Our Troops Should Come Home

Justification of the War in Iraq Despite contrary belief, the Iraq War can certainly be justified. This war began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by U.S troops under the command of former president, George W. Bush. This invasion can be vindicated for several reasons. The greatest is that Iraq was a severe menace to its own people due to a corrupt and distorted government, spearheaded by the dictator, Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Iraq was a substantial threat to other nations in the world, including the United States of America because of its previous possession of weapons of mass destruction and ties with terrorist groups. It would be misleading to not mention the economic gains that motivated the American government to occupy Iraq.

Though many were opposed to military force, it was for many diferent reasons. Some thought that military force was not needed because the threats imposed by President Bush was in fact acknowledged by the Iraquian troops because they no longer were advancing in territory and no other territory was currently in danger of being invaded, and it would only be a matter of time before they withdrew thier troops. David Chandler in a letter to the la times wrote "The official reasons given by the bush adminastration for going to war in the Persian Gulf are not adequate to explain our agressive

The author of “Why We Must Leave Iraq” focuses on using unfair appeals to emotion: biased language. In the first paragraph of “Why We Must Leave Iraq” the author writes “no amount of Administration spin can hide the ugly reality in Iraq” (3). Biased language is shown here by claiming the

When one thinks of Iraq war, the two key players are perceived to be George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. As leaders of the opposing sides, they are also perceived as the decision makers. In the individual and sub group levels of analysis, toppling of the Hussein’s regime in Iraq was a success. This success

The withdrawal of US forces from Iraq was a contentious issue in the 24/7 news cycle of American media. As the war progressed from its initial invasion phase in 2003 to a nearly decade long occupation, American public will shifted towards favoring a troop withdrawal. In May 2007, 55 percent of Americans believed that the Iraq war was a mistake and 51 percent of voters favored troop withdrawal. In late April 2007, Congress coddled to the voter will by passing a supplementary spending bill for Iraq. This set a deadline for troop withdrawal, thus evaporating our codified end state. At that moment President Bush had a pair of balls and vetoed this bill, citing concerns about setting a withdrawal deadline. The Bush Administration ultimately bent over to public will and sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, in 2008 President Bush signed the US/Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory". The last US troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement. US Forces resumed air operations in Iraq in June 2014, to defend against ISIL. Again the will of the people outweighs the greater good and alters the strategic level direction. Had we stayed the course and adhered to our original end state, I believe ISIL would

Bush, asserted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), multiple Iraqi human rights violations stemming from the WMDs, and the suspected Iraqi support for al-Qa’ida, who had been previously chased out of Afghanistan. After the initial invasion, however, U.S.-led Coalition Forces were unable to locate any significant evidence of WMDs. Back in the U.S., investigative committees subsequently concluded that Iraq possessed no WMDs and did not harbor any connections to terrorist organizations. Moreover, Hussein had been successful at evading capture despite an intensive manhunt, and U.S. forces seemingly were unable to play a domestic security role, further leading to the dissolution of Iraqi security services and ushering in widespread looting and disorder. This highlighted that the invasion of Iraq was not be an easy victory as originally surmised. Since that time, many scholars have focused on the effects of the Iraq War, speculating on the Bush Administration’s motives for the decision. While some within scholarly circles have attributed the invasion of Iraq to groupthink, a theory that has recently become a staple in understanding foreign policy disasters, there is little literature that has been applied to the rationality of the decision to invade and whether groupthink influenced the decision-making process. Therefore, this paper will seek to examine the decision to launch the invasion of Iraq and the clearly failed planning for the occupation of the

