Reasons for Iraq.

38splfan

New member
With all the new discussion about Iraq, especially the escalating debate over an exit strategy, I felt like now might be the time to provide some reasons, realistic legitimate reasons, why we are here.

If these don't fit why we came in the first place, I am certain they can justify staying now.

These are my personal reasons, not political sound-bytes, and I invite other service members to post their opinions here as well. Just make sure to do it in a professional manner.

The first is improving Baghdad itself. During a recent mission, we spent 3 weeks installing medians, filling potholes, and, believe it or not, removing/burning trash and debris. We also repaired some utilities equipment.

The second is attempting to stabilize the government. I don't believe that the Iraqi government is making an honest effort due to corruption, religous quarrel, and local/regional power struggles. By fighting the militias, we are forcing Iraqi leaders to handle their disagreements in the capitol, not the streets of Baghdad and Fallujah.

The third is re-establishing the economy. We provide contracts for many local goods to help merchants/contractors to establish themselves. We also use local construction and utilities where possible. Also, we provide some security at the borders, where they are open, to allow trade with other nations to get up and running.

The last, and most important, is the people. I've had a crying Kurdish woman throw flowers at me in thanks. I shared a can of Mountain Dew with a small girl in Baghdad one night, and she hugged me and thanked us all for being so good. I had to fight back tears that time. I've played soccer with children, I've given out candy and toys, and I've seen hundreds, literally hundreds, of people waving, smiling, and saying thank you.

If nothing else, the good people of Iraq, who endured so much suffering and restriction, can wrench your heart from your chest with their endless gratitude. Nothing can compare to being offered tea with an Iraqi family, or sitting on a sidewalk in Baghdad, sharing a soda with a very sweet little girl who had a beautiful smile.

These may not be the political reasons. They may not seem to be legitimate to some of you. But they are MY reasons. They are why, in my second deployment to Iraq now, I will continue to endure the beaurcracy and confusion of leadership, the irritations of crappy living conditions, the blistering heat and disgusting winter mud, and continue to do my job. They are the reasons that I am proud of what I do, and why I will do it again and again if I am asked.

I'm not advocating staying forever. I'm not advocating continuing violence, unless it's necessary. I'm just telling you why, if ordered to stay, I'll do it and not bitch. And that is why American soldiers are who we are It's why, at the end of the day, we can all feel like we are, in our own little way, making some difference on the ground. No matter what the politicians and news anchors say.

No matter what our military or political objectives are, these are the things that matter to me.
 
A war needs to have a definable objective. That objective should be to make Iraq a democratic nation that is able to defend itself from sectarian violence, terrorism and external enemies. Iraq also has a good economy and infrastructure and more freedoms for its citizens. Some of those objectives have been acconplished, some are in progress, some have suffered a setback.

I beleive that our military folks who serve and have served in Iraq have borne thier burden plus some. So when folks say we are not achieving that goal and we are not winning the war that does not mean our military folks in Iraq are losing at anything. You have done your missions and won your battles. You went to Iraq and did what the civilian political leadership asked you to do. However the civilian political leadership is the part of the team that failed you, Americans and Iraqis. So to the military folks I would say be very proud of what you have accomplished and hold your heads high.

my opinion is that the administration lost part of the war by failing to maintain oversight of all the dollars that were going into Iraq for the infrastructure. Instead of getting the best guys in there initially to rebuild Iraq, political cronyism set that effort back. Sometimes this administration was too wishy washy in dealing with folks like Sadr and others in Iraq. In addition the civilian leadership failed to make a sound plan to get Iraq back on its feet before starting the war. The administrations effort in Iraq reminded me of a sandlot football game where you make up plays as you go.

The fate of Iraq must rest with the Iraqi people. We should provide them support and aid and a troop presence for a period. Eventually that troop presence needs to be lessened to let the Iraqi people make thier own destiny.
 
We can build them new roads, schools, homes, ship in food, set them up a government, arm them a police force or what ever, You still have 3 groups that hate each other, even if you could get the shiite and kurds together, the sunnies would screw it up. If the kurds were left on their own, the Turks may go after them in time. those people seem to live for violence.
We have pull back bring in more troops, go all out war and get alqueada out of Iraq, and off the face of the earth, seal the borders between Iran, Iraq, and syria, OR we have to get out and let them settle their own problems, but it would be the same old story, we don't want them to fight but we would be suppling 1 or 2 with weapons, Iran and Russia would be suppling the others and the war would just go on.
I'm a veteran and I've never been to Iraq but my oldest son and nephew have, army and marines.
 
