Take cost-efficient, lifesaving way out

If you're in a game of poker, it's common knowledge that you don't tell the opposing players what your cards are. Unless of course you want your end goal to be defeat.

Why is a war any different? Recently, President Obama announced exactly when he was going to withdraw his combat forces, and according to The New York Post, that date is set for August, 2010. After then, 50,000 troops will stay to train and advise Iraqis. The plan is that all troops will be gone by 2011.

My question is, doesn't the gap between August 2010 and 2011 give Iraq enough time to kick the U.S. while it's low on troops? Since Obama had the great idea of telling the whole world exactly what his plan was, it gives Iraq over a year to plan the attack.

We have already lost 4,255 lives, according to an article by Fox News. This country cannot be forced to suffer any more than it already has. In The New York Times article "The Economic Cost of War," the cost of a quick withdrawal from Iraq would be $388 billion, and for a slow withdrawal is $867 billion.

The U.S. is already in an economical hole, why make it even bigger? If we're all about limiting the excessive spending in this country, we should stop being hypocrites and take the cost-efficient, lifesaving way out. We need a change in this country if we don't want it to fall apart.

We need to look to the future and consider the consequences of our actions. We need to think before we act. President Obama has been promising us a change for a while now. What he really needs to promise us is a change for the better.

Milena Gotra

Naperville