The Us Needs to Leave Iraq

The United States is in a tough situation. This country has gone to war without the UN's approval, and now has more casualties than when the war 'officially' ended. Now, the war could cost taxpayers $87 billion dollars, and more if the war drags on. The situation is at the critical point. If the Bush Administration does not leave Iraq, we will lose thousands of troops, spend billions sending more troops to Iraq, and we will lose the faith of the international community.

This war will have larger repercussions than the casualties occurring every day. If the Bush Administration gets the $87 billion dollars to pay for Iraq's reconstruction it has asked for, the country's economy is not likely to recover. To add to this problem, the administration has also asked for a $400 billion dollar tax cut. That's almost $500 billion dollars being spent during an economic recession. The choice of going to Iraq may have looked sound in the administration's short-term thinking, and the administration may have thought that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the future effects of this war will be disastrous. The administration's reasoning seemed rational at the time; but we will be paying for this war long after it is over, simply because it was so ill-conceived. The reason that the American people were given for going to war was false in the first place. In his 2003 State of the Union address, George Bush stated that, "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda." There has been no evidence to prove that Iraq had terrorist connections. Furthermore, Vice President Cheney stated, "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons," on Meet the Press, but a few days before he said that, the International Atomic Energy Agency gave a report to the UN stating that they, "had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." The entire reason for war, the reason that has been restated numerous times, was false. The Bush Administration was ready for war, and did all they could to tell people their evidence was correct, without actually examining that evidence to see if really was correct.

There are four possible paths to take from this point. We could simply leave Iraq to its own devices, pull all of our troops out of Iraq, and never look towards it again. However, we bombed their country, and we have an obligation to fix it for the innocents who are suffering. This action is irresponsible and immoral. Or, we could stay in Iraq, denying the UN any say in this and paying for it ourselves. This will bring us to economic ruin, and we will lose our image in the UN. This course of action is arrogant and financially unsound. Another path would be to pull all troops out of Iraq, give control to the UN, but pay for all of the reparations ourselves. While this may be the most morally correct action, its would bring financial ruin on the United States and is unrealistic. The administration would never pay for something it did not have control over.

The best course of action would to take most of our troops out, share control of the reconstruction with the UN, allow UN peacekeepers in, and share the costs with the rest of the world. This would bring the UN back together with the US, and we would not require $87 billion dollars for reparations. Most of the US troops would be brought home, saving many american's lives. The guerillas in Iraq would be fighting the entire world, not just (in their eyes)