I'm former Army and was due to be deployed to Iraq, but I got a med discharge before we shipped. I talked to my guys when they got home and they all believed in why we are there. They had the same concerns as most about how long we should stay,etc. The problem is mainly what old 12 gauge said, the majority of the people there don't want to get along and they probably never will.

So while we (by we I mean the troops) are doing some good, the majority of the people there will just mess it up. I always believe in helping the good people, but there are to many bad people over there and I personally don't have an answer on how to change that.
 
When we shed our blood on foreign lands, we must win or the dead will be in vain. That still haunts my Vietnam days even now. Steve48
 
When we shed our blood on foreign lands, we must win or the dead will be in vain. That still haunts my Vietnam days even now. Steve48

You're making the assumption that it's always possible to "win." This is naive at best, especially if you aren't allowing the definition of "win" to change so much that the victory itself becomes meaningless.

We're trying to force something on Iraq that quite honestly cannot be forced militarily. Sure, I'd like it to work out in the end...but I think it's a bit naive to assume there is no way we can fail in this. There was no way we could fail in ousting Saddam. As far as installing a functioning democratic government that will last for more than a year or two after we leave...well, that's not something a military is designed to do.

Also, there is an economic term that I think a lot of people really need to learn: "sunk cost." Look it up if you need to. While it might seem crude to apply this to human beings, to suggest that human lives are somehow worth less than dollars is equally crude.

The lives already lost in Iraq are a sunk cost. We cannot get them back, period. Any rational decision on what course of action to take from here must disregard that cost, and instead look at the costs we are likely to incur in the future, and the benefits that we are likely to accrue. Yes, it would be tragic if we lost the thousands of lives given already for nothing. It would be even more tragic if we lost even more...still for nothing. I know I don't want to be the last to die for a mistake.

Keep in mind that this reasoning is not an argument for pulling out. I'm merely stating that any rational decision, whether to stay or go, should be made based on the future costs and outcomes, not the lives already lost.
 
You're making the assumption that it's always possible to "win." This is naive at best, especially if you aren't allowing the definition of "win" to change so much that the victory itself becomes meaningless.
I have to agree that, unfortunately, it is not always possible to win. I think in the case of the Middle East, most people would define winning as establishing peace. By that definition I do not believe winning is possible because you can not bring peace to a society that does not want it.
 
I have to constantly evaluate where I stand in this. I have no problem ousting a dictator who did the things he did and presented a plausible threat to the US. I have no problem killing terrorist-backed fighters anywhere in the world. Now, it seems that Iraq is getting to the point where the different sections of Iraqis are fighting each other for control of the country. I understand that it is not in our interest to allow a radical, anti-US, terrorist aligned group to rule Iraq. It does suit our interests to have a pro-US, anti terrorist, democratic Iraq. Now the question is how best to ensure that.
 
Thank you 38, and the rest of you who've gone overseas and faced all that for us.

I wasn't sold on Iraq at the start, but as time went by I came to understand that the whole "Bush Doctine" of establishing western-style republics in the region was potentially the least bloody way out of the mess we face with radicalized Islam.

No, Saddam was (to the best of my knowledge anyway) not directly involved.. but I can see the logic in retrospect to going into Iraq. As a secular state the transition to a free republic was potentially easier than trying the same thing in Iran. Plus WMDs or not, Saddam's regime had been piling up violations to the cease-fire terms of Gulf War I for ten years.. getting more folks behind us than us should have been a slam dunk. Or at least, that's what I think the logic was at the time.

In retrospect, we're there. Any argument that begins with "we never should have..." I immediately ignore. Doesn't matter. We're there. The only way out is through. And there has been a fair amount of good there done as well - thanks again 38! :)

Anyhow.. the consequnces of premature withdrawal, or worse yet negotiating for "help" from Iran and Syria (the very ones helping the various militias make a mess of things now) would be a disaster.

At the very least, we can say we tried to win in a relatively bloodless way. No matter what else history says of the barbarity that will almost certainly ensue in the next twenty years, I hope our efforts in Iraq will be remembered for that.

-K

PS -- thanks again vets.. especially the VietNam guys. Sorry we let you down. :(
 
Reasons.

Like I said, these are just personal reasons. The only thing that continues to motivate a volunteer Army is seeing some progress/good coming out of what you are doing. Sometimes, that good is found at the lowest level of operation.

Most troops don't have a hands-on mission regarding the Iraqi politics. Most don't actually care. We've found helping people on the ground to be the real heart of the mission. And helping people re-establish their lives and families. We don't worry about the government, because it really is doomed from the start.