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

His argument doesn’t sound like the non-sense that it actually is if we don’t take a closer look. If we look at the first backing and the support together, we can see that it is obviously a slippery slope which when an arguer claims that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later. In the speech, the President claims that if we pull the troops out, the terrorists “will use Iraq’s resource to fuel their extremist movement”. Because of that, it will lead that “our children have to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.” The whole chains of events are not likely to occur that based on the initial event (pulling the troops out). First of all, Iraqis people will probably stay in civil war and fight for the resources. Therefore, it is not likely that the terrorists can use Iraqis resource

withdrawal has made it obvious that the US praised the end of the Iraq War with no authenticity with regards to the effect the war and U.S. occupation had on Iraqi or American culture. Iraq is still a savage and unstable place while the U.S. stays separated over the issues of war and terrorism. Will an airplane have hijack today? Will a building have bombed? What country will the U.S. invade and attempt to democratize next? The contentions for the war in Iraq are just a pawn for political power and a nonchalance for humankind. When will, Americans end accepting destructive political mechanisms to earn votes? Allow this war to be a lesson. Attacking Iraq advanced the illicit practice of government power and democracy, empowered genocide and viciousness and hate among religions, and constrained Americans to acquire an everlasting

History has proven that the United States military is the best in the world, but many people want our soldiers to come home from the middle east. Yes, this is a very good thing for families, but what would happen over at the middle east. In my personal opinion I think that we should not pull our troops from the Middle East. There are many reasons why I believe it would be a bad idea to pull our troops from the Middle East. First, The Rural economy in the middle east areas where our bases are at would likely be in

This essay is in defense of the Iraqi War. President Bush’s vocal critics state that American troops’ have been sacrificed in the Iraq War. First of all, the word “sacrifice” means that a person voluntarily does or gives up something at his or her own free will (like a bunt to advance a runner in baseball or Catholics sacrificing and giving up chocolate for Lent). I don’t believe that any of those soldiers that have been killed in the war deliberately intended to die or were “sacrificed” as Michael Moore has erroneously stated. And I’m sure that if President Bush knew the names of those soldiers that were going to be killed, I’m certain he would have ordered those individuals to stay on U.S.

In a speech given by President Bush, he called the surge “A new way forward”, which indirectly confirmed to many that the White House was aware of the military shortcomings in Iraq. Although the Bush administration most likely had the best of intentions, there are a few key reasons the Iraqi surge did not have sustained positive results. The surge strategy was to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 20,000; these troops would be used in urban civilian areas where military forces have had a difficult time clearing out neighborhoods. The surge was initially a success, however, after several months it became clear the success was short-lived, and the overall strategy was short sighted. Members of Al Qaeda simply left the region while it was heavily occupied, only to return when the U.S. threat had vacated the area. There was a survey conducted by Iraq, and the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens felt that daily living conditions had not changed they were in favor of American troops leaving their country. Although the primary goal of improving the lives of citizens was not fully realized, there is a bigger flaw with the surge, it had aimed to reduce American and Iraqi casualties, as well as lower the number of Al Quad attacks. As already stated, these surges did have some fleeting success, which were able to produce statistics that briefly pacified many critics of the war,

     The final and most important reason for the United States not to wage war against Iraq is that it will cause many war crimes. Wars always involve taking the lives of innocent people, and many other injustices that can be illustrated if we look to wars fought in the past. First of all, innocent civilians will be killed. The loss of every innocent life is an injustice and a tragedy. Secondly, after the Persian Gulf War fought from 1990-1991, the troops who fought in the war and the people of Iraq developed increased incidences of cancer and birth defects to their newborn children. This was later found to be due to the radioactivity of the depleted uranium used in the weaponry to fight the war. The current war against Iraq employs the same weaponry made of the depleted uranium, and will only cause more generations of people with cancer and birth

The Reason for Going to War Since the beginning of the war on Iraq, over 8243 civilians, 11000 Iraqi soldiers and 642 Coalition soldiers have died. There has not been one day since a US soldier was killed and since the beginning of the occupation, 39750 bombs have been dropped and $117 billion dollars have been spent. And no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

In August of 2002, the Bush administration’s position about Iraq had changed significantly. Prior to this point, the United States and other western countries had been arming Iraq with weapons of every type. The fact the United States and other countries had been arming Iraq with weapons, shows how little they considered Iraq to be a threat. This quickly changed. A debate on invading Iraq, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, created