Vote totals:
Yes:
50%
No:
50%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: SHOULD AMERICA AND BRITAIN WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY MIGHT LEAVE BEHIND?
SHOULD AMERICA AND BRITAIN WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY MIGHT LEAVE BEHIND?
Coalition forces are only worsening the violence in Iraq.
Coalition troops are targets of attacks by insurgent forces, directly increasing the violence, and also a symbolic presence used to draw further supporters to militant organisations and terrorist networks. Their presence acts as fuel for the violence, dividing Iraqis between those who want them to stay and those who want them to leave, provoking anti-Western hatred, and drawing in violent militias and terrorists from outside Iraq.
Over the last year or so, coalition forces have made great progress in winning over the support of Iraqi community leaders and broad segments of the population. The most significant example of this is throughout the western Anbar province, where formerly hostile local leaders have now sided with the Americans to fight what is now often perceived as the common enemy in terrorist groups and violent extremism. Much of the ongoing violent is now not to do with the coalition forces, but with ethnic and religious differences amongst ordinary Iraqis.
SHOULD AMERICA AND BRITAIN WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY MIGHT LEAVE BEHIND?
Coalition troops in Iraq are tied up when they are needed elsewhere.
It is hard to see any successful outcome in Iraq in anything but the extreme long term. Meanwhile, there are other areas, most notably Afghanistan, where Coalition troops could be vital in determining the difference between success or failure in the reconstruction of the Afghan state and the defeat of terrorist and insurgent forces. And it’s not just about other areas of U.S. intervention. Tying down American and British forces in Iraq means that forces are less available to respond to other potential needs for military forces, like a nuclear armed Iran, humanitarian catastrophe, or military build-up by another great power.
For a start, it is important for nations other than America to contribute more to Afghanistan and similar state interventions – multi-national forces are much more likely to succeed than a huge influx of American troops. But in reality, America still has the military force to respond to any dire emergencies of this kind even with the forces in Iraq staying there. Withdrawing from Iraq will likely leave a civil war, collapsed state and/or the proliferation of terrorist networks. In the long run, withdrawing will create more security problems which outweigh any benefit we would gain by having the troops currently in Iraq freed up for use elsewhere.
SHOULD AMERICA AND BRITAIN WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY MIGHT LEAVE BEHIND?
The coalition presence, and failure, in Iraq tarnishes the future possibility of genuine intervention in times of humanitarian need.
The use of U.S. and Western military power is always tenuous; democracies do not have great records for supporting intervention in the long run as is sometimes necessary – as Iraq shows. But unlike Iraq, sometimes interventions genuinely are necessary: to stop genocide, prevent military coups, prevent war and so forth. Even if America hasn’t a great record on such interventions in the past, it is in everyone’s interests that America remains engaged in world affairs and isn’t prevented from ever engaging in these kind of interventions because of a return to isolationism prompted by failure in Iraq.
Whether justified originally or not, Iraq now is precisely the kind of situation in which western military presence is justified – to prevent the possibility of precisely this kind of humanitarian catastrophe or collapse of regional security. In the modern world, America is deeply unlikely to become isolationist again, with globalisation and the emergence of transnational security threats like terrorism and drugs trafficking, American interests are just too global for a retreat to isolationism to ever be seriously in U.S. interests.
SHOULD AMERICA AND BRITAIN WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY MIGHT LEAVE BEHIND?
The presence of western forces in Iraq provides further provocation for terrorist reprisals in Europe and the US
The very presence of UK and US forces in Iraq can be seen as acting as an unnecessary provocation for an already extremely unhappy Iraqi population.
Given the apparent lack of success in implementing a new stable political system and social order, and given the obvious discontent of many Iraqis (who often resort to violent reprisal) the forces in Iraq are seemingly acting as little more than a ‘red rag to a bull’, and we can expect little more than violent terrorist reprisal close to home unless the troops are brought home, out of sight, and out of immediate provocative presence now.
