I was watching Fox News while I ate my breakfast the other day -- I certainly don't think that Fox is a fair and balanced news source, but I like a fair and balanced selection of the news sources I intake. Current presidential nominee Tommy Thompson was on, talking about his campaign and then about his policy in Iraq and I have to admit that I think his plan is intelligent. He said the first thing that he would do would be to have the members of government vote on whether they want the U.S. in their country at all. If the Iraq government doesn't want U.S. presence, we will leave. If they do want us to stay, however, he would advocate for the creation of a "United States of Iraq" that would function similarly to the U.S., so citizens could elect true representatives.
I am not necessarily advocating or arguing for Thompson's Iraq policy and I haven't looked much further into it besides what he described on Fox that morning, but his policy clarified a problem that I feel with the current Democratic candidates. The Democratic candidates for president such as Obama and Clinton are talking about timetables and ways to get our troops out of Iraq, something that they sense the people want. What they're not doing, however, is describing what we'll do in Iraq while we're still there, as none of the candidates so far has said that the moment of their inauguration they will send in helicopters and pull all of our troops out. I want to hear a more substantial plan from them. I do not want to see more young American men and women die in the Middle East, especially since my cousin Alex will be there shortly. But I also do not want to see that our fallen troops have died in vain. I am in a strange minority and what many would believe a moot point because I don't believe that we should have pulled out of Vietnam when we did. We left all of our supporters in South Vietnam to be slaughtered. I could go into further detail about my theories on the Tet Offensive but I would probably get a little boring.
I believe that asking the Iraqis whether or not they want our help in their country is a good step, but if they say they do want us in their country, we have to create a balanced decision-making process. If the Iraqi people want us there to protect and help them, then they cannot argue that we shouldn't tell them what to do. On the other hand, however, the government needs time to stabilize and must be included in decision-making so that it can eventually do it on its own. The Iraqi people are certainly no less capable of this than we are, but we need to give them time to rebuild from the ground up.
I support the Democrats wanting to get our troops out of the Middle East, but they also need to tell the nation what they will do with Iraq. We cannot enter this country, destroy its infrastructure, and then leave, subjecting all of its citizens to violence that is not even sectarian, but purely opportunistic and power-seeking.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
His plan sounds good in theory, but I'm not so sure I agree with it. I don't believe that the people of the country know the consequences of our staying or leaving, whichever they may choose. Also, those who do know may be afraid to announce their opinion because of the personal safety concerns due to the instability of the country at the present time. Thus, such a vote could become a contest of bribes and threats be one side or the other.
Though Iraq may think it can keep a murderous regime out of power (assuming it doesn't want one), it is definitely not ready to fight against one.
Also, we must think of our own good. If we leave Iraq now or in the near future, it will most likely become a haven for terrorists who will one day show their faces on American soil.
John Colby- 16, Tampa, FL