Withdrawl from Iraq

¶ … U.S. Troops From Iraq: An Uncertain Outcome

On January 28, 1999, a symposium was held at the Hart Senate Building in Washington, D.C. Addressing that symposium, Charles W. Freeman, Jr., President of the Middle East Council, said, referring to the idea of deposing Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein, "But let's be optimistic and return to the question that we are here to discuss today. What if we get what we want, and Saddam (Hussein) no longer rules Baghdad (Clawson, Patrick, Parasilliti, Andrew and Francke, Rend Rahim, 1999, p. 1)?" The remarks here reflect that a symposium of experts and world leaders gathered in Washington, D.C., to discuss a Middle East, an Iraq, without Saddam Hussein - and that it is what the group wanted (p. 1). Freeman followed those remarks by asking several questions, "What would that mean inside Iraq? What would it mean in the region? And what would it mean in Iraqi relations with the United States? What sort of regime would likely follow? Does it make a difference how Saddam goes? What sort of regime is possible in Iraq? Would a post-SaddamIraq evolve into a democracy, or would it perpetuate the previous pattern of dictatorship (p. 1)?" Today, of course, we have the answers to these questions. This paper explores those answers in conjunction with the question that is the focus of this paper: What if the United States withdraws American forces currently deployed to Iraq?

The pressure is one to bring American troops home from Iraq (Western Mail, 2005, p. 10). Bringing the troops home would seal the fate of the Republican party, as being responsible for the chaos in Iraq and allowing the U.S. To become mired in yet another military occupation that has, and will continue, to exact an overwhelming burden on U.S. resources. It would render the opposition party, Democrats, in a position to win the 2008 elections with a sweeping victory. Americans, like the English are war weary and tired of the struggle (Ackerman, Spencer, 2006, p. 34). But it would spell disaster for Iraq and the Middle East and for the relationship between the U.S. And Middle Eastern countries.

The answer to Freeman's question hold the answer to the question of what would become of Iraq should the U.S. pull out of Iraq. Freeman asked, what if we get what we want, and Saddam (Hussein) no longer rules Baghdad; is, today, obvious. The initial response among the Iraqi people was one of relief. Perhaps it was a relief that only compounded their long standing trauma of being under the thumb of the brutal dictator, but there followed what seemed to be a lull in the mood and thinking of the Iraqi people, and no one really stepped forward with an aggressive pro-democratic agenda - or even another kind of political leadership agenda. The answer to what that would mean inside and outside of Iraq are, also, clear. Inside Iraq, chaos has ensued as a result of poor planning on the part of the United States, but also because the Iraqi people have failed to form a cohesive and united stand for their own rights against imposing forces - including the United States. The seeming unwillingness or inability of the Iraqis to stand for themselves is mystifying; perhaps a manifestation of years of dictatorship during which people lived in fear for their lives, fearful that a misspoken word, a wrong look, or just being seen in public by a member of Saddam's elite could mean kidnapping and death. The phenomenon of what we see going on in Iraq as concerns the Iraqi people, especially in light of the fact that they continue to hide and hovel in fear for their lives without taking charge, is perhaps indicative of a mass hysteria or psychosis resulting from traumatic stress. From this perspective, withdrawal from Iraq would not be a humanitarian act, since this would leave the Iraqis at the mercy of violent forces, most of whom are representative of forces outside of the country. "The duty at issue is adumbrated in the claim that, were the U.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. troops out of Iraq would silence the detractors, the anti-war sector, but it would be harmful to the U.S. In many other ways, especially on an international level. The U.S. would lose credibility with those countries that the U.S. has assured we would not leave Iraq in desperate straits. It would not serve the U.S. well on an international level as a credible world leader to withdraw American forces from Iraq and leave the country vulnerable and susceptible to every manner of radical force that is represented by those people in the country now who refuse to recognize a legally elected government.

There is an answer for each of the questions that Charles Freeman, Jr., put before the symposium in 1999; and those answers are obvious. There is much to be done in Iraq, and it is not a mission that can be accomplished in a short period of time. One the most significant findings of the current Iraq war is that the Iraqi soldier under Saddam Hussein served under coercion, fear for their own life or fear for the lives of their families (Wong, Leonard, Koldiltz, Thomas, Millen, Raymond, and Potter, Terrence, M., 2003, p. 7). American soldiers are volunteer military, and have a high sense of commitment to America, their military branch, their fellow soldiers, and to their mission. Right now, more so than the American leaders who are attempting to use the American soldier as pawns in their political games - a very serious political game considering the loss, and what is at stake; the American soldier is still the best representative of Americans on the front line. "Sergeant Dan Lockhart of the 3rd Armory Calvary Regiment was wounded in Iraq just one month after his baby daughter was born. His wounds were so severe they thought he wouldn't survive and he was medically retired for the prospective benefit of his family... All he could talk about was how he wanted to get back on active duty. He was full of the fighting spirit that has contributed to our victory in Iraq, and I am pleased to announce that Sergeant Lockhart is now back with the Army (U.S. Department of Defense Speeches, 2003, p. 1)."