The United States should immediately withdraw from Iraq.

The Iraq War is, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom, is an on-going conflict which began on March 20, 2003. The main rationale offered for the initial invasion of the country was the suspected production of weapons of mass destruction, which, in the hands of terrorists, pose a grave threat to the United States and their allies. Now, in 2007, the debate is no longer over whether the invasion was justified or not. The controversy is now over troop withdrawal. With the country divided, which way is right? Is our job done? Should we leave now? The answer to all these questions is "NO". As the instigators of this conflict, the United States should remain in Iraq until the job is done. President Bush's recent troop surge has brought major military success to the war-torn area. The threat level in markets and other public venues has plummeted significantly. "Markets in Baghdad have faced devastating terrorist attacks. A car bombing in Shorja in February 2007, for example, killed 137 people. Today the market still faces occasional sniper attacks, but it is safer than it used to be. One innovation of the new strategy is closing markets to vehicles, thereby precluding car bombs that kill so many and garner so much media attention,"(McCain, John. "The War You're Not Reading About". April 8, 2007. Washington Post). Another heartening development from the troop surge is the increased safety of the streets and support from tribal leaders. For the first time since the beginning of the war, Senator John McCain from Arizona was able to meet with Iraqi leaders and enjoy the new found safety of Baghdad markets and streets. Such a victory should not be ignored. "For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad. For the First time, we met with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar Province who are working with American and Iraqi forces to combat al-Qaeda. For the first time we visited Iraqi and American forces deployed in a joint security station in Baghdad—an integral part of the new strategy. We held a news conference in discuss what we saw; positive signs, under reported in the United States, that are reason for cautious optimism," (McCain, 2007). As of right now, the fledgling democratic government of Iraq is not stable enough to operate on its own. The United States cannot leave until it is sure that the government will not once again turn into an oppressive dictatorship like the Hussein Regime. If the United States withdraws their military presence from Iraq, new government, military, and police officials will be slaughtered by the ever-present insurgency, a consequence that must not be ignored. The Iraqi military and police force are becoming more independent of the American forces, but they still need time to gain more members and capability. "Iraqi army and police forces are increasingly fighting on their own and with American forces, and their size and capability are growing. Iraqi army and police casualties have increased because they are fighting more," (McCain, 2007). If for no other reason, the United States should maintain their current presence in Iraq for their own safety. The omnipresent threat of Radical Islam is still a serious global concern. "Radicalism is now more frightening than the arms race, the Holocaust, and economic collapse. If we leave we let them gain more power, influence and time to plan the next attack. Only they will not be taking easy targets on the ground in Iraq. They will be back in America. Withdrawal would be a new renaissance for Islam claiming more followers who have seen the means to get goals accomplished and what really works in the world, violence," ( SSG Victor Wentworth, US Army. September 2007). An early withdrawal from Iraq would mean an emergence of Iran and other Middle Eastern countries into this already complicated conflict. "We have to leave Iraq stronger that it is right now, or the Iranians, Syrians, Russians, or Chinese will be all over it. We have done good stuff there and we need to notify the world that we are leaving Iraq stronger and in the capable hands of a compassionate and competent leadership," (Col. David Hunt, US Army, Ret. On The Hunt. Random House, New York: 2007). Many critics of the Iraq War will argue that the war was not justified in the first place and should therefore end immediately. This argument is quite easy to challenge. In 1991, the UN passed Resolution 687, stating that Iraq had to eliminate all development and production of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. After Iraq failed repeatedly to comply with the resolution, the UN passed another resolution, Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 states that because Iraq failed to comply with Resolution 687, it must grant unrestricted access to UN inspectors. Once again, Iraq failed to comply with the UN's resolutions, giving the US a viable reason to go to war with Iraq. Until the job in Iraq is done, the United States should not withdraw its troops. The US's recent success due to the troop surge has proved that the war in Iraq is winnable and that they are going to emerge from this conflict victoriously. The Iraqi government, military, and police force are not yet strong enough to operate without the help of the US, and if they did decide to withdraw, would collapse in utter disaster. The most important reason, though, is the global threat Radical Islam poses. If the US withdraws from Iraq, it will become a haven for terrorists, giving them time and resources to plan another terrorist attack against the US. As for the common argument of the pro-troop withdrawal advocates, the war with Iraq has always been justified, and the US should stay in Iraq until the job is done. "As every sensible observer has concluded, the consequences of failure in Iraq are so grave and so threatening for the region, and to the security of the United States, that to refuse Petraus's plan a chance to succeed would constitute a tragic failure of American resolve. This is not a time for partisan gamesmanship or for one-sided reporting. The stakes are just too high," (McCain, 2007).