should we be at war with iraq?
553524
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have lately been touting three sets of statistics to justify their claims of great progress in Iraq. First, they say, we've trained 100,000 Iraqi security forces. Second, 31 other countries are contributing troops as part of the vast international coalition. Third, Iraqi reconstruction is moving along on schedule, thanks to the $18.4 billion in U.S. economic aid.\n\nYet the U.S. State Department's most recent Iraq Weekly Status Report, dated Oct. 6, reveals that all three of those claims are either false or so misleading that they might as well be.\n\nFirst, it's true there are 100,000 Iraqi security forces, about three-quarters of whom are police, army troops or National Guardsmen. But that falls far short of the 272,000 forces that the report calculates are required. (For a breakdown of how many trained security forces exist and how many are needed, by category, click here.) \nSecond, about those 31 coalition members: All told, according to the report, they're contributing about 24,000 troops. The British alone are supplying about 8,000. So the remaining 30 countries have a total of 16,000 troops in Iraq—an average of just over 500 troops per country. The United States has about 130,000 troops over there—more than five times as many as all the other 31 countries combined. (For a full list of the countries involved—which include such powerhouses as Albania, Azerbaijan, and Tonga—click here.) This is not a coalition in the recognized sense of that word.\n\nCompare those figures with these: During the 1991 Gulf War (according to U.S. Central Command's official history of that conflict), 37 other nations took part, sending a total of 270,000 armed forces, flying 30,000 air sorties, and suffering one-third of combat fatalities. Among the nations sending at least one army division were Egypt and Syria. Now that's a coalition.*\n\nMore damning are the report's figures on Iraqi reconstruction. Yes, the U.S. Congress has appropriated $18.4 billion for this effort; but, according to the report, the authorities on the ground in Iraq have spent just $1.3 billion—about 7 percent of the money set aside.\n\nThe specifics of this disparity are still more depressing. For security and law enforcement, $3.2 billion was appropriated, but only $646 million has been spent. For electricity, $5.4 billion was appropriated, $330 million spent. For water resources and sanitation, $4.2 billion was appropriated, a pathetic $23 million spent. For oil infrastructure, $1.7 billion was appropriated, just $47 million spent. For justice, public safety and civil society, $1 billion was appropriated, $55 million spent. For health care, $786 million was appropriated, but $4 million spent. For transportation and communication, $500 million was appropriated, $12 million spent. And the list goes on.\n\nAlthough the State Department issued this report, you will not find it—or its weekly updates—on the State Department's Web site. Nor will you find it on the site of the Agency for International Development (though AID does have a similar report, with far vaguer and rosier figures). Instead, you'll find it on the Web site of the U.S. Commerce Department's Iraq Investment and Reconstruction Task Force—in short, on a site for businesses that need to know what's really happening over there. \n\nWhat's really happening—in numbers as clear as day—is that the training of security forces is proceeding way too slowly, the coalition is a misnomer, and reconstruction has barely got off the ground.\n\nCorrection, Oct. 8, 2004: The piece originally misstated the number of non-U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War coalition. It originally said that the non-U.S. coalition partners sent "a total of 800,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, as well as 300 combat support battalions, over 225 naval vessels, and 2,800 fixed-wing aircraft. Those aircraft flew 112,000 sorties and droppe
69335
This is a difficult question. Even though President Bush is a bungling fool who started a war for profits, we are now part of the war. Although I believe we need to get our troops put, we can't yet. This is because of the fact that Iraq still does not have a stable government. If we left now, another dictator could take over, and do more damage than has already been done to Iraq.
1024143
In the past we would be attacked (i.e. 1st World Trade Center attack, Marine barracks in Beirut, Blackhawk downing in Somalia, Embassy attacks, etc.) and our response has been little to non-existent. On 911 we were attacked and this President has done something. It was a very tough decision but he made it. The path has become rough, many who supported him have changed their minds and no longer support him, but he has stayed the course. I do believe both the president and the troops deserve my support. They are doing what has not been done for a long time. Fighting the enemy, if you believe we should have gone to war with Iraq or not Al Queda is in Iraq today, and our men and women are fighting them. Al Queda attacked the USA and I agree with the president that we should hunt them down, wherever they may be.
