• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the American military needs to pull back troops

One1

New member
Joined
May 8, 2019
Messages
16
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
9/11 is what comes to mind when people think of a terrorist attack. Committed by Al-Qaeda, there was a total of 2977 deaths not counting the 19 hijackers. Now when countries like Iran and Iraq think of terrorist attacks they think of their everyday life. Gunfights, grenades, army "brutality". Their own insurgent leaders kill and terrorize them, but only for helping and sheltering the U.S. army soldiers. I feel that is the U.S. Gov. would just pull back its troops everything would be fine. And for you people saying that they would try to invade America , they wouldn't because we have more weapons and tech and men. They would most likely just stay in their own country.
 
9/11 is what comes to mind when people think of a terrorist attack. Committed by Al-Qaeda, there was a total of 2977 deaths not counting the 19 hijackers. Now when countries like Iran and Iraq think of terrorist attacks they think of their everyday life. Gunfights, grenades, army "brutality". Their own insurgent leaders kill and terrorize them, but only for helping and sheltering the U.S. army soldiers. I feel that is the U.S. Gov. would just pull back its troops everything would be fine. And for you people saying that they would try to invade America , they wouldn't because we have more weapons and tech and men. They would most likely just stay in their own country.

Both Iran and Iraq are relatively stable. I don't see an insurgency in either..

What are you talking about? Muslim on Muslim violence? Arab Spring?
 
9/11 is what comes to mind when people think of a terrorist attack. Committed by Al-Qaeda, there was a total of 2977 deaths not counting the 19 hijackers. Now when countries like Iran and Iraq think of terrorist attacks they think of their everyday life. Gunfights, grenades, army "brutality". Their own insurgent leaders kill and terrorize them, but only for helping and sheltering the U.S. army soldiers. I feel that is the U.S. Gov. would just pull back its troops everything would be fine. And for you people saying that they would try to invade America , they wouldn't because we have more weapons and tech and men. They would most likely just stay in their own country.

The US hasn't "invaded" Sri Lanka.
 
yes Muslim violence. If you look you'll see that there are different groups of "Muslims" all over who kill in the name of their God.
 
Also Iraq isn't stable, "because of its complicated political situation and turmoil that took over the country and its neighbors." This allows for "war"(not really war but more like disputes that allow for violence) among themselves.
 
9/11 is what comes to mind when people think of a terrorist attack. Committed by Al-Qaeda, there was a total of 2977 deaths not counting the 19 hijackers. Now when countries like Iran and Iraq think of terrorist attacks they think of their everyday life. Gunfights, grenades, army "brutality". Their own insurgent leaders kill and terrorize them, but only for helping and sheltering the U.S. army soldiers. I feel that is the U.S. Gov. would just pull back its troops everything would be fine. And for you people saying that they would try to invade America , they wouldn't because we have more weapons and tech and men. They would most likely just stay in their own country.

Gee, did groups like ISIS stop launching attacks after the US pulled out of Iraq?

No?

Many of these groups are motivated by religious differences, either within one religion or attacking their neighbors.

They are not going to stop killing just because the US isn't actively trying to stop them.

And the US still had a technology advantage in 2001, but that didn't stop the attacks
 
9/11 is what comes to mind when people think of a terrorist attack. Committed by Al-Qaeda, there was a total of 2977 deaths not counting the 19 hijackers. Now when countries like Iran and Iraq think of terrorist attacks they think of their everyday life. Gunfights, grenades, army "brutality". Their own insurgent leaders kill and terrorize them, but only for helping and sheltering the U.S. army soldiers. I feel that is the U.S. Gov. would just pull back its troops everything would be fine. And for you people saying that they would try to invade America , they wouldn't because we have more weapons and tech and men. They would most likely just stay in their own country.

You know, that sounds just like what a lot of people were saying in 1941.

Yea, we know they are killing lots and lots of people, but they are leaving us alone. So we should just stay out of it all and not get involved.

Iran itself does not do terrorist attacks. Much like the Soviets in previous decades, they simply find groups who are willing to do such things and provide them with money, weapons, and instructors. Not unlike the link between organizations like the KGB and STASI to groups like the Red Army Faction, Shining Path, and the IRA (and all of it's offshoots). Except Iran supports groups like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and others.

