The United States should continue efforts in Iraq without a time-table for redeployment.

President Musharraf did declaration of Martial Law had nothing to do with Iraq, it had everything to do with Al Qaida in the Mountains of Pakistan. Normally we would be there helping out with the fight, but our attention has been diverted to Iraq! In 2001 we were attacked by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida and an overwhelming majority of Americans approved invasion of Afghanistan to cut off their training camps and hopefully find Bin Laden. But soon after we were diverted to Iraq. Now, nearly 6 years later, we have STILL not found Bin Laden. Iraq may or may not be the cause of it, but it has most definitely slowed the efforts down. It also should be mentioned that Iraq DOES have a Democratic government. We put one in after toppling Saddam. Actually, it is not technically a specific national group that is in Iraq, but we do have evidence that Iran is supporting insurgent efforts in Iraq. So what do we do about this? I can only see two options. We either leave Iraq and see where we stand. Or we stay in Iraq and try push it through. Well the truth is that as long as we stay in Iraq, Iran MAY continue to support insurgents. So then our only option (if we don't leave) is to stop Iran. How are we going to do that? Sanctions maybe? They don't care about that (as has been shown). So what, then we invade? If that is the course of action, then we most definitely need to leave Iraq. How about the option of a time-table? A time-table would not only allow the redeployment of troops, but it would allow us to see what Iraq is looking like as we begin to leave the country. Remember, the debate is regarding a time-table, not immediate withdrawal. We cannot stay in a country because we are worried about the POSSIBILITY that another country MAY capitalize on the POSSIBILITY of an Iraqi governmental failure. Well we cannot speculate at the reasons why the Iraqi people want us to leave. To say it is only because "they think that the insurgency will leave with us", is an unfair claim. Who knows, they may just be tired of American troops patrolling their streets and busting into the house. And who knows, they may be RIGHT in regards to the insurgency ending. So we should stay until the insurgency ends??? Well I believe I addressed that above in regards to Iran. But we should wait "until we go to war with another country." I really hope that was just a slip in writing. That may be the most absurd thing i've ever heard. So we should just stick around until we declare war on someone else? Iran maybe? You seem smarter than that. You say we have "plenty" of troops in other bases across the world, well the truth is, we don't. Not only that, but the reason we aren't bringing the troops from other bases to Iraq, is because they have jobs to do. They are in those places because they are needed, not as just reserves. The national guard is depleted in America, states officials are beginning to get angry about this war because so many troops are being pulled from the National Guard, they are worried about their ability to respond to a state wide threat. I need to end by asking you what a "strong presence" is? Are you saying that 150,000 troops is NOT a strong presence? Because that is how many are in Iraq right now. How about the 2,800 in addition who have died? This doesn't even mention the approximate 1 million Iraqis who have died since the invasion. I really hope this has caused you to think about your support of this war. Your argument has been based on an irrational fear of 1.) Iran and 2.) Bruising the American Ego. Defeat is NOT synonymous with withdrawal. We have been in this war for long enough. It has proved to be unwinable, which is far more important than the perception of "losing". The world is not black and white, war is not about "winning" and "losing". It is not a zero-sum game. It is time to set a time-table for withdrawal.