S. from the preparation and supervision of the coming elections . . . during this period, the training of Iraqi forces might, of necessity, remain a coalition task, but it ought to be monitored and supervised by the U.N." (Hoffmann & Bozo, 113)
It is clear though that at this juncture, the world community is not yet prepared to take control of the operation. The presence of U.S. forces is a reality prompted by the aggressive lead in to war and the obligations thereby created. And quite certainly, no nation or organization has stepped up to take the lion's share of responsibility which the U.S. has taken for contending with Hussein and his legacy. Thus, Obama's plan does not fully withdraw troops, instead maintaining a significant American presence that suggests the war is not truly yet ended. Accordingly, his 'exit' plan "would leave in Iraq a residual force of as many as 50,000 troops until the end of 2011, the date the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement stipulates the removal of all U.S. troops. According to the president, this transitional force would have three missions: training Iraqi security forces, carrying out anti-terrorism missions and protecting American civilian and military forces." (The Nation, 1)
This is an absolute necessity for helping to contain a threat which might otherwise emerge on the shores of the United States. Historical patterns regarding failed occupations suggest that these unstable scenarios will often help to foment genuine terrorist threats. The Mamdani (2004) text captures this geopolitical dynamic particularly well, indicating that the United States, the U.S.S.R. And other global powers have already helped to create the current Islamic cultural tendencies toward violence and armed resistance. Mamdani notes that "as the battleground of the Cold War shifted from southern Africa to Central America and Central Asia in the late seventies, America's benign attitude toward political terror turned into a brazen embrace: both the contras in Nicaragua and later al-Qaeda (and the Taliban) in Afghanistan were American allies during the Cold War. Supporting them showed a determination to win the Cold War 'by all means necessary,' a phrase that could refer only to unjust means. The result of an alliance gone sour, 9/11 needs to be understood first and foremost as the unfinished business of the Cold War." (Mamdani, 13)
This is an important way of framing the discussion because it distinguishes the political and military objectives that are inherently related to the goals of armed Islamic jihad. Recognition that the United States and others have played a key role in fomenting the violent proclivities which are today regarded as somehow historically Muslim suggests that it must find ways to reverse its policy in Iraq. Certainly, the U.S. is guilty here of committing massive human rights violations. But if its proclaimed commitment to instating democratic order is legitimate, than it must find ways through incorporation of the United Nations and accountable human rights watch NGOs to reduce its instigation of violence while remaining in place for the purposes of administrating transfer into context in which countless terrorist organization and recruitment candidates have been created and a context in which a failure of the U.S. To remain in place and to do its just would allow for these organizations and recruits to establish Iraq as an asylum for acts like those which occurred on September 11th. All evidence suggests that in its current state of civil war, it has become a haven for this type of activity. Indeed, Priest (2005) reports that Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills . . .There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." (Priest, 1) This means that a failure to snuff out the heightened threat which it has helped to create would ultimately doom the sacrifices of the last decade to vanity. With over 4,000 Ameircan servicemen and women killed and more than 30,000 wounded, far too high a price has been paid already to simply allow for Iraq to decay into a breeding ground for global terrorism. (Ewens, 1)
Unfortunately, the reality is that today Iraq is the world capital for the development and execution of terrorist activities. The primary reason, most intelligence sources are concurring, is the mishandling of the U.S. invasion. Here, it is evident that there is a fundamental need for the U.S. To remain in place and to redress this litany of failures. Under its new leadership, the drawdown of American forces and the transfer of the onus of the conflict upon the United Nations is an intuitive first step, which reveals a commitment to both the practical and psychological intricacies of this conflict. Though a force must remain present in Iraq until it achieves true stability, the shift of focus toward and international effort at rebuilding may be the only realistic way for us to consider a legitimate exit strategy.
Ewens, M. (2006). Casualties in Iraq. AntiWar. Online at http://antiwar.com/casualties/#count.
Hoffmann, S. & Bozo, F. (2006). Gulliver Unbound: America's Imperial Temptation and the War in Iraq. Rowman & Littlefield.
The Nation. (2009). Obama's Iraq Exit. Thenation.com.
Perle, R. (2002). Statement Before the House Armed Services Committee. American Enterprise Institute.
Priest, D. (2005). Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground. The Washington Post. Online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460 2005Jan13.html.
Rumsfeld, D. (2002). Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Jim Lehrer. News Hour, PBS. Online at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3656.
Iraq's New Government And Social Outcome Of War On April 29, 2005, officials from Iraq's six neighbors, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and regional Egypt, met in Istanbul to welcome the formation of a Iraq's new government and give the emerging democratic process a boost despite regional fears of instability in the country. After nearly three months of haggling over key government posts, Iraq's National Assembly finally approved the country's
American will be better equipped, militarily and monetarily, to deal with the threat of terrorism once our troops are withdrawn from the country of Iraq. It is not the goal of those political representatives, leaders, or individuals who support the withdrawal of American troops from the country of Iraq to cause further destabilization of other nations or to bring further harm to American itself. It is, in fact, the position
The American administration was well aware of the genocidal massacre of the Tutsi by their Hutu neighbors that accounted for more than a million innocent victims killed, mostly by machetes that would have posed less of a problem to U.S. forces had they been deployed to stop the carnage in Rwanda. Similar atrocities, albeit less in number, have been ongoing in Sudan and especially in Darfur since before Operation Iraqi
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.
current events and the war in Iraq. The writer discusses the importance of the events on a personal level and explains how they impact the life of the writer today. I would be hard pressed to find anyone in America who does not know about the war going on in Iraq. The world was glued to the television as the war began and since that time there has not been
Iran: A Path towards Rapprochement The problem that the United States is facing with Iran is related to the problem that it had with Iraq and has in part with Afghanistan. One of the problems is the judgment of the administration that Iran is not doing enough to round up the supporters of Al Qaeda who exist within Iran, as was one of the complaints against Iraq. Some of these Al