|
OK, before my thread gets inundated with nasty replies, let me explain.
We know that Obama supports keeping a residual force in Iraq indefinitely. I believe Clinton does as well. Frankly, I would be extremely surprised to see a total withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of who is president.
Now, we also can be pretty sure that the violence isn't going to stop simply because we have a force of a few thousand there.
If the violence reaches a certain point, the president may increase troop levels again. Or he/she might bring in a UN peacekeeping coalition (and the GOP hates those). To put it in simple terms: The war will continue and so will American involvement.
We should also consider that Republicans, who might be pro-war when a Republican is waging it, tend to be anti-war when a Democrat's sitting in the White House (e.g. the Kosovo conflict). The Republicans will say that either:
1. The Democratic president is mismanaging the war, and if this is the case, we should pull out. I've already seen FReepers claim, absurdly, that the war is being lost because troops face too many restrictions on whom they can kill (i.e. that the war is conducted in a "PC" manner). The only thing that's keeping them from acknowledging their own weariness is their hatred of Democrats. 2. The Iraq war is a nation-building exercise. Of course it's already one and has always been, but they'll only notice it when a Democrat is in charge.
In addition to this, Iran should be considered; and it only strengthens my argument.
My point is this: Let's keep our heads cool. Iraq will not be like Vietnam where we were eventually pushed out because if any radical group gets too close to doing so, you can be quite sure that there will be a re-escalation of troops. Do you really think Iraq would be allowed to fall outside of our sphere of influence given the oil resources, the proximity of Iran, and the presence of al Qaeda-friendly terrorist groups? I don't.
What should we do, then? We should look deeply at the implications of what our candidates say when they discuss foreign policy, not just their immediate effects. Also, we should at other issues, like trade and labor policy, because we might be unsatisfied on Iraq no matter who we elect.
|