A few weeks ago, an influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This move is symbolic of the growing discontentment in the U.S. about the war. "It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," said Murtha, D-Pennsylvania.

At the center of the war controversy is a disturbing indication that our government sold the public on going to war under the false pretense that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction. No large stockpile of such weapons have been found, Saddam Hussein has been imprisoned, and the insurgency of radical Islamic extremists has grown. So why can't the government outline a simple exit strategy and bring the troops home?

Some strategists believe that announcing a U.S. withdrawal would provide the Iraqi government with the motivation to have Iraqi security forces take control of the conflict. But most importantly, a pullout of American troops from the region would eventually guarantee the safety of troops, help stabilize a volatile Gulf region, and boost morale of the U.S. public.

Other strategists say an immediate withdrawal of troops would indicate an American, "cut and run" attitude which would provide fuel for the current insurgency and for other terrorists. It is believed that many extremists will simply adopt the attitude that they can "wait out" American forces during any conflict.

While President Bush and U.S. defense officials have been fielding stern disapprovals from the public, they have yet to present a detailed exit strategy for vacating Iraq. Even if an exit strategy is presented within the next few months, it's sole purpose will be to provide a sense of calm for U.S. citizens and damage control for the Bush Administration.

Unlike Murtha's proposal which suggested the start of troop withdrawals beginning in 6 months, U.S. defense officials will not begin vacating troops from Iraq until much later. Even after the intial phase of withdrawals, the slow process will be stretched over a period of 2 to 5 years. Not only that, but Americans should realize that U.S. troops will probably live and work within Iraq's borders, indefinitely.

This means the sustained positioning of troops in the Gulf region, and the development of permanent military bases in Iraq. The scenario will be along the same scale of past conflicts where U.S. military bases and camps were established to help sustain stability in specific regions of the world. South Korea, Japan, Germany and the entire theater of operations throughout Europe, have not only boosted the economies of the prospective regions, but also provided stability between the U.S. and its allies, and signified an indefinite military presence to its enemies.

But to many Americans, none of this is worth the lives of American troops.

While the U.S. government makes strategic moves to influence and maintain geopolitical power, most Americans are more concerned about our governments' response to problems within the U.S., and the senseless loss of thousands of soldiers to a war we have no business engaging in.

PRINT THIS PAGE    E-MAIL PAGE    DISCUSS ARTICLE    ALL ARTICLES    TAKE A QUIZ

Web www.mybrotha.com