"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"
About this Quote
The line captures the Iraq War’s central balancing act: promise a homecoming while insisting on a conditions-based exit. By stressing that the military is equipping Iraq’s forces, it points to the strategy that U.S. leaders framed as “as they stand up, we will stand down.” Training and arming local security forces was presented as the practical path to reduce American exposure, transfer responsibility, and create a sustainable order after the 2003 invasion disrupted the state.
“Cannot leave until the job is done” folds several objectives into one elastic phrase: defeating the insurgency, preventing terrorist safe havens, securing the population, and building Iraqi institutions capable of basic governance. The ambiguity serves a political and strategic function. It reassures a war-weary public that withdrawal remains the goal, yet it keeps the timetable tied to outcomes rather than dates. That conditions-based stance also gestures to moral responsibility and credibility: a premature exit could invite a power vacuum, embolden enemies, and betray local partners.
Context matters. In the mid-2000s, sectarian violence, weak ministries, and competing militias complicated the mission. The 2007 surge sought to create space for political reconciliation while accelerating the training of the Iraqi Army and police. But equipping forces could not by itself resolve legitimacy deficits or factional loyalties; capability without cohesion risked backsliding or capture by sectarian interests.
The phrasing also subtly relocates the source of delay from Washington to conditions on the ground. If the military is doing “everything it can,” then any lag stems from the time it takes to forge a functioning partner state. Supporters read this as sober realism; critics heard an open-ended commitment with shifting goalposts. Subsequent events, from the 2011 withdrawal to the rise of ISIS, highlight both the logic and the limits of the approach. The statement distills an era’s dilemma: end a costly war, yet avoid leaving before the aftermath can stand on its own.
“Cannot leave until the job is done” folds several objectives into one elastic phrase: defeating the insurgency, preventing terrorist safe havens, securing the population, and building Iraqi institutions capable of basic governance. The ambiguity serves a political and strategic function. It reassures a war-weary public that withdrawal remains the goal, yet it keeps the timetable tied to outcomes rather than dates. That conditions-based stance also gestures to moral responsibility and credibility: a premature exit could invite a power vacuum, embolden enemies, and betray local partners.
Context matters. In the mid-2000s, sectarian violence, weak ministries, and competing militias complicated the mission. The 2007 surge sought to create space for political reconciliation while accelerating the training of the Iraqi Army and police. But equipping forces could not by itself resolve legitimacy deficits or factional loyalties; capability without cohesion risked backsliding or capture by sectarian interests.
The phrasing also subtly relocates the source of delay from Washington to conditions on the ground. If the military is doing “everything it can,” then any lag stems from the time it takes to forge a functioning partner state. Supporters read this as sober realism; critics heard an open-ended commitment with shifting goalposts. Subsequent events, from the 2011 withdrawal to the rise of ISIS, highlight both the logic and the limits of the approach. The statement distills an era’s dilemma: end a costly war, yet avoid leaving before the aftermath can stand on its own.
Quote Details
| Topic | Military & Soldier |
|---|
More Quotes by Mike
Add to List
