Al's Opinions

To say the least, the present Republican administration has gotten us into a sticky situation in Iraq. We have invaded the country and overthrown its government with a small army. It was argued beforehand and shown by experience that our small army was sufficient to defeat a much larger Iraqi army. However, our small army isn’t large enough to keep the peace. Insurgents attack us and those Iraqis who cooperate with us. We can clear the insurgents from a city or a region, but we don’t have the troops to hold the city or region. The same troops have to be sent to another city or region to defeat the insurgents there.

Three options have been proposed and are being debated for our future policy toward Iraq. The President and his administration argue for continuing the present practice, making do with the troops we have committed to Iraq and hoping that eventually things will work out. Some members of Congress of both parties argue that we can not hope to control the country unless we send enough additional manpower to occupy and control the entire country. Their policy would require the imposition of a draft. Peace activists advocate a third policy: withdraw now and let the Iraqis sort things out for themselves.

Supporters of the administration’s option, “staying the course,” have the following justifications:

1. If we leave, we signal to our enemies that we are weak.
   
2. Sending more troops would require a draft. That would be politically dangerous to the administration and the Republican Party.
   
3. There is some good news from Iraq. We are making progress in parts of the country.
   
4. There is reason to hope that the people of Iraq will elect a representative government and that the government will be able to raise its own army to put down the insurgency.
   
5. We must stay in Iraq to make sure that the new government is one that is favorable to American interests, particularly the American interest in a continuing supply of crude oil.
   

The argument against this option is that it doesn’t seem to be working, at least not very fast, and even if successful will require US troops to remain in Iraq for a very long time.

Supporters of the second option, increasing our troop strength so that we can pacify the entire country simultaneously, have the following justifications:

1. The present policy is not working, at least not very fast. The American public is becoming impatient and wants to see an end to this war.
   
2. Our army at present is staffed by volunteers. Volunteers come mostly from the poorest parts of society, consisting of people who are not active politically and therefore not a threat to either political party. A draft would impose the burden of conducting the war across all segments of society, poor and rich alike.
   
3. We agree with the administration’s goal of a friendly, democratic government in Iraq. Leaving now or being forced out later would likely result in a civil war in Iraq, with unpredictable but probably bad consequences for American interests.
   

Finally, the Peace Advocates argue in favor of withdrawing now, with the following justifications:

1. The present policy of “staying the course” is not working. It is simply using up American lives to no purpose.
   
2. We are not wise enough to determine the kind of government that is suitable for Iraq. The people of Iraq will in the end make that determination.
   
3. Whatever kind of government emerges in Iraq after the American army leaves, it will have petroleum that it must sell. We will be able to buy the petroleum.
   

Personally, I don’t think much of the administration’s option. I am torn between the other two, leaning toward the third. What are your opinions?