Could the U.S. withdraw from Iraq prematurely without Iraq reverting to all-out civil war and genocide?

  • I believe the U.S. could withdraw from Iraq prematurely, without Iraq reverting to all-out civil war and genocide, because the U.S. is unable to stabilize the country anyway.

    The U.S. introduced more conflict than it resolved. An international coalition should be deployed to protect the Kurds, the only peaceful area. Let the rest work itself out. I think they can, and will. The U.S. put Saddam in power, in the first place. We are wasting money there, along with innocent lives.

    Posted by: ToothsomeLucio
  • Yes, I think the government in Iraq is far enough along that we could withdraw.

    The people of Iraq know what freedom is now. They know what it is like to have a say and vote in a free election. I think those people are reasonable enough that they will not let another dictator come to power or return to civil war, because they know how damaging either of those scenarios would be to their lives.

    Posted by: R04chGrov
  • I believe the U.S. could withdraw from Iraq without the country falling apart, as much of the Iraqi people's distrust of the political situation may stem from believing that western ideology is influencing their current and future government.

    From media at home and abroad, it appears many Middle Easterners feel the U.S. meddles in affairs. Iraqi citizens may feel compelled to accept reorganization of their government from another country. Compulsion, either real or perceived, in any form, often leads to resistance to change, regardless of the end result. Additionally, Iraq, Babylon, and the entire area has survived for thousands of years, prior to U.S. involvement. Bad things happen, wars occur, and not all leaders are for the people. But, where do we draw the line between helping people who ask or need it, and forcing our ideals on another culture?

    Posted by: InsidiousErvin65
  • I agree that the US should withdraw from Iraq.

    The US has been in Iraq for a long time. I think its people have learned a great deal from the US and have the knowledge to run their own country. Obviously the transition will not be easy and there will be some fighting because of conflict of interests, but Iraq is more than capable of leading itself.

    Posted by: StripperMor
  • Yes, the U.S. can and should withdraw from Iraq to finally give Iraq a chance re-build itself.

    The time has come for the U.S. to leave Iraq, and to leave this emerging democracy to deal with its own growing pains. The U.S. has helped Iraq make tremendous progress, and the country is now nothing like the one that performed genocide. There might be some periods of civil unrest, but this is normal and part of the growth of democracy in a country that is re-discovering itself.

    Posted by: NWinters
  • It is my belief that Iraq was an independent country before we were there and they are capable of being a free and independent country now.

    In the history of the world the United States is a relatively young country. The Iraqi people were a nation long before we were and they are best to judge how to rule themselves. If we show faith in them then they will show they are capable of ruling themselves. It is only the United States with it's "you must run your country this way" attitude which creates the illusion that they are not capable of being a free country without our help.

    Posted by: P0ngCor
  • The US can withdraw from Iraq because Iraq should have the freedom to make its own choices.

    Iraq does not have a culture similar to the one we have in the USA. While their norms may be more repressive or violent than we would prefer, it is not our right to mandate that they set up their society along the lines of a liberal democracy, imitating us. They have proved in the past that they are capable of running a society that does not have all out civil war or all out genocide, and we need to accept that they are able to make their own choices.

    Posted by: R3yGoobIe
  • Yes, early withdraw without complete civil war and genocide is possible.

    The U.S. has occupied Iraq long enough for there to have been a change in that particular society's mindset. And, even without the U.S. there, some of those positive changes would still linger. With the withdraw of the U.S. there would also be laws put in place to ensure the safety of the country. There will be those who try their hardest to hold onto the pre-occupied way of the country, just as there are now. But, the citizens are not doomed to death just because the U.S. leaves. I believe that there are now individuals who are willing to fight to keep the status quo of the country. And, those people are probably the majority.

    Posted by: MohaI0v35
  • One of the primary reasons for unrest in Iraq is the presence of US troops, if the troops are removed the tensions will decrease.

