pictures of Iraqi prisoners proving that U.S. soldiers are committing worst possible war crimes, every American is facing a dilemma: should we support the government or should we not. Everyone is asking the same question, what is America's point for continuing war in Iraq? Does America need to be in
What is the opinion about whether the U.S. should have been there in the Iraq War or not? (America at War) The fact is that, in general, humanitarian intervention in a war, anywhere in the world, is accepted as a necessary thing, and also as an accepted fact of life, wherein the states that can afford to intervene and offer humanitarian help are welcomed with open arms. In this case,
6). At home, though, the media can often be co-opted by being made to feel that public opinion would be against it if it reported something other than the prevailing public sentiment. After't he 9-11 attacks, the public wanted the perpetrators and their leaders punished, so the war in Afghanistan had the support of the public. By extension, the idea of the war on terror also had support, though
" In addition, the war in Iraq has been another opportunity to see the effects of the weapons of mass destruction, which have caused the death of approximately 300 Americans and of a countless number of Iraqi people, in the American Government's point-of-view. Even though it has been sustained for many times that "the War of Terror" is useless and meaningless, many scholars, such as David Tufte, sustain that "The short-run
War In the past years media has proved to be the essential teacher when it comes to the history of certain events. Other than word of mouth, the media has been the most influential tool in our daily lives. From morning newspapers, to the radio on the drive to work, to the new Time magazine in the mail, to the 6 o'clock news, media is everywhere. Like it or not, media
Diplomacy: The establishing of healthy diplomatic relationships with other nations is an important tool in guaranteeing a safer nation with peace. In efforts aimed at improving the diplomatic ties with some Middle East countries like Pakistan, the United States embarked on strategies of cooling hostilities with these countries. For a long period, some Middle East countries have been considered as nations which sponsor terrorism particularly against the United States. This notion