We'll never get the sects to agree 100%. Even if we eliminate the bulk of the violence, there will be no real stability because of the two major parties (sunnie and shiite) trying to impose their will, while forgetting about the smaller third (the kurds) or trying to incorporate them. Hmm...sounds familiar.

+1 on the Vietnam guys. I can't beleive what you all went through and I've told everyone here that when they start to complain, they should think of you. You are truly not forgotten.

Anyway, the next time you get into an argument about Iraq, remember that the troops on the ground, supportive of the politics or not, are there to do good. We all have that in our minds. And if you need a motvator when you wonder if it was all worth it or not, just picture a smiling little 5 yr old girl with a can of Mt. Dew and a GI with tears in his eyes missing his own kid.

Of course, there is a negative. There is always a negative. Not everyone wants what we are doing. Many who prospered under Saddam feel that the country was more stable with him in power (maybe that's true). Lots of people in Baghdad are ready to get back to business, and don't want us there anymore. They are tired of tanks holding up traffic and checkpoints every few miles. No one likes long term inconvenience. And no one wants to be here any longer than necessary, the troops or the Iraqis. And, with the recommendations of the Iraq study group published and announced, we all hope that a definition of necessary will surface soon.

If we do nothing else there, making the children happier, even for a moment, is good enough for me. (I know, I'm a sappy little man. I just can't resist a cute kid.)

And boy, were her parents pissed. Even Iraqis know that giving a small child soda at 10pm is a BAD idea:D
 
Last edited:
38plsfan, well written.

I will not try to say that in the year I spent there, I saw no good done; that would be a vicious lie. I also talked to some Iraqis that seemed like really good guys, who I wish the best for. I still actually think about a few of them. And every time I would see Iraqi children out playing soccer, or helping in the fields, I'd wonder what kind of future was in store for them and hope it was a good one.

However, a smiling girl with a Mountain Dew can does little to balance out tens of thousands of dead bodies, and all the ruined lives that go long with them...on both sides of the ocean.

That doesn't mean that while I was there I didn't do everything I could to try to have a positive effect on the place. I just have to wonder whether all the individual small positives going on are enough to balance out some of the grander negatives that have resulted from our invasion and subsequent occupation.

Though getting into a conversation about Saddam with a Kurd sure helps. I think removing him was undoubtedly a positive thing. I just think that we have, unfortunately, managed to screw much of the rest up pretty much by the numbers. In the end, I think it's been a lateral shift at best, from one kind of bad situation (under Saddam) to another. I'm hoping that the current situation has a brighter future...it does at least have a more open future. But I think the first step towards moving into that future is an end to our occupation.

You know what's strange? At times I actually miss Iraq, and some of the people there. Not anxious to leave my family again, mind you...but I hope one day that the country can be peaceful enough for me to visit again under better circumstances.
 
I don't believe that any of those reasons are good enough to justify staying. The American military exists to defend American interests, not Iraqi interests.

Now here's a good reason: If we leave then Iran gets a free puppet-regime. If (and that's a big if) it is possible to turn that place around then it's worth doing if only to avoid creating a national security problem for us later.
 
Reasons.

JuanCarlos and GoSlash,

You guys both hit the nail on the head. They are not reasons for the US to continue an active military action. They are simply my personal reasons (and the same for lots of troops here now) to continue doing what we do, even though we don't necessarily agree or understand. They are personal motivation, and they are small ways to show the world that, in an overall negative situation, some good is being done.

JuanCarlos, you are right. Those small reasons cannot justify thousands of dead and injured, and a severely damaged infrastructure. Hopefully, as we continue forward here, they will be enough for tired, frustrated line troops to keep going. With hope, those troops, not politicos and senior staff officers, will be the ones to secure a stable future for the country.

GoSlash, you're right on target, too. The US military is there, primarily, to defend American soil, citizens, and interests. However, as you pointed out, leaving too quickly could leave us with a securty mess to clean up again later. While no one wants this to drag on much longer, especially the troops, we also don't want to come back again down the road.

Regardless of what was done in the past, the goal now should be to QUICKLY and EFFICIENTLY address the stability of the nation, so that we can leave a nation that can at least stand on it's own with it's neighbors, and not become someone's puppet regime.

No one here wants to take any more time than needed, but no one wants to leave a mess. Especially one we created.

Here are a few more positve notes for you, in hopes that they will provide evidence of a changing attitude towards our mission, at least at the local level.