    One of the primary reasons for sectarian fighting in Iraq is the presence of US troops who have favored one side over the other. If the troops are removed from the area, the tension should be decreased eventually. There may be a difficult time at first, but without the instigation that foreign troops cause, the country should be able to govern itself. If this means dividing the country into smaller countries based on ethnicities than that is a decision that the Iraqis will have to make.

    Posted by: 54IInferno
  • The US could withdraw from Iraq this year, and not have a civil war.

    The quickest and easiest way is to carve Iraq up into the indigenous ethnic groups and give them their own nation states. That way the Kurds, Sunni, etc... don't have to play nice together..they have their own countries.

    Posted by: StormGra
  • It was our decision to go into the country, therefore it is our responsibility to ensure its safety.

    The decision to withdraw from Iraq too soon may have a devastating effect. If the US leaves before the country forms an army to defend itself, that army may not have the ability to stop a civil war or genocide - or even fight off a potential threat from Iranian forces.

    Posted by: ErvinAnime
  • With the current political state in the entire Middle East, it would be very difficult to withdraw early from Iraq.

    The United States would make a substantial mistake by withdrawing prematurely from Iraq. The Middle East, especially Iraq, are in constant states of tumult and destabilization, and the U.S. has a somewhat calming effect on this region, and pulling out completely would leave very few other means to prevent an all-out civil war from erupting.

    Posted by: DoubtfulPaul84
  • I oppose withdrawing from Iraq prematurely because the Iraqi government is not firmly established enough to control riotous breakouts.

    The Iraqi government needs time to establish control over the country using the legislative branch and police force. Citizens need to feel secure that their government has their best interests in mind before the United States military can safely withdraw. Withdrawing early, before the government can show initiatives that the citizens will see as improvements to the country, will only cause unrest and ultimately, a civil war.

    Posted by: BouncyWalter37
  • Whether the U.S. withdraws from Iraq "prematurely" next week, "prematurely" next year or "prematurely" next decade, Iraq will probably revert to civil war and genocide.

    Iraq and much of the middle eastern area is based culturally and socially on the tribal system. The tribal system is rooted in family ties and intense loyalty to the leader, usually the eldest male. In a geographic region such as exists in the mid-east, the tribal system evolved and exists because it WORKS! It is a very successful and effective means of accumulating, retaining and consolidating wealth, power and influence.

    And is not the accumulation, retention and consolidation of wealth, power and influence the goal of any country, organization, institution--and of many individuals?

    It is a threat to the very soul and core of mid-eastern culture to try to super-impose a Jeffersonian democracy over the existing social structure. It just does not FIT. Tribal culture demands total loyalty to the tribe. This is how they have survived and thrived for thousands of years.

    If the Iraqi people are to accept a democratic form of government, they must first put aside their existing loyalties to their tribal leaders. In essence, they must reject most of their cultural beliefs and social norms. I do not believe they can do this in one or even two generations. Could we?

    Posted by: CI3Iike
  • Now that we have been in Iraq as long as we have been there is no way to avoid a genocide no matter what is tried to be done.

    Withdrawing from Iraq early isn't really an option anymore since we have been there for so long. Iraqi people are used to us being there but at the same time they don't know how to live anymore because things have changed so quickly. There have been so many deaths already and not having a presence of Americans there will not help at all.

    Posted by: B3rkIffy
  • No, there is no evidence that withdrawing prematurely from Iraq may cause a genocide.

    Many neo-conservatives in America have been pushing the idea of withdrawing in Iraq slowly to prevent genocide. The same people who said this also once said that the war in Iraq would be a cake walk. This turned out to be true, and their credibility was ruined. The Muslim world is growing with resentment toward us because of our REFUSAL TO leave. The sooner we withdraw, without playing political games, the better off we are. Of course, it should have been done a long time ago. Also, we left Vietnam very fast, and we now trade with them and are friends with them and they never had genocide. Their country is very modernized. Historically, there is no proof that immediate withdrawal causes genocide.

    Posted by: D Callahan

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.