And they pick targets like the US because to many it is the symbolism that matters most. They will be amazingly silent when it came time to stop Iraq after it invaded Kuwait. In fact, many groups like the PLO and the Yemen government lost a lot of international goodwill after they supported Iraq (almost all Yemeni citizens were deported from Kuwait after it was liberated, and they have not supported the PLO since 1990).

And no, nobody is stupid enough to think they will "invade" the US. Not even the plot line for a 1980's Chuck Norris movie would be so silly. But what they do is actively support organizations that want to conduct attacks here. Lacking the capability to launch "smart bombs" at the US and other major allies, they instead use "not so smart bombs". In other words, humans trying to carry weapons to do attacks themselves. And there is no lack of ability to find people willing to do these attacks.

Like Christianity in the first millennium, there is no shortage of martyrs in that region who are willing to die at the order of others.

However, if anything the lesson of 1990's Afghanistan should be a lesson to anybody urging the US to just pull out and leave the area. That is what happened in Afghanistan when the SOviets left, and look what happened. A decade of civil war and death, followed by a government taking power that used public executions, destructions of priceless artifacts, and assassination as tools to try and keep their people in line. Which actively supported terrorists worldwide.

Exactly what ISIS was trying to replicate in Iraq.
 
Gee, did groups like ISIS stop launching attacks after the US pulled out of Iraq?

What they did do was largely stop the attacks prior to the pull-out. This gave the US President the ability to proclaim that he had "won" and the war was over.

But we all know what happened after that. A group that took over, and used what was left of the TV system to broadcast mass executions in town squares. Including putting captured airmen into cages and burning them alive.

Exactly what most of his military advisors (and even many in the State Department) warned him would happen.
 
Also Iraq isn't stable, "because of its complicated political situation and turmoil that took over the country and its neighbors." This allows for "war"(not really war but more like disputes that allow for violence) among themselves.

Iraq will never be stable.

There have only really been 2 democracies in that region, Israel and Lebanon. And Lebanon has fallen several times because of factionalism.

Like most of that region, there is no real sense of "nation" in Iraq. They identify with their tribe and clan much more than they do to any fictional government. This is why in the majority of countries in the region that are stable, a strong Monarchy is the form of government.

Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, in each of these and others there is a strong "Royal Family" (or group of them) that tries to balance all the various factions into working together. Iraq used to have that until there was a coup and the Ba'ath Party rose. Syria also saw that replaced by a dictator. Iran saw the royal family replaced with theocracy. Yemen has been a mess for decades.

The thing is that most of the world sees Democracy as a form of mob rule or anarchy, until eventually one group gains enough power that they can trample on all the rest. This is a region that in some ways is similar to the US before the Civil War. Loyalty to State was more important than to the country, the same with Tribes and Clans. Your clan or tribe leader does not like a policy of the government and refuses to participate because of it (or even attack it), the rest of the members follow along. There is simply no concept of "Country" in their world view.

I have said since 2002 that both Iraq and Afghanistan would have been much better served by returning their monarchies. Both were popular, they were not overthrown by popular revolt or revolution but by simple power grabs by other high ranking members. A stable Constitutional Monarchy which provided a popular figurehead would have put in place a system that the people were familiar with. And would have allowed them to gradually introduce more and more freedoms, and allowed the power of Tribes and Clans to fade away over time.

You can not just thrust thousands of years of political evolution onto a people that have never experienced it before, and expect it to stick. We did not even do it that way in Europe for goodness sakes! You have to take it one step at a time, or you end up with messes like the Weimar Republic or Russia.

And yes, Russia between 1917 and 1923 was a bloody mess. You had the Reds, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Bolsheviks, the White Russians, the Green Army, and dozens of other factions fighting it out from the Ukraine to East Siberia. In fact, many of the groups would bounce back and forth from one major group (Whites) to the other (Bolsheviks). The Greens and Left SR both abandoned the Bolsheviks early on because they realized they were not interested in partners, they wanted total control (and frequently used those less "politically pure" as cannon fodder).

Anybody with half a brain could predict that Iraq would fall apart without being propped up, it was never a stable government. Which only shows that a great many in the last administration had less than half a brain.
 
Also Iraq isn't stable, "because of its complicated political situation and turmoil that took over the country and its neighbors." This allows for "war"(not really war but more like disputes that allow for violence) among themselves.

Is Iraq at war? They just finished thumping ISIS. They are not at war with their eternal enemy Iran.
 
