To stay or to move on?

Obama Sticks to a Deadline in Iraq
By Peter Baker

To the Editor,

The issue of when to leave the Middle East has been a topic of discussion for a long time. Many were opposed before the troops even left in the first place. I find it interesting, now that Obama is keeping his promise of removing American troops by August, that there is such debate over whether or not it is the right time for such an action. This is not to say that the concern is unfounded. I agree that it is important for the removal of military forces to be strategic and done at a time that will not invalidate our efforts or cause a reverse effect. But the overwhelming pessimism toward removal portrayed in this article was surprising. “I’m for a shift away from the current rigid deadline to something more flexible, more reflective of the fluid and tense situation in Iraq, where the last thing the Iraqis really need is for the United States to be focused more on exit than anything else at a moment of high political uncertainty,” says Meghan L. O'Sullivan, a former deputy national security adviser to President Bush. It seems that the greatest concern is that IRaq will not be able to stand on its own feet when American forces leave. I feel that we are underestimating the people of Iraq in thinking that they won't be able to support their own government once our military leaves. Have we really listened to what they want? Do they want us to stay? Or are we choosing not to act out of fear? I think that Obama should keep his promise. It would show the American people and the world that he can stay true to his word. It will also show that we have trust in the people of Iraq, and confidence that they can maintain their own government.