What do you think WILL happen when we leave?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I think that pretty much all of us here and elsewhere can agree that the President's plan is essentially "a day late and a dollar short" and stands no chance of success under the current circumstances. I think that we can also agree that Bush's vision of what would happen if we decided to pull all of our troops out is more of the usual "fear-mongering" that has typified his Presidency since 9/11. BUT what does everybody think would happen if we pull out and how might our withdrawal affect Iraq and the surrounding region? I'm not suggesting we should remain in Iraq indefinitely but I feel that we do need to seriously consider the ramifications of withdrawing our troops and develop a workable plan for doing so that ensures our safety, as well as ensuring the stability of the larger region. Thoughts? Opinions?

[kentuck]

1. Let me give you my analogy...

Suppose you pick up a homeless person on the street because he is hungry and cold and you take him home and feed him. You know he has no money and no job so you keep him in your house several days. You don't want to put him back on the street because you know he will still be homeless, hungry , and without a job. There is no good solution. So you put him back out on the street...

[joeprogressive]

14. If I could expand your analogy

I agree, there are no good options and I have felt that terrible feeling after giving a homeless person a few bucks or a sandwich. I feel like I wanted to do much more but I only really helped them out for an hour or so.

However, I think the Iraq situation is slightly different. It would be like taking in a homeless person that spends most nights in a somewhat comfortable shelter and gets by on food at the soup kitchen. Then you take him in but you have him sleep on the sofa bed that has the bar down the middle and he hurts his back. You take him to a dinner party and feed him a rich Indian meal that ends up exacerbating his colitis. He feels out of touch with the guests at the party because they have nothing in common and don't empathize with his situation. The next day when you put him back out on the street, he is actually happy to be homeless again.

[snappyturtle]

2. I'd like to add to your question:

I want to know if what will happen will be different if we stay or if we leave now? Does that make sense?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. Good Point

Whether we stay or leave right now might not even MAKE a difference one way or another.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Chaos will continue to reign--

and will no doubt intensify. The problem is that we started something that cannot be stopped, whether we remain or not. Ultimately, Iraq may turn into the main battleground and ultimate prize of a war between Iran & Saudi Arabia.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

5. It took half a million soldiers and a secret police . . .

. . . for Saddam to keep Iraq under control. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds despise each other. There is no way to stabilize Iraq that I can see. The Neo-Cons have put the soldiers in a Vietnam-like situation.

The fact that they are building the largest embassy (read fortress) in the world, right there in Baghdad, would indicate to me that there is no intention of ever "leaving".

The jerks that planned this invasion are so full of lust for oil and money, that they didn't bother to notice that they were having the troops invade a hornet's nest.

This is the biggest mess ever.

[LiberalEsto]

15. Embassy, or Big Oil HQ?

methinks it's the latter

[CrazyOrangeCat]

16. yes.

[BOSSHOG]

6. I guess I'm just hardheaded

bush and his criminal cabal have said there will be consequences if we withdraw, but the dumbasses never thought that there would be consequences if we went in. Any conversation about ramifications of leaving must include why we are there in the first place - bush lied. Let us pull out, because from my jaundiced eye, the longer we stay the worse the situation is getting for us, for the Iraqis and better for our enemies in the middle east. So share with me the value of staying in longer. But let me repeat myself, the issue is not ramifications of withdraw, the issue is the intentional lies told by bush which has resulted in a trillion dollar chaotic cluster fuck which someone else will no doubt soon have to deal with. That is what the neocons wish would disappear.

[Strawman]

7. The scary part is that we don't know. There is a legitimacy crisis

with the executive branch, the intelligence agencies, the military. They have all been so politicized by this administration that we can't believe anything that the President says they are telling him because they only tell him what he wants to hear or they get replaced by yes men.

I think this is perhaps the strongest argument for impeachment. This president's legitimacy and credibility on national security is so low, that we literally have to rely on Congress to take over this war operation. That ain't how it ought to be. The fact that people have more faith in the 535 members of Congress to run a war operation is probably the most damning indictment on the legitimacy of this President and his capacity to function as an Executive. We simply can't trust him to function in the way that an executive ought to under our Constitution. He is, quite literally, politically useless in a very functional sense.

[billybob537]

8. The best case scenario

In ten years there may be some two bit dictator with the balls to control the populace and stop all the killing. Just like Saddam was doing. Saddam hated fundie-muslims and didn't tolerate competition from terrorists. If we're very lucky someone like him will takeover after we leave. We just hanged Iraq's best chance to pacify this violence and rebuild all the destruction we unleashed on an innocent populace. Can there be any serious doubt this is the WORST PRESIDENT EVER?

