How to Get Out of Iraq: A Proposal

Violence in post-Saddam Iraq is nothing new; almost from the first day American troops entered the country, violent conflicts have been a part of everyday life. Under Saddam, citizens of Iraq were kept in line largely through brutal, heavy-handed government tactics; the state apparatus held a monopoly on violence, and the state showed time after time that they were not afraid to use violence to keep Iraqis under control. With the dissolution of the state, however, various conflicts have erupted into violent confrontations throughout Iraq, whether it be between racial and ethnic groups, religious sects, tribes, family or personal rivalry, or even due to random criminal acts. The number of violent acts, and the casualties caused by these acts, have only seemed to increase the longer American troops have remained in Iraq. 

This trend of increasing violence has caused many Americans, including ones who supported the Iraqi war when it first began in 2003, to reconsider the intelligence and practicality of keeping American troops in the country much longer, especially as more and more Americans are dying every day. On the other hand, many Americans still feel a sense of responsibility towards the fledgling post-Saddam Iraqi state; if America was to leave, would we simply be dooming the country to failure, and ultimately, a period of violence even worse than what was seen under Saddam? How should these equally valid concerns be weighed against each other? In examining this question, it is helpful to consider two opposite views: that America should withdraw immediately, and commit to being out of Iraq within six months, and that America should commit to staying in Iraq for as long as necessary, whatever that may mean. By examining these two options, it becomes clear that both have serious faults, and it appears that a compromise between immediate withdrawal and long-term occupation is the most practical and appropriate course of action.