<p>This is my proposal:</p>
<p>Bush should announce that the needs in India, Sri Lanka, etc. are so massive and so important to us that he is redeploying all the marines, special forces, and other troops in Iraq to go help with disaster relief and rebuilding efforts. The benefits:</p>
<p>1) 145,000 people would do an incredible amount of good in the regions struck by the tsunami... Would save many lives by taking food and water to places otherwise too isolated to reach, would get homes and schools rebuilt much faster, etc, etc. 145,000 well-organized people can do a LOT!</p>
<p>2) Would get the troops out of Iraq where more and more are dying each day. It does not seem that American troops are doing very much good there--just trying to force Democracy and, in so doing, leading to many more Iraqi deaths as well. Just bringing the troops home might create the impression we had failed (something Bush would never do), but no one could possible criticize sending them to help with disaster relief.</p>
<p>3) Would make a huge stride toward America regaining respect throughout the world. </p>
<p>4) Would help rebuild relations with the Muslim community</p>
<p>Reactions?</p>
<p>Asian governments have already said they don't need anymore troops, they need engineers and equipment. They turned down the British offer to deploy troops but accepted the offer of their helicopters and specialist engineers.</p>
<p>1) Yes.
2) Maybe right.
3) No way. Giving up in Vietnam lost us respect, and so would giving up here. Nobody likes a quitter. Finishing what you start is integrity, and the world needs more of that, not less.
4) Definitely not. Sure, the lack of our occupying troops would placate the extremists. They would be placated because they could seize power. Either another Saddam-like oppressive military regime or a Taliban-like radical theocratic regime would take power, leaving Iraq right where it was before, except worse because of the damage done in the war. This transformation would infuriate all of the normal people and moderates in Iraq and the Muslim community in general, who would lose whatever remains of their respect for and friendliness toward the United States. Instead of accomplishing something vague and not yet realized, the war would accomplish absolutely nothing. Sad. All those Americans, Iraqis, and al-Qaida "combatants" would have given their lives in vain. Whether invading Iraq in the first place was right or not doesn't matter now. It has been done. Finishing the reconstruction is the only right thing to do, and it is our duty to those who have already died to see it happen.</p>
<p>One other note -- this year will be the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. The U.S. STILL has bases in (West) Germany and Japan. These are the remnants of our occupying forces, which still have not left, even though Germany and Japan are now strong, wealthy nations. The occupiers were hated at first; later they were cheered as defenders. Now they are simply part of the way things are. Without the occupation and the Marshall Plan, these nations might have fallen into civil war, Communism, or all sorts of bad situations. Please ask again about removing the troops from Iraq in 2063, the 60th anniversary of the end of the war in Iraq. Just my two cents.</p>
<p>One more thing -- I know that Iraq is not facing a situation like the Cold War now. Times have changed. Also, I do not actually advocate leaving troops in Iraq for 60 years. That would be foolhardy. So is leaving U.S. troops in Germany and Japan now, where they are not needed at all and are essentially useless. I do advocate patience with the Iraq reconstruction. I don't know if Bush was right or wrong to invade Iraq. I do know that leaving the Iraqi people out in the cold would be wrong.</p>