My Name is Raymond Curry, I was deployed to the An Najaf Province, Iraq in the summer of 2004 with the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit. It is in violation of SEVERAL International, Federal and Constitutional Laws.

Iraq Veterans Against the War (Washington, DC)
Ray Curry
Curryrm@ gmail.com

I agree with setting a deadline for withdrawal of US forces, but wouldn't that just let the opposing forces know when to step up terroristic attacks?

The Iraq government needs to step it up as do the people in support of the democratic change. Without both they will not win the war. We need a clear strategy that will allow us to start a withdraw.

Can someone give a good reason why we are there in the first place? Is it helping our national security, or reducing terrorism? When will we ever see security in the Iraq region? Do the Iraqi people and those in the Middle East region hold the same cultural and political views as those of us here in the U.S.?

I personally see no end to the violence and killing in Iraq and I think we should have a unilateral withdrawl now. Immediately means we begin pulling out right now and we get all of the troops and civilian contractors out as soon as possible.

Who are we fighting in Iraq? Do we know our enemy? No. Are there front lines to be drawn? No. What will happen if we pull out now? Pretty much the same thing that is happening right now, only our servicemen and women will stop dying and being injured. We hear the reports about how many of our soldiers have died, but rarely do we ever hear about the thousands who are injured and maimed. Can I ask what for? Does anyone have a good reason why this "war" is still going on and what good it is doing anyone? Are we stopping terrorists who would otherwise do harm to us either in other parts of the world, or here in our homeland?

Answers are what the American people need. We need real answers and not political spin.

I think if Iraq is given a deadline, they may be more likely to get their acts together faster. I don't think an immediate withdraw will benefit anyone.

Not immediately. But on a time-line that is contingent upon Iraqi's own security forces taking over control.

Following the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition, the regime of Saddam Hussein rapidly collapsed and the invaders took control of the country. For the first year of occupation the Coalition Provisional Authority exercised power from Baghdad and the old Baathist structures of government, policing and armed forces were quickly swept away. Despite the rapid victory, with relatively few casualties among coalition forces, resistance continued, especially in the Sunni-dominated central provinces. Those actively opposed to the occupation ("insurgents" to the coalition) appear to have a variety of motives, including loyalty to the former regime, fear among the minority Sunnis of Shia and Kurdish domination, hatred for America (which seems to have drawn in many fighters from other Muslim countries), and resistance to foreign occupation among Shia elements of the population.
Violence in Iraq has continued even after the Coalition Provisional Authority handed over sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government in June 2004, and after elections and a constitutional referendum were held in 2005. Despite the presence of an elected government in Baghdad now, it relies heavily upon the coalition for security and is far from able to control the whole country. Insurgents have made use of terror tactics such as suicide bombs and attacks on civilians, especially those associated with the new regime. This has led to over 2200 deaths of coalition servicemen and women (including nearly 2100 Americans and 100 British soldiers), but many thousand more Iraqis have also died in daily violence. The lack of success in pacifying and rebuilding the country, together with the continuing death toll, has increasingly led to calls for coalition troops to withdraw.
The Coalition is dominated by the USA (c160 000 troops in Iraq in November 2005), with other substantial contingents from the UK (8600), Poland, South Korea, Australia, Japan, Romania, and Italy. Overall 27 nations are still in Iraq in November 2005, but many of these have only very small teams, perhaps of non-combatant specialists involved in reconstruction or training. Countries such as the Netherlands, Ukraine and Spain have already withdrawn their troops, and Poland and Italy are committed to at least substantial reductions in the next few months.
This forum considers whether the coalition forces of America and its allies should withdraw immediately from Iraq. The arguments focus on whether the coalition troops (overwhelmingly American) as a whole should leave Iraq, but they could easily be adapted for a debate specific to an individual country (e.g. Should the UK [or Poland or Australia or Italy] unilaterally withdraw its forces from Iraq?). The Proposition will also need to consider what they mean by "immediately" - it is clearly unrealistic to expect all the foreign forces in Iraq to be able to get out within 24 hours. On the other hand, immediately carries a sense of urgency, and should contrast sharply with the various vague proposals of coalition governments that they might be able to withdraw some of their troops in the course of 2006, or that a timetable for doing so should be provided. One suggestion might be that all forces should be withdrawn within three months at the outside.