We Need American Troops

We Need American Troops
Thank you for liberating my country. Please don't leave before the job is done.

BY JALAL TALABANI
Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT



BAGHDAD--There is no more important international issue today than the need to defeat the curse of terrorism. And as the first democratically elected president of Iraq, I have a responsibility to ensure that the world's youngest democracy survives the inherently difficult transition from totalitarianism to pluralism. A transformation of the Iraqi state and Iraqi society is impossible without a sustained commitment of soldiers from the United States and other democracies.

To understand why, let us recall how we reached this juncture in history. How is it that Iraq today has a democratically elected head of state, government and Parliament? How it is that members of the most repressed ethnic groups now hold the highest offices of state? All these welcome developments are a result of the courage and vision of President Bush and his allies, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, leaders whose commitment of troops to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions liberated Iraq.





Without foreign intervention, the transition in Iraq would have been from Saddam's bloodstained hands to his psychopathic offspring. Instead, thanks to American leadership, Iraqis have been given an opportunity of peaceful, participatory politics. Contrary to the new conventional wisdom, Iraq and the history of 20th-century Europe demonstrate that force of arms can implant democracy in the most arid soil.



The rapidity of the democratization and reform of Iraq is staggering. There was no German state for four years after the Second World War. By contrast, Iraq has moved from a centralized, one-man dictatorship to a decentralized, federal republic in half that time.

Inevitably, there have been stresses and strains. In Iraq these have been amplified by the terrorism of the remnants of the fascist Baathist dictatorship and our interfering neighbors. To contain these tensions, and to defend our young democracy, requires the support of American and other troops. Foreign forces are needed to train and equip the new Iraqi armed forces and to give Iraq its own counterterrorism capability. Only the United States and its closest allies are able to provide such assistance.

Creating these Iraqi forces has not been easy, but Iraqis have been undaunted by the difficulties. Every terrorist attack on Iraqi forces leads to a surge in military recruitment--the opposite of the appeasers' myth that resisting terrorism causes more terrorism. For all the short-term problems, the soundness of the long-term strategy of building up Iraqi forces was demonstrated in recent days when Iraqis took over sole control of security in the holy city of Najaf.

As Iraqi forces gain in confidence and capability, so the need for foreign troops will diminish. The number of foreign troops will be determined in consultations between the Iraqi government and its foreign allies on the basis of operational requirements.

American forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Iraq, and with the backing of a United Nations Security Council resolution. Your soldiers are in my country because of your commitment to democracy. Moreover, during my visit to Washington, Mr. Bush reaffirmed the United States' complete support for the Iraqi political process toward sustainable democracy, and for the fight to defeat fascist and jihadist terrorism in Iraq.

That commitment to liberty has shaped our opposition to any timetable for withdrawal. There are also two practical, policy reasons to avoid such a scheduled reduction in foreign troop numbers. First, a timetable will aid the terrorists and tell them that all they have to do is wait. Second, military plans must be flexible. We should have the suppleness to respond to the often-changing level of terrorist threat. Indeed, we will require ongoing security assistance in many forms for many years to come.

If we keep progressing at the present rate, Iraqis may be able to take over many security functions from foreign forces by the end of 2006. That is not a deadline, but it is reasonable aspiration. During my visit to the United States, I was fortunate to meet relatives of some of the brave troops serving in Iraq. They were staunch, and I want their loved ones to have to serve in Iraq not a moment longer than is necessary.





Americans should be proud of what its soldiers have achieved. The presence of foreign forces has prevented a renewed civil war in Iraq--renewed because there has already been a civil war in Iraq. For 35 years, Saddam and his Baath Party made war on the Iraqi people. The liberation of Iraq ended that civil war.



Above all, American forces provide Iraq with a much-needed deterrence capability. In the past, Iraq sought an illusory security through the follies of aggression, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Today, our external security comes from our alliance with the United States. Our neighbors can thereby be assured that we will settle all of our differences with them peacefully.