[YDogg]

9. all hell will break lose. but the same will happen if we wait to leave ...

... for years. i don't think the length of time we remain will ever fix bush's catastrophic delusional criminal war.

[JacksonWest]

10. It's already happened. Our entrance into the region set into motion an irreversible series of

events.

By invading Iraq and disposing of it's government, we abandon any moral authority to prevent other nations from doing so. Saudi Arabia and Iran will spill in, as well as Turkey, to protect their people and claim certain regions. The only thing left for us to do is to declare a small portion of Iraq a "homeland" for a scant minority, and displace the residents. With any luck, Baghdad could become the new center for Chaos in the Middle East. Take that Israel!

Anyhooo, by setting up a secular government, we instantly offend all of the neighbors, and put most of the people at ill-ease in Iraq. I love democracy. I also love free will and a nations ability to grow and evolve. We've leap frogged several evolutionary steps in nation building. the result: Shiite vs Sunni chaos.

Worried about Iran? Well, think back to the eighties. IF the Soviet Union invaded Canada-what would our reaction be? Yes, Iran is involved and is going to "surge" their involvement. It makes sense, from their point of view. One of their "enemies" invaded their neighbor and is in the process of installing a friendly government. Saudi Arabia, which is a Sunni nation, is watching a Shiite majority take over Iraq. So, yes, we have some problems. And let's not forget about Turkey and the Kurds(sounds like a good name for an alt. rock band).

George Bush the first(and apparently not the worst) warned about this situation in his book. Which raises the interesting ethical dilemma-Should you take the time to write a book or use the same time to teach your functional illiterate idiot son that bares your name to read? It's a very zen question..sort of like the sound of one hand clapping. If he had taught Shrub boy to read, would he have been able to write the book he should have read?

So, basically, we're fucked. Well, not really. We've fucked a few nations over. Don't believe me, ask six hundred thousand dead Iraqis. But, soon, there will be many more dead civilians. From lots of countries.

The moral of the story is not to give any President blanket authority to commit the majority of our armed forces to an undefined conflict in an unstable region for an indefinite amount of time. It seems like common sense...yet here we are.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. What needs to happen is that Iraq will be split up into regions

The Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and others can determine themselves which bits they want. After all it's THEIR land not America's. They can ask for help from the UN if they want. All the middle east can join in economic community like the EEC. Israel can join too if it wants. Dreaming.......

[KingofNewOrleans]

12. Some more ethnic clensing

Which is going on anyway. The Saudis will provide assistance to the Sunnis to keep a basic equilibrium in place. Iran isn't strong enough to fully project itself into Iraq, and given the ethnic differences between Iraqis and Iranians thats more than fine with Shiite Iraqis.

Without Americans in Iraq, Al Quaeda in Iraq will virtually melt away.

[tomreedtoon]

13. I think it will be non-nuclear SPASM.

Years ago, a book talked about the progressive steps in a nuclear war. According to this book, the inevitable result would be spasm - either side firing nukes at each other until one or both were dead, all sanity and restraint gone, the thirst for vengeance conquering all.

I think that, in a non-nuclear sense, that's what will happen to Iraq and a lot of the Middle East. Call it racist, call it prejudicial, whatever, but the people in these countries are not rational. They are unwilling and incapable of conquering their socially programmed hatred for other factions. They cannot understand the process where Americans of different races, religions and even sexual orientations can work with each other and live peacefully. They can't understand democracy and will never be able to implement it on their own. Those among them who COULD understand democracy, and who can rise above their ancient prejudices, are either dead or have fled the country.

The only solution is to abandon the region, and let them kill each other until they get tired of killing, or until the region is devoid of human life. We might need to contain the violence to that region. That would mean a huge no-fly zone, and troops to enforce a no-pass border around the area. It would be traumatizing for our troops to drive refugees back into the hellhole, but the madness must be contained until the fever breaks or the country dies.

This may not sound very humane to you, but isn't it what many of you have been saying? There is no way for Iraqis to learn democracy? That us being among them hasn't taught them anything? That as a culture they're freaking kill-crazy?

At the same time, those Iraqis who have fled, who are living peaceful and productive lives here in the US and Europe, should be given the best medical and health benefits possible. (When we Americans finally get decent medical aid, that is.) Encourage them. Provide scholarships for their children. Because when the hatemongers in Iraq have finally burnt themseves out - assuming they don't nuke themselves and make their whole country unliveable - those Iraqis could move in and re-establish a new Iraq wihhout the ethnic poisons that destroyed the others.

What do you think? Too much to hope for?