9/11 is what comes to mind when people think of a terrorist attack. Committed by Al-Qaeda, there was a total of 2977 deaths not counting the 19 hijackers. Now when countries like Iran and Iraq think of terrorist attacks they think of their everyday life. Gunfights, grenades, army "brutality". Their own insurgent leaders kill and terrorize them, but only for helping and sheltering the U.S. army soldiers. I feel that is the U.S. Gov. would just pull back its troops everything would be fine. And for you people saying that they would try to invade America , they wouldn't because we have more weapons and tech and men. They would most likely just stay in their own country.

No...everything would not be fine. However, what we could have, if we pulled our troops out of certain types of conflicts and regions, is not having our Service Members killed, billions of $$ down the toilet, crappy alliances with groups that are no better than what we are fighting against, not having regions destabilized and therefore making them less safe for those living there and also for ourselves...so many reason to take things down a few notches.
 
Is Iraq at war?

They are not at war, but they are still a fractured country with their political system deeply divided.

Unlike in the US where you have 2 main parties, Iraq has 9 major parties and almost 200 smaller ones that join with one or another depending on issues. These then form generally into 4 main Alliances, the State of Law Coalition (an Islamic Fundamentalist group), Popular Mobilization Forces (a more secular group composed of various Shia, Sunni and Christian militias), the National Wisdom Movement (also a more secular organization), and al-Sadr lead Iraq Communist Party. But there are many sub-organizations in play as well, and no 1 party has any real dominance, let alone 2 parties.

Even today, their political system is very much like their Tribe-Clan system. With entire regions voting almost exclusively for the party that their Clan and Tribe support. It will probably be decades before they stabilize enough to have anything even remotely like a 2 or 3 party system that most in the world are used to.

And the ISIS insurgency is still ongoing. SO long as the country is this divided, ISIS (or other groups) will exploit it when they can.
 
No...everything would not be fine. However, what we could have, if we pulled our troops out of certain types of conflicts and regions, is not having our Service Members killed, billions of $$ down the toilet, crappy alliances with groups that are no better than what we are fighting against, not having regions destabilized and therefore making them less safe for those living there and also for ourselves...so many reason to take things down a few notches.

Ahh, the "Ostrich Approach" to international relations.

Yea, we have seen how well that works many times.
 
Ahh, the "Ostrich Approach" to international relations.

Yea, we have seen how well that works many times.

There certainly must be a middle ground; the meddle everywhere approach hasn’t served the US well.
 
There certainly must be a middle ground; the meddle everywhere approach hasn’t served the US well.

We do not. And in the last 50 years most of the places we "meddled" was as part of a multi-national coalition.

It never ceases to amaze me how little empathy many people have for anybody other than themselves. They will beat on their chests and demand that "somebody do something". SO long as that somebody is not themselves.
 
We do not. And in the last 50 years most of the places we "meddled" was as part of a multi-national coalition.

It never ceases to amaze me how little empathy many people have for anybody other than themselves. They will beat on their chests and demand that "somebody do something". SO long as that somebody is not themselves.


I stood on the wall for three years; you take your crapola elsewhere, thank you.
 
I stood on the wall for three years; you take your crapola elsewhere, thank you.

OK, and? Should we have simply done nothing and allowed East Germany to absorb West Berlin as they tried to do in 1948?

After all, it was not our fight. We could have simply walked away and let East Germany do what it wanted. But we did not, did we? After all, it did not really affect the US at all really.
 
Ahh, the "Ostrich Approach" to international relations.

Yea, we have seen how well that works many times.

Who said anything about the Ostrich Approach and please inform me how things are currently working out so amazingly?
 
Who said anything about the Ostrich Approach and please inform me how things are currently working out so amazingly?

We no longer have terrorist camps all over Afghanistan and Iraq that are actively sponsored by the governments in control.

The governments in those nations now are not filling up empty spots in the desert with mass graves, nor conducting public executions for such crimes as "showing their face" and "their husbands wanting a divorce". Let alone more severe crimes like "Reading the Koran" or "Driving a car".
 
9/11 is what comes to mind when people think of a terrorist attack. Committed by Al-Qaeda, there was a total of 2977 deaths not counting the 19 hijackers. Now when countries like Iran and Iraq think of terrorist attacks they think of their everyday life. Gunfights, grenades, army "brutality". Their own insurgent leaders kill and terrorize them, but only for helping and sheltering the U.S. army soldiers. I feel that is the U.S. Gov. would just pull back its troops everything would be fine. And for you people saying that they would try to invade America , they wouldn't because we have more weapons and tech and men. They would most likely just stay in their own country.

