Once thought to be making vast strides towards a more secure society, Iraq is now forced to grapple with remnants of its war torn past. As the parliamentary elections of January 16^th grow closer, violence continues to elevate. Take, for instance, the coordinated suicide attacks of August where 120 people were killed in and around the Foreign and Finance Ministries of the Iraqi government. As recently as October 25, another set of simultaneous blasts rocked the city of Baghdad, this time killing over 130 people and wounding another 500. Aimed at destabilizing Iraq’s fragile government and eroding support for democracy before the new year’s elections, these attacks are reminders for many Iraqi’s of what had became a distant past. In fact, the Justice and Provincial Council buildings attacked on the 25^th had only just removed their 12-foot high blast walls in the weeks leading up to the attack, evidently feeling secure despite their location in a heavily populated district of the capital.

As of now, President Obama’s administration is holding to its policy of a full withdrawal of forces by 2011 with the end of America’s combat mission by August 2010. Hence, within 10 months of these attacks, the military command hopes to rely solely on Iraqi security forces for patrols and security checkpoints with American soldiers remaining only around American facilities and helping to train new recruits. The question remains, however, whether or not General Odierno and his commanders will allow such a timetable if violence continues.

Questions over whether or not the United States should be withdrawing troops from the Middle East at a time of such violence will obviously ensue. After all, the very notion of President Obama altering his policy on AFPAK (Afghanistan-Pakistan) has led to endless news cycles of coverage with amateur video of attacks in Waziristan aired immediately following stills of the President entering close-door policy meetings. What we should be asking ourselves is whether or not we can afford to continue occupying Iraq until August.

Facing a massive global recession with only recent signs of improvement, (eg. The Dow rising above 10,000 for the first time in over a year) the United States is not in a position to continue Keynesian spending if only for the express purpose of defending a country that has proven relatively established on its own. For instance, in 2007 the Sunni Awakening against al-Qaeda united Shia and Sunni Muslims in a crusade against insurgents. While plagued with the tremors of any newly democratic state, Iraq’s government is functional. Led by President Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Iraq has increasingly asked for more freedom from American “occupation.” Consider, even, that once American troops began to withdraw from cities last summer al-Maliki declared the day a national holiday. It is clear that the Iraqi people desire self-governance. While the U.S. can foster democracy to an extent, the presence of 150,000 troops cannot possibly assure an independent state.

What I feel must be argued here is the idea that the United States must remain in Iraq indefinitely. While it may be hard for some to admit, we are the problem in this situation. Invading the Middle East in the first place is what drew the United States into an inevitable conflict of interests and values. Facing rising fundamentalism and an overwhelming mentality that the United States was not a land “paved with gold” but rather a heathen nation inherently set in opposition of Islam, we only enraged regional tempers by storming headstrong into a preemptive attack on weak intelligence. Ever since occupying Iraq and deposing Hussein, the United States has taken responsibility for the governance of Iraq of a nation, inexplicably bonding itself to the shaky Iraqi government. Now, more than combating the notion of democracy, terrorists are targeting the notion that these Iraqi ministries are symbols of American “oppression.”

Indeed, when in history has an occupied people enjoyed the aspect of being dictated to? Occupations always fail and are doomed to leave a lasting impression on a people and furthermore on the geopolitical state of the region. If America fails to completely withdraw from Iraq in the very near future, it will lose the capability of leaving a so-called “good impression” on the Iraqi people. I argue that American troops should be brought home one month after the parliamentary elections. We should take these elections as a queue that the Iraqi’s are willing and able to govern themselves. Through this demonstration of good faith we stand to gain much more in terms of political allegiances with a new Iraqi state than by delaying our withdraw and laboring under the delusion that timetables and benchmarks will ever be observed. In my opinion it will be difficult to ever leave Iraq simply given the idea that Americans will have to admit defeat. What we as a people must realize in this situation is that defeat now is much more advantageous for our image abroad and for our political interests than in 2 or even 5 years from now when we are even more entrenched in a worldwide unilateral assault on terrorism that we simply cannot win. Withdrawal will allow the Iraqi people autonomy and the ability to reestablish the sovereignty of their parliamentary government as free from perceived American manipulation. The longer we stay in Iraq the more we tie ourselves to a failing battle and a negative stigma. The faster we extricate ourselves the sooner we can move to address more pressing concerns such as the quickly deteriorating War in Afghanistan.