Sadly, some of our neighbors have chosen not to understand this. They seem either unwilling or unable to shut off the pipeline of terrorists crossing into Iraq. And in addition to what is at least passive support for the terrorists, some of them are providing financial and material support to them, too. They must desist from this behavior now.

While the problem of some of our neighbors supporting terrorism is bad enough, we can only imagine what our neighbors might have done if American troops had not been present. Most likely, Iraq would have been transformed into a regional battlefield with disastrous consequences for Middle Eastern and global security.

Without American forces, the vision of American leadership and the quiet fortitude of the American people, Iraqis would be almost alone in the world. With its allies, the United States has provided Iraqis with an unprecedented opportunity. Iraqis have responded by enthusiastically embracing democracy and volunteering to fight for their country. By giving us the tools, your troops help us to defend Iraqi democracy and to finish the job of uprooting Baathist fascism. Mr. Talabani is president of Iraq.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007289

 

*rubs eyes* am i really reading such things on the Hip Forums


wow ....

 

Lisen Scumbag You Need To Shoot The Scums With Your Own Hands Join The Iraqi Military And Clean Them Out And Stop Whining Like Holcoust Jews.

 

ok it is a bit 'rose tinted'...but not fundementaly wrong

 

Yes sir, you are!

 

It makes a friggin change.. thanks.

http://www.usip.org/library/pa/iraq/adddoc/iraq_unsc1546.html

 

What!!! It's Down!!!

 

well, i've always believed in making lemonade when handed a buncha lemons. i TRY to make the best of a bad situation.

 

go enlist, then.

 

^^wtf does that have anything to do with it?

 

DA420,


I think that the majority of the American people believe that enlghtened democracy is important to have in Iraq but I also believe that the American people are very very concerned as to how we go about assisting in bringing this about. The concept of America, as concieved, is an extermely important concept; however there are people in 'leadership positions' in America who are doing things, involved in activities, that are damaging to enlightened democracy and truly jepordize the formation and advancement of enlightened democracy throughout the world.


David

 

When you have nothing constructive too say

Use one of the bog standard remarks made in threads of this kind.

'Bush lover'
'Peace hater'
Etc
Etc
Etc

 

The only people I tell to enlist are those who wanna get violent with people or smash up stuff.

If you merely say "this is wrong" that's one thing. But running over a peace memorial with yer truck... well, why not just enlist?

 

flol. nice. i come from a long line of military people. none of them are warmongers.

 

Yeah, the military folks are asking "should we be there?"

NON-ENLISTED FOLKS are armchair quarterbacking and attacking those who question.

 

yepper. that's how it always is, though, isn't it?

 

Blind patriotism is a sucker's game.

I believe in the America that was in 1776.... based on liberty and justice for all.

But apparently I'm not for PATRIOT or REAL ID so I'm naturally some kinda weirdo.

 

Rebuilding Iraq using tax money sounds a lot like socialism. In another post you said you were upset about your parents' tax money going to public schools in the U.S. You support this when it's done in Iraq but are generally against it when it is done in the U.S.? Why the special status for Iraq?

I really doubt the U.S. will get any of the $300 billion back from Iraq's oil. Even Bush said he wasn't going to do this as it would look like he invaded for the oil. Even if we got every drop of oil from them for free, it would take decades to repay what the U.S. has put into Iraq. That means that the rebuilding of Iraq will have been done on U.S. taxpayer money, which is essentially a form of socialism; moreover, socialism in someone else's country paid for by the U.S. taxpayer

.

 

I assumed you were American.

 

Other way around. Actually, the UN passed a resolution in the 80s condemning Saddam's use of chemical weapons but the U.S. and Britain vetoed it and continued relations with Saddam. Other countries expressed outrage over Saddam back then but the U.S. sat quietly and let it all go by.

The U.S. needs to get out of the business of propping up dictators and unsavory groups. It was fun when Rummy was special envoy to Saddam and used him to kick the butt of Iran who snubbed the U.S. in the late 70s, but the U.S. payed a high price for it a couple decades later. You and many others here don't remember those days, as you were toddlers back then or weren't born yet.

.