Register  |  Login
   

Question

Defense > Iraq War > War on Terror
Iraq will become a failed state if the U.S. withdraws its troops now
Do you agree or disagree? 
     
 
   

3,101 votes for this question.

     
   

Background

The Crisis States Research Centre defines a “failed state” as a condition of “state collapse” – e.g. a state that can no longer perform its basic security and development functions and that has no effective control over its territory and borders. A failed state is one that can no longer reproduce the conditions for its own existence. This term is used in very contradictory ways in the policy community (for instance, there is a tendency to label a “poorly performing” state as “failed” – a tendency the Crisis States Research Centre rejects). The opposite of a “failed state” is an “enduring state” and the absolute dividing line between these two conditions is difficult to ascertain at the margins. Even in a failed state, some elements of the state, such as local state organizations, might continue to exist.

see more on Wikipedia

The Iraq War is an ongoing conflict which began on March 20, 2003 with the United States-led invasion of Iraq.

The war began on March 20, 2003, when a largely American force supported by small contingents from Great Britain, Australia, Denmark and Poland invaded Iraq. The invasion soon led to the defeat and flight of Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government; however it failed to restore order in Iraq. The unrest led to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil war between many Sunni and Shia Iraqis and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq. Coalition nations have begun to withdraw troops from Iraq as public opinion favoring troop withdrawal increases and as Iraqi forces begin to take responsibility for security. The war remains controversial around the world.

The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Spain José María Aznar and their domestic and foreign supporters, was the allegation that Iraq possessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Leaders and diplomats from countries on the U.N. Security Council that opposed the war made statements that contested this view. These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat to the United States, its allies and interests. In the 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein became imminent. In January 2005, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no WMD at the time of the invasion; although some misplaced or abandoned remnants of pre-1991 production were found, US Government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the US ""went to war"". The weapons for which the US and coalition partners invaded have not been found. Some U.S. officials cited claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. No evidence of any operational or collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda has been found.

see more on Wikipedia
     
   

comments No comments on this question yet.

Please, Login or Register to leave a comment.