Iraq War Withdrawal
Iraq War Troops
TO: President Barack Obama
FROM: Peter Giambanco
DATE: 6 February 2009
RE: Iraq Troops withdrawal
Introduction
The need for the United States to have an active withdraw
from the Middle East is great, but the immediate removal could create more
problems than there was before we went in. The Iraq War has cost the United
States $1.1 trillion and with this, we must value that the outcome of this war
was not to solve all the problems within the Middle East but to stop the
terrorists within Iraq from further attacks on the United States. With this
goal in mind, we must evaluate what has been attained when we consider the options
for withdrawal from Iraq. We must not rush into the removal of the troops so
that there is no structure and therefore creating chaos within Iraq. The
removal of our troops must be done in a gradual manner so that when we are gone
Iraq can sustain itself.
Current Iraq War
At the end of 2008, there are about 146,000 troops still
within Iraq maintaining our order and keeping our goals within reach. This is
not to say that everything is calm now, the U.S flag is burned with protests
still happening and attacks on U.S patrol units and Iraqi security forces. There
are still suicide bombings happening to this date, with a very recent one
happening on 28th of December 2008 which killed around 48 people.
Implementation
The United States has invested too much in this war and
cannot leave Iraq in the current status they are in. With the removal of troops
in a more gradual timing, this would allow for the Iraqi security troops to
slowly work into the control that would be ideal within the country. The
withdrawal of the troops must be gauged on the problems that are still within
the region that we are involved in. This meaning that if attacks are still
happening every day then we must not remove our troops, but secure the area then
implement the Iraqi security troops within the region to control it beyond the
United States. The implementation of training the security troops and with
troops still active within the area, this will allow for a more secure approach
to withdrawing from the region.
Once our troops within Iraq is under 75,000 there should be
a large focus to have trainers or high ranking officers be the last ones to
leave to ensure that a secure region is left. This allows for a large number of
troops to be removed, but there is still enough of our troops within the region
to secure it if the Iraqi troops are unable to keep the region under control.
The region should have at least 20,000-30,000 troops still within the region
when we do a final breakdown of the withdrawal. When we are at this number the
bare minimums of our control should be used and most of it coming from
commanders and high ranking officers who are supporting the Iraqi troops with
operations. When the Iraqi troops can support themselves then we are able to
move to the final step within the region.
Lastly, our efforts should be to extend our timeline within
Iraq by at least a year beyond the 2011 deadline, if our efforts to have the
Iraqi security troops to hold control of the region are unable to be obtained.
Closing Remarks
The status of Iraq cannot be left unchecked and leaving too
soon within a region with a high conflict rate could create a bigger problem
here than when we went into the region. The training for the security troops
should be necessary so that order can still be held and that a power struggle
does not happen within the region once the troops are removed. This action of
withdrawing troops must be considered as a high priority to the United States
because if done correctly it can create a stable country within a region of
conflict.
Peter, I really like the ideas you present in this memo. I completely agree that the United States cannot rush into the removal of troops because the country is still relatively unstable. Instead, as you stated, we should gradually remove troops and slowly implement and train Iraqi troops to continue the work the United States has begun. In your memo though, you do not mention what the United States' goals are with Iraq. You state what they were when we first invaded, but they have clearly changed in the 5-6 years since the date of this memo. I believe adding what the United States' goals are for Iraq (building democratic institutions, etc.) would strengthen your argument. With that being said, I think your arguments are overall strong and your implementations are compelling.
ReplyDeletePeter, you do a great job writing about your ideas in this memo. I think you're right that we cannot make any rash decisions as to taking troops out of the country because they are stable. With that being said, though, it is a very expensive conflict to fund, and a conflict that many people are against. I like your idea of gradually taking the troops out. One possible different suggestion could be to take the majority of troops out and send in other personnel to help deescalate problems in the country. Many issues cannot be fixed by pointing a gun at someone (which of course you are not suggesting) but we could possibly send teachers and doctors in, as access to education and health care provides is extremely important to the stability of a country and democracy. Overall, great ideas! Keep it up.
ReplyDeletePete, this was really a great and interesting read. I could not agree more that the sudden and total removal of troops would be detrimental to the situation *Cough Cough. At some point these people should truly regain control of their country, but when is the real question. Since the UN and Nato really do not do anything at the current moment, maybe it is time to start to get these organizations involved, as we should not shoulder the cost and work in this process. We have set up a a government that really has not worked and not passed expectations. It is about time that we have a clear and defined strategy in the middle east, hopefully this changes with the current administration. Overall great work and post.
ReplyDelete