Don't we need to send more troops to Iraq?

No. There are already 135,000 foreign troops in Iraq and most of their energies are spent protecting themselves, not the Iraqi people. Each 10,000 soldiers require 30,000 meals and 250,000 gallons of water per day. More troops cause havoc: crowding roads, taking over land, using Iraqi gasoline and electricity, and fostering dissent. Instead of more troops, fewer are needed.

Aren't the troops helping Iraqis?

Only in part. Soldiers have been active trying to help where they can, but much of their work has been for public relations purposes. Iraq unemployment remains high, yet the military insists on using its own soldiers to paint schools, refurbish parks, and build new facilities … adding to the problem and doing little to help Iraqi businesses to become self-sustainable.

Aren't foreign troops necessary to stop the insurgents?

A limited number. Arguments can be made that some troops - either Iraqi or foreign - are needed for security. However, the insurgency is widespread and the Iraqi people want foreign troops to leave. Their presence currently only adds to the problem. Between April and July over 15,000 insurgents were either killed or captured by the U.S. but attacks continue to increase .

Won't Iraqis have civil war if troops withdraw?

Perhaps. There is a chance of civil war regardless of when troops leave. However, there is little likelihood that the situation will become more stable with time … the opposite is also possible. Instead, Iraqis need to hold elections and restore their economy much faster than has been occurring during the occupation. A withdrawal of troops would allow focus on these critical areas.

More questions? Let us know.