Who Doesn't Want Peace?

By Raquel Martin
Unfortunately, the future of the war in Iraq is not a simple matter of being in or out; it is a question of when and how. Most candidates will admit to wanting peace for both nations. However, peace requires a plan and everyone has their own recipe. Both the immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq and deployment of additional troops will have consequences. Security, democracy, finances, morals, and precious lives are all on the line.

Barack Obama, the self proclaimed humanitarian, plans on removing one to two combat brigades each month, and to have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Liberal constituents question whether 16 months is too long. Will we lose more American soldiers if we don’t bring them home sooner? Maybe, Maybe not. The truth is, getting out quickly is difficult and unsafe. It took the Soviets nine months to pull 120,000 troops out of Afghanistan. They were simply going next door, and they still lost more than 500 men on the way out. While it doesn’t sound like much in comparison with the lives that have already been lost in Iraq, it’s more than American families are willing to wager.

And that’s not the half of it, there are tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and many more U.S. Contractors who would be left vulnerable and unprotected if we were to pull out the bulk of U.S. troops at once. While the U.S. death toll might decrease, the Iraqi one would increase exponentially. This becomes a question of morality, which some candidates aren’t willing to face. Hillary Clinton plans on removing a bulk of the troops within 60 days of inauguration. She believes that an immediate withdrawal will “[push] the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.” According to Clinton, the Iraqi government’s clock is ticking with the presidential election coming up so soon. In an appearance on a Sunday morning talk show she stated that “part of the reason that the Iraqis are doing anything is because they see this election happening and they know they don’t have much time, that the blank check that George Bush gave them is about to be torn up.”

On the Republican side, John McCain feels that more American forces are needed in Iraq in order to support the insurgent strongholds. His ultimate strategy is to give the Iraqi government the ability to govern and secure their own country. If his progress in Iraq is in any way representative of our current presidents’, his intentions may never see the light of day. If bush hasn’t been successful in accomplishing his plan, what makes us think McCain’s plan won’t be just another misuse of America’s tax dollars? On the other hand, if he can establish a strong government in Iraq without too much collateral damage, staying in Iraq may be more successful that his democratic comrades plan.

Plans for the war in Iraq are merely calculated guesses as to what is going to happen. As exhausting as it is to come up with a solution, it remains one of America’s most pressing issues. One thing that most candidates are failing to mention is that the end of the war does not equate to an end of Americas responsibilities to the world. The most obvious place American assistance may have been needed was in Iraq, because the Sunnis and Shi'ites can’t seem to sustain a civilized relationship. But beyond Iraq, other regions such as Israel, Kabul, Somalia, and Darfur are just as unstable. Is it necessary for the U.S. to get involved in their affairs as well? We should take the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq as examples of the minimal success America has had in warfare. Realistically, we need change for the sake of progress, maintaining the status quo will only exacerbate the problems within foreign affairs.