And while the question of whether the U.S. should have been in Iraq at all remains a prominent point of focus on the Presidential campaign trail, policy specialists and military strategists are quick to point out its irrelevance. “History will go back through the records to say whether it was a good or bad idea when the decision was made in 2003, but that was almost five years ago,” Wood says. “We are where we are at today, and we have to deal with the situation that has been handed to us.”
Bringing stability to Iraq
So what is the status of the situation? According to James Phillips, a Middle East analyst for the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., the key objective is working to stabilize the democratic Iraqi government currently in place. In order to accomplish this, several things are necessary.
First, Phillips notes that incorporating provincial power centers comparable to local governments in the U.S. will give Iraqi communities control over their own affairs, reducing the incentive for factions to attempt to take control of the entire country. Also, U.S. military forces must protect Iraqis against the threat posed by neighboring countries Iran and Syria, as well as insurgent forces, until they are able to do so themselves. “It’s important that we help the Iraqis defeat or co-op as many insurgents as possible and uproot Al Qaeda and other irreconcilables,” Phillips says. “They have to be dealt with through force, and without security a democratic government is impossible in the long run.”
Even though a democratic government is up and running, it’s a system plagued by police brutality, corruption, and intimidation from terrorist organizations, only adding to the challenges U.S. troops face. Much work remains, but Phillips also points out that we’ve made some progress.
“We’re training police, pressing the Iraqi government to purge corrupt elements and those that have infiltrated the police forces, and we’re putting pressure on Shia leaders to distance themselves from radical Shia militias such as the Mahdi Army,” Phillips says.
Considering this progress in combination with the nature of the war itself, experts like Phillips and Wood believe that a timetable for a troop withdrawal would be a mistake.
Carpenter disagrees. In his view, the idea that Iraq would become a stable democracy and a model for the rest of the Middle East is implausible.
‘Cost in blood and treasure’
According to Carpenter, the U.S. is losing troops at a rate of 800 per year, while spending is upwards of $8 billion per month.
“There is no reasonable prospect of success even if we pay the additional cost in blood and treasure,” he says. “It is time to admit that the Iraq mission has failed and cut our losses.”
And while others like Phillips and Wood argue that Americans should leave matters to the judgment of generals in the field, a troop withdrawal remains a central topic in the upcoming Presidential election, thus giving voters a hand in the outcome.
What are the most important issues to you?
Editor’s note: In January, we began covering the election-year issues that our readers have told us are important to them. What do you think the candidates should be talking about when it comes to the future of our country? Who do you think will be the best President of the United States?
Join the discussion at www.ericksonblog.com/election08 or write to us at 817 Maiden Choice Lane, Ste. 100, Baltimore, MD 21228.