I saw something in the news yesterday about how there have been discussions between the U.S. and Iraqi governments about U.S. troop levels in Iraq. It has to deal with a U.N. mandate that's set to expire this year. Apparently they are on the verge of finalizing the pact and keeping U.S. troops in the country, but there had been some issues in the early stages of negotiation.
That got me thinking: what if, one day, the Iraqi government just said "We're not going negotiate. We think we can handle it. We'd like you to please leave"? It won't likely happen this year, or next year, but what if some time in 2010 or 2011, during the next President's term (whoever that may be), Iraq just decided they didn't need our help any more. Well, let's say for reality's sake they just say they don't need that many U.S. troops any more. Should we just leave?
It seems like a pretty straightforward "Of course! Why let any more of our troops risk their lives?" But… I think it would be a complicated decision to make. It's sort of like if a sick patient just said "I think I'm good to go," and just walked up and left the hospital with some obvious issues. It's entirely possible that within a few years Iraq won't seem to be as "sick" as it is now, but do you think we'd rather leave on our own terms? After all, we've spent a lot of money and a bunch of troops have lost their lives in this war. Shouldn't we make the decision?
But it's not our country. It's Iraq. It is ultimately their decision, since we are there to help them rebuild. If, one day, they garner up the courage to say "Thanks for all the help, but we think we can stick it out," I think we need to honor their wish. We're not there to build an empire (or, at least we shouldn't be), and I don't want my tax dollars going to people who don't want or need it. It seems like a simple answer, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it come about and it turns out to be quite complicated.
No comments:
Post a Comment