Over the last several weeks, there has been more and more discussion on whether-or-not the US should begin their exit strategy from Iraq. Some believe that, the US should leave almost immediately, while others feel that US presence is needed for a few more years at least.

what do you think? Should the US troops begin leaving the war torn country of Iraq, or do the need a strong US presence for the long run?

years ago.

__________________
<---Click on it

In a decade or so.

The U.S. military should leave when one of the following occurrs:

1) The Iraqi government asks them to. This hasn't happened yet. Perhaps after the new government that will be elected in December takes office it will, or perhaps it won't.
2) The Iraqi government is fully prepared to be self sustaining and protect its people (as much as possible) in face of whatever insurgency exists in the country, and in face of external threats such as from neighboring countries (Iran, Syria). This won't be until the government that will be elected in December comes into office (sometime in 2006).
3) Iraq shows that it is unwilling to take the steps to sustain itself and defend its people. This isn't happening, but if it did, the U.S. would have to reevaluate.

Note that none of this depends on defeating the insurgency, capturing Al-Zarquawi, etc. When the nation is capable of standing on its own again, then our obligation to remain is over.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

They should never have been there in the first place.

That doesn't answer the question, does it?

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Maybe not, but lets assume that everyone makes mistakes, and sure this was a doosie, so lets put that behind us.

Now since they are there now, and everything is royally screwed up, how can the US fix it. Should they just jump ship and hope for the best? Or should they stay and try to stablize the situation.

I think that the best, and only way is for the USA to set a definte timetable to withdraw. Say 1 year, and then take steps from this point on to make that transition as smooth as possible.

The only problem with a published timetable is that it gives the insurgents too much information. Let's assume that it is 1 year from today. The insurgents would likely pull back and start stockpiling weapons. This causes the coalition and Iraqis to declare victory (and perhaps become complacent). Then in February, 2007, when the coalition troops are out of the way, they launch an all-out offensive against the Iraqi government which hasn't trained their troops as much as they should have (beleiving that they'd won). Of course the insurgents could do this anyway, but they wouldn't have any idea how long they'd have to wait before the coalition left.
Perhaps a secret timetable would work (perhaps one already exists), but it would still have to be subject to Iraq's ability to defend itself.

Bottom line is that you don't give any information to the enemy if you can avoid it. That is why no timetable is available to the public, and why it shouldn't be.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan