Should America Leave Iraq?

Most people, it seems, have had enough. We invaded Iraq based on false pretenses, sending thousands of our soldiers in harm's way, all the while spending enough money to sent the United States into massive debt. It seems obvious that the plan just didn't work, and we need to get out, focus on America, and leave these people alone.

It's not that simple. Look what we have done:

- In 2003, we completely destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. We disbanded their army, there was no police, no garbage collection, scarce electricity and running water. Think about what would happen if Chicago was left with no police, let alone electricity and water. There was looting, violence and chaos. This has improved since 2003, but not by much. Rebuilding infrastructure is not exactly easy in a war zone.

- We intervened in a civil conflict between Shiites and Sunnis. Saddam, a Sunni, and his ruling Baath party, violently oppressed Shiites throughout his reign. He fought a brutal war with neighboring Iran, which is predominantly Shiite. So, when we got rid of him, made the Baath party illegal, and established a Shiite Prime Minister, it was payback time. Low and behold, during 2005-2006, American troops would wake up in the morning to find Sunni streets and neighborhoods empty. They had either fled Iraq or been killed. The Prime Minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has changed little, and is still in charge as we currently pull forces out.

- In 2006, the Surge was possibly the only time we have adopted a good strategy. We changed the goal from leaving Iraq to Iraqis to protecting the population. We added more troops, which were deployed in the cities to actually make relationships and fix problems. Despite initial violent reactions from terrorist groups, the Surge was an undeniable success. Instead of learning why it was a success, however, politicians have tried to ride that wave of popularity to justify their own opinions on Iraq, whether they are in line with the Surge ideology or not. 

With fewer American troops, Maliki will doubtlessly continue his ethnic retribution, terrorist networks will become stronger and civil war will likely ensue, leading to a situation worse than it was before we invaded. All the while, citizens will live meager existences, hoping that the next stray RPG doesn't end up in their living room. If our goal was a stable, democratic Iraq, and it is worse after we leave than before we set foot inside, can we really say we won?

This is not a poker game. Looking at this strictly in our short-term interests will lead us into the same kind of trouble that Bush did. Saddam was a tyrant, but he held the country together, albeit with fear. We have taken the lid off a can of worms, now WE have to deal with the consequences. Whether you voted for Bush or not (and there is little sympathy for former Bush supporters who have now jumped on the bandwagon against him; more than half the country voted for him -- the second time, at least), you have to realize that if we leave now, we are abandoning a giant mess, made in America.

I, for one, do not want our troops in Iraq forever. I have the utmost respect for our armed forces, and am not saying that I want more put in harms way. But what is worse, having a relatively limited, yet substantial force in Iraq for the next 5-10 years, or no troops for five years, and then another invasion? Or worse, Iraq will decay into a failed state like Congo and we will do nothing about it.