If the us pulled back their troops everything would not be fine, it would just be america not making things worse as that whole region has been fighting each other long before islam or even christianity appeared, and they would do so long after america or any other foreign powers left the region. The only powers to keep control there were either brutal dictators or empires who divided people to ensure minimal conflicts like the ottoman empire did.
 
If the us pulled back their troops everything would not be fine, it would just be america not making things worse as that whole region has been fighting each other long before islam or even christianity appeared, and they would do so long after america or any other foreign powers left the region. The only powers to keep control there were either brutal dictators or empires who divided people to ensure minimal conflicts like the ottoman empire did.

Exactly.

In most areas of the world, those conflicts have existed for thousands of years. But then ironically in others it never existed until relatively modern times.

Prime example, the entire fabricated notion that "Arabs-Muslims must hate Jews". That is almost entirely fictitious, created in the last 60 years by those that wanted to exploit fake hatred for their own purposes. Prior to 1948, the Arabs got along perfectly fine with their Jewish neighbors, and even fought alongside them, sold them their land, and worked together on a great many projects. And this goes back well over a thousand years.

Simply look in the history book at the history of the Spanish Inquisition. It was primarily remove the vestiges of Moorish Rule, and after the Muslims were all ejected, converted or killed it went after the Jews. Why? Because they were primarily the "middle men" between the Muslim overlords and the Catholic majority. They could do things that both Christians and Muslims were prohibited, so they were a bridge that both sides exploited. But in the last half century without the Ottoman overlords they became a scapegoat for all the ills in the region.

Anybody that thinks the US simply leaving would solve these problems is an idiot. And ironically, the last 30 years have been probably the most peaceful in the region in the last 100+ years. Look at how many times Israel was attacked over 30 years. But since 1990 that has pretty much stopped, and the former enemies are actually growing quite close. Other than a few religious conflicts and one nation that kept trying to conquer and annex their neighbors the last 30 years have actually been remarkably stable as a region.

I was lucky enough to get a tour of the Qatar-Saudi border in 2009. A 5 mile wide "no man's land" that separated the nations, willed with artillery posts, mine fields, and tank obstacles. That for decades had been manned by soldiers on both sides. After 1991 it was largely dismantled, with only the abandoned watchposts still standing. The Colonel who showed me around told me it was where he was posted for 2 years when he was a Lieutenant, and it was like a mini "Cold War" for 40 years prior to that.

But the lesson to most of the Gulf Nations after the Gulf War was that if they allied with the US, we left them alone unless they needed our help. We did not demand military bases, they were still free to get their equipment from wherever they wanted, at most we asked for rights to ports and airport. And interestingly enough, most of them actually built ports and air bases and then pretty much begged the US to come in and occupy them.

I spent a year at Al Udeid Air Base, in Qatar. We jokingly called it the "Field of Dreams" base, from a line in the movie. "If you build it, they will come".

After 1991, Qatar realized that like Kuwait they could never stop an invasion on their own. So even though their entire Air Force consists of only around 100 aircraft, they built a massive air base in the middle of the desert. The base is truly massive, and it was built for the very purpose of luring in the US to bolster their own defenses. Since then they have completely demilitarized their border with Saudi Arabia, and have fallen away from Iran increasingly in recent years, because they know if Iran was foolish enough to attack them, by default they would also be attacking the US.

And no, they are still free to purchase whatever equipment they want. In fact, their 2 most recent aircraft acquisitions are Typhoon jets from the UK, and Rafale jets from France. All of their air tankers are made by Airbus, and other than a single model of helicopter and fighter all of their other attack and trainer aircraft are of European design and manufacture. And the US also made quite an impression when they left both Iraq and Kuwait without fuss. The governments asked us to leave, we left. No coup or pressure to allow us to stay, we just packed up and left without issue. Something they did not experience to often in the past when they were working with the USSR. Then the biggest way they kept their military presence was the threat of cutting off arms shipments. "Oh, you don't want our 'advisors'? Then fine, you can't have any more of our weapons. Or our engineers, or use our schools, or our commercial aircraft."
 
Back
Top Bottom