Of course, it's imperative that we stabilize Iraq and quickly reduce our armed role there.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I was heartened to hear the President say that as we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels.
The bottom line is that after we defeat the armed forces of Iraq, that we will want to and need to provide stability throughout that country.
So we are fulfilling our task in preventing serious armament stocks in Iraq within our possibilities.
We have accomplished our mission of stopping Iraq's drive to take over Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East. We should begin to reduce our forces in Saudi Arabia, ever so slowly, and look to a more multinational force to keep the peace.
We cannot cut and run. If we are to ensure freedom and democracy, it is essential that we follow through on our obligation to bring about stability in Iraq.
We must either reduce the number of our engagements or increase the number of our troops.
Our military is doing everything it can to equip Iraq's forces so our troops can come home as soon as possible, but we cannot leave until the job is done.
We have to bring stability to Iraq, otherwise we will be faced with a future dilemma of sending our loved ones into harms way to stop a civil war or the rise of a new tyrant born from the instability that we created.
Yes, we need a force to continue to train, assist, advise the Iraqi army.
And we need to maintain our foothold in the fight against terrorism and terrorist groups and respond to any degradation of Iraqi security or stability.