UK and US forces cannot just back down in response to terrorist threats; that would be giving them exactly what they want and effectively condoning their actions.
SHOULD AMERICA AND BRITAIN WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY MIGHT LEAVE BEHIND?
The populace wants the troops withdrawn
The vast majority of US and UK citizens did not support the war on Iraq and are in favour of withdrawing the troops; they do not want to see any more men killed in this futile process. If our soldiers really fight for the values of democracy, then politicians should listen to the people and bring the troops home.
Even if some demonstrators express a desire for the withdrawal of troops, this is merely an emotional knee-jerk reaction which does not take into account the political realities of this situation. Regardless of whether you agreed with the war on principle, the action has been committed and we must now see it through. It would be wrong to pull out of Iraq and leave it in turmoil. Whilst you may feel sorry for the soldiers whose lives are endangered serving in Iraq, this is the job they signed up for. Can you not also have sympathy for the Iraqui people, whose lives have been torn apart by conflict and who need the support of our troops to rebuild their nation?
SHOULD AMERICA AND BRITAIN WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY MIGHT LEAVE BEHIND?
Iraq needs to stand on its own two feet
As so many critics of US hegemony argue, individual states must be allowed to take decisions without excessive intervention. Military action was necessary in order to bring down Hussein’s regime, but Iraq must now be allowed to rebuild itself without too much foreign help. Only in this way can it become a strong, self-sufficient nation that will set an example to the rest of the Middle East.
This argument is like saying that we should neglect our children so that they learn to be self-sufficient. Iraq has been decimated by the events of the last decades and while military intervention aimed for a long-term solution, in the short term it has caused further chaos. The UK and the US have a duty to aid the Iraquis in the restoration of stability in their nation, so that they have an actual chance of achieving peace and prosperity in the long run.
SHOULD AMERICA AND BRITAIN WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY MIGHT LEAVE BEHIND?
It is up to the Iraqi population to decide
According to elementary moral and international law it is up to the Iraqi population to decide this question. That is all there is to it. Following numerous polls in Iraq, it is now widely accepted as uncontroversial that the Iraqi population wants us to leave.
SHOULD AMERICA AND BRITAIN WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY MIGHT LEAVE BEHIND?
Withdrawing will lead to state collapse.
The Iraqi armed forces and police forces are now substantially stronger than they have been in the past, and are likely to have more success than coalition forces just by being Iraqi – they will act with more legitimacy and more local knowledge. Iraq’s political leaders are unlikely to take any of the difficult decisions necessary to create a genuine Iraqi state until coalition forces withdraw and the umbrella of western responsibility is removed.
The Iraqi army, police forces, and civil society are not in any way ready to take on the burden of holding Iraq together. The violence has been going on for so long and has become coloured by ethnic and religious tensions to such an extent that it will not now stop with U.S. withdrawal – and in the absence of coalition forces there will be no barrier to outright civil war. And when looking at comparisons with Yugoslavia, the Congo, Rwanda and others, these are precisely the kind of situations that risk huge humanitarian catastrophes such as ethnic cleansing. Until the political system has achieved some stability, and the Iraqi forces are ready to take control, coalition forces cannot leave.
SHOULD AMERICA AND BRITAIN WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY MIGHT LEAVE BEHIND?
Withdrawing will undermine Iraqi sovereignty and democracy.
Iraq cannot be said to have democracy now. For one, in the chaos which currently exists in Iraq, there is no real democratic process, and Iraq’s political leaders have manifestly failed to make democracy work. Secondly, Iraqi democracy will never be possible while coalition forces remain and the legitimacy of Iraq’s government is undermined by the image of it being an American-installed puppet.
Whatever the justification of the original invasion, it is not the case that Iraqis do not want democracy now, as their high turnout, in the face of severe threats, makes clear. If the coalition forces withdraw their hopes for Iraqi democracy and liberty will be undermined – Iranian-backed insurgencies, indigenous militant groups, or some other group within the state, is liable to take and keep power by force.