-More emphasis is being placed on humanitarian work. The Iraqi Army is slowly but surely beginning to hold it's own on the combat end.
-More emphasis is being placed on policing up equipment and debris left over from combat actions.
-We are beginning to use smaller, more efficient equipment to reduce damage to the infrastructure, especially powerlines and water mains, which were damaged regularly by larger vehicles.
-Patrols are including more and more interperters, to increase dialogue with the Iraqi communities we work in.

I just felt like some good needed to be pointed out, and that with all the major media outlets scrounging for bad news bytes lately, that now would be the time to voice it.
 
Filling in pot holes and hauling off trash is not the job of the US Army, and should not be funded by US taxpayers. It would really make me very mad for my son to get killed by a roadside bomb while filling in an Iraqi pothole.

I have a plan for Iraq. We just need to get out. We should have already been gone. The war was a success. We ousted Saddam and gave the Iraqi people a chance at freedom. We ensured the legitimacy of their first election, and provided stability for their first government body to assemble.

All these things are victories. We should have quit then. But no, simple military victory was not good enough for Bush. He wanted to create a stable, free, democracy in a part of the world that is fundamentally unstable, unfree, and doesn't want democracy. It should have been up to the Iraqi people to come together, do these things, and create a free society. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. If they chose to have civil war instead, and kill thousands of each other, its not our problem, and in fact may actually be a good thing for us to have less of them still alive.

We could just pull back into Kuwait and wait until the smoke clears from the Iraqi civil war, and if the new leadership is too threatening, just reinvade and depose them.

Also, I would like to point out that the Bush doctrine of creating pro-western free democracies in the middle east is a lie. We really don't care about democracy there. We just want to replace enemies with friends. We don't seem to be trying to convert Saudi Arabia and Jordan into democracies.
 
GoSlash, you're right on target, too. The US military is there, primarily, to defend American soil, citizens, and interests. However, as you pointed out, leaving too quickly could leave us with a securty mess to clean up again later. While no one wants this to drag on much longer, especially the troops, we also don't want to come back again down the road.

I was not in favor of this boondoogle from the start. However, I don't believe we can just pull out now. It's not just a matter of the security mess; it's the fact that the entire region is tied directly to our strategic interests on numerous levels.

The dependence on oil from the Gulf region by us, Europe and Japan (and to a lesser extent China and India) means we HAVE to have stability in the region. Wide spread chaos caused by a power vacuum in Iraq could crash the economies of all of those mentioned above. If that were to happen, there would be much worse things than Iraq going on.

Our soldiers are defending US interests in Iraq. Lets just hope the politicians can pull their heads out of their posteriors and come up with a way of stabilizing the region, while getting our troops out of harms way.
 
More.

Filling in pot holes and hauling off trash is not the job of the US Army

Quite right. It's not. However, it becomes our job when it is damage we have done. It becomes our job when our tanks and Bradleys knock down gates, rip cement, and leave the hulks of blasted vehicles and buildings on the sidewalks.
In addition, our engineers and EOD do an outstanding job of clearing the way for us, which also helps out Iraqi citizens, who 8 times out of ten will tell you where the explosives are because they know you are there to straighten up their neighborhood.
It's unfortunate that we are having to clean up a mess, but it is a mess that we made, based on the decisions of what most considered to be poor senior leadership and policies. Now, it is the individual soldiers who are repairing the damage done by off-target decision makers.

As far as strategic interests, that is only half the mission. The other half is to hopefully create a US ally in a region that is extremely anti-west, in hope that future conflicts won't have to be solved with violence, like this one was. Having a middle-eastern ally could help offset some of the radical leanings of the rest of the region.

Just thoughts, and hopefully they make some kind of sense.
 
I think it's time to pull every last American out of that sinkhole. We got Saddam and they won't be building chemical or nuclear weapons for a while - mission accomplished. Now it's time for the Iraqis to cowboy up and run their own country. If they really want a sharia ruled islamic cesspit, that is their choice to make.

Too many brave American soldiers have already died there trying to help those that don't deserve it.
 
GWs best reason

President Bush leveled harsh criticism Thursday at the Senate on homeland security issues, but he revised his stump speech to make clear "there are fine senators from both parties who care deeply about our country."

And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
 
Alakar,
+1.

But committing American troops to the endeavor is just half the solution; the easy part for politicians.
The hard part is expending the political capital to come up with a job our troops can actually do. A concrete plan for them to accomplish the mission they have been charged with.

If you commit the troops but don't commit to victory, you're really just aggravating the situation and *weakening* national security in the process. This is what has been going on for the last few years. I look forward to implementing the recommendations set forth by the Iraq study group.
 
Back
Top