683694
I think you asked your question wrong,it should be "what are we fighiting for in iraq?" ---we are fighting for oil supply in iraq,this is the primal reason.the second reason is to secure the area (middle east) for isreal.
720684
I have served in the Marine Corps through both afghanistan and iraq. I will tell you honestly, We had to go there. We had to fight. There are two points that the military is instructed to carry out 1)Defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. 2) Defend those who cannot defend themselves. Now if your asking if we should still be there, I believe we should be there as an advisor role only. We should no longer be patroling those roads and streets that I had to when the wars originally started. Its been over 3 years since the start of Iraq and almost 5 since the start of Afghanistan. We should be pulling out faster and letting them decide how they wish to live just as we did after the revolutionary war.
859588
Who the hell knows, but we do need to do something.  This war is not working out the way we expected.  We have spent 1/2 trillion and we are making enemies faster than we can kill them.
321587
I think it was totally right to go to war, mis-informed people argue otherwise. Do I think Iraq will be able to convert smoothly to a "democracy" state? No, it's not what their used to, they are used to a dictatorship of evil rule. If they like to be free, they will be, if they don't and prefer to live under a dictatorship then they will fight to do so. Promoting stability in Iraq is up to the people, not the war effort.
686959
Look at the 9/11 attacks. Was that necessary? Was it necessary to attack London and Spain? Was it necessary to attack us back in 91? That is why we are at war.
128918
I would argue that we are already at war with Iran. Iran is the major reason for the fighting in Iraq today. Iran has a great interest in seeing that Iraq is not stabilized and we continue to concentrate our efforts there. With Afghanistan being relatively stable, a stable Iraq means that attention will be focused elsewhere. Like Iran and their nuclear program (which the United Nations has condemned and passed resolutions that Iran must stop it). If Iran has stable democracies with American soldiers in them to their east and to their west, they'd be mighty nervous.
288248
Is that true? I think our armed force's should be protecting all our boarders, and not Iraq's. If America has this terror problem like Bush says then I would be the only smart thing to do. Vote the Tyrants out in November.
364449
I agree with you completly. Our Gov't is ready for war whenever. It is just ridiculous that they are tying to start stuff with the USA. I mean just look at us in Iraq, they don't let us inspect their country for nukes and we attack. Iran is pratically starting a war with us and I bet you that we will attack them before the next presidential election.
585574
Iraq is and will be in civil war weather we leave there now or in a hundred years so it does not matter when we leave. The strongest will take the power and will run the country as they see fit and that is just the way it is. I was against the war to begin with, we have no business telling another country how to run their business, no matter how bad a leader that they have. I agree that Saddam is and was a bad man but that is Iraq, and we are the United States and we have plenty of problems with a bad leader right here.
837009
I feel that there are very few noble causes for war. If Iraq had done some sort of action against Americans, or if they did some sort of action against one of our allies then maybe. We went over there to make rich men richer. We are an occupying force in that country. If another country invaded us to make their rich men richer I would fight until i gave out my last dying breath. I'm sure this is what the Iraqis are thinking. I am not ready to enlist for this war. "Terror" is a braod term. by deffinition there are many American terrorists in America. Its a farce and false pre-tense for war. Iraq did not bomb the world trade center. There are many countries that have prro leaders. Are we going to bomb and occupy them all? Maybe if they had lots of money to loot. A noble war is the war on hunger. enough said.
557849
there has to be war sometime. but i do not like it at all. i think that we can settle things with communication and agreement. i think that the war in iraq is because the president is not thinking about how to solve it without war. he says he is a christian but we do not believe in violence. \n                          -peace child
726502
We could pull out and let them dip into a civil war, or stay there and let our troops endure the war.  We should not have gone there in the first place, and if we felt we had no choice, we shouldn't have bombed them back to the stone age.\n\nAny way you look at it, the Iraqi's lose.
829627
We could attack them. We really don't need an excuse to go to war with them. We'll just make up lies. That always seems to work good for our government!
936400
I prefer to think our war is over and we are providing security while Iraq establishes its democratic government.  I think that has become our role.\n\nLiberals prefer to call it "Bush's war in Iraq," which strikes me as pure terrorist propaganda.\n\nEither way, we are likely to be there a while.