If we left Iraq quickly, would it spark a regional war?

[Poiuyt]

If we were to leave Iraq in the near future (either all at once, or gradually), do you think that other countries would come in to fill the security void? Turkey coming in from the north to prevent a separate Kurdistan, Iran coming in from the east for the Shiites, Saudi Arabia and Egypt coming in to protect the Sunnis? Do you think that a regional war is inevitable, or is it just a possibility? I think that no matter when we leave, whether it's tomorrow or in ten years, there will be continued internal fighting. I think that Iraq is a country that needs a strongman in power and it's not going to be pleasant. I'm just wondering if it will continue as a civil war or escalate throughout the region.

If it does escalate throughout the region, how will that affect the US (aside from no Americans getting killed)?

Just for the record, I feel we should pull out completely as soon as logistically possible. I used to feel that since we broke it, we had a responsibility to fix it. But now it seems as if our mere presence is making things worse (and the NIE agrees).

[rug]

1. Probably.

Still should get the hell out.

[BluePatriot]

34. Ditto on the probably

...and nervously hoping Saudis don't flood the market with oil -- while lower prices would be great it would also crash our local economy (Gulf Coast here)

[Cleita]

2. I was watching on C-Span yesterday various ME representatives

discussing the study on it. It seems to be understood among them that nothing good is going to happen in Iraq right now. We can stay or leave and it won't make any difference in how this is going to play out. They said we might as well leave. We can't help the inevitable results by staying. It's just a bad situation.

[KurtNYC]

3. Consider it sparked - but it was invading that sparked it

If I run out of a burning house, will the house burn down?

[Poiuyt]

30. Good analogy

The house is going to burn down whether we leave or not. But will other houses in the neighborhood also catch on fire?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Maybe. But our presence their has become irrelevant.

I think that the chances of a regional war grow by the hour. But, our influence there is only that of the common enemy.

Bush and his yes-men are now faced with a choice of escalating the war and hoping that brute force will somehow salvage the failure. A vain hope at best. Or, picking sides in the conflict. In either case, it will lead to far more bloodshed than is already saturating the region as it will effectively cause the side we don't back to retaliate in kind and the region will indeed erupt into a multiplicity of wars, civil wars, revolutions, and possibly genocide.

OTOH, if we get the hell out, the shaky regional governments may well find a way to avoid conflict with each other out of sheer self-interest.

[Selatius]

4. The country is like Yugoslavia; it was going to splinter apart without a dictator

Let them fight it out, and when they're tired, do like we did in the Balkan wars and negotiate ceasefires. Once peace is in place, get the UN in there to take charge of reconstruction and peacekeeping duties to end the sweetheart deals for firms like KBR (a division of Halliburton), or Bechtel or others.

[NV1962]

7. The comparison with Yugoslavia and its genocidal collapse is not too far off the mark.

All the more considering that in that case, albeit horribly late, at least the regional escalation effects was recognized.

It's a mirror to behold for Iraq, also and especially by European governments.

[pwb]

5. who cares anymore? they all love death .

death means paradise to them even when they kill each other. how do you fight against an enemy that thinks dying is the greatest.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. "they" do not all love death.

The same bullshit line about 'the enemy' has been uttered in almost every conflict. The Koreans and Vietnamese didn't mind dying either. The Japanese as well, death was different for them you know. Always with the Other death is no big deal.

We invaded and occupied their country. They are fighting to get us out of there. They are also engaged in a civil war over control of the considerable assets of the former nation of Iraq. They are fighting over very real and very worldly matters, not because they have a desire to go to paradise.

[Schema Thing]

11. Thank you.

[pwb]

13. patience is something i ran out of with Iraq.

stop acting like we invaded two months ago. it has been over three years. time for iraq's new government to get out of the comfy green zone, then we will see what progress if any has been made. or are they all really just puppets?

[AZBlue]

29. What a disgusting statement. You're confusing the radical Islamist terrorists

with millions of Muslims. Two completely different things. I'd expect so much more from a DU'er.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. I'm confused about how Egypt gets to Iraq but never mind.

Sure the conflict might very well spread. Oh well. It will however also resolve itself, something it cannot do while our big ass military machine is sitting there keeping things from progressing but unable to accomplish its malformed mission.

Also Saudi Arabia has a well equipped army that is very unlikely to leave their luxurious quarters to go and actually fight anyone.

[sam sarrha]

9. we may have toleave early anyway.. walking backwards firing into the armed mobs

[MasonJar]

10. Our being there has to be igniting most of the crisis. This is a

total disaster for the women of Iraq especially, who were not subjected to the Muslim fanatics under Sadaam. We have destroyed the Iraqis' lives, their well-being, their livelihoods, their ancient art, their neighborhoods, their buildings, their whole existence. Is it surprising that they fight against us? Some only have electricity one hour a day. Would we like that if an imperial power took away our lights, our jobs, our oil, our rights, etc., etc.? We have installed a Shite government where women are to be reviled and murdered. Haliburton is happy, Is anyone else on the globe happy except the axis of evil: Bush, Cheney, and the neo-con cabal?

[originalpckelly]

12. Yes, but unfortunately if we stay there will still be a regional war...

only more Americans will die.

We really don't have a choice, other than whether we delay it or not.

[Porcupine]

14. It's Somebody Else's Problem.

We can stay and watch the US Army get chopped up a little bit at a time or we can leave. We have no control and we aren't going to regain any anytime soon.

[AZBlue]

28. It's our problem because we created it.

I don't want another US soldier touched, but abandoning our responsibility is no answer either.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Most likely.

Further explanation if requested.

[WFF]

20. I'd like to hear your theories

[Strelnikov_]

16. A Strategic Redeployment Would Greatly Reduce The Chances of a Regional War

Redeploy to:

A) Kurdistan - They appear to actually want us there for protection (sorry, Turks. With our invasion and occupation, a Kurdistan has been born).

B) Far Western Iraq, near border with Jordan, with resupply through Jordan.

C) Kuwait.

Not a whole lot we can do about the Iran/Iraq border, as any base from Basra to Tikrit would be near population centers and have their ass hanging out in the event of an attack. They are probably going to try hanging onto Balad/Anaconda, nonetheless.

With US forces in the above three locations, we would have resources in place to act as a 'trip wire' similar to deployments in South Korean and Western Europe during the cold war.

The funny (tragic?) thing is, when engaging Freeper Horribulus on energy forums, they have fallen back to justification for the Iraq occupation being positioning of troops for the coming energy/resource war (typically accompanied by praise of the Maximum Leader’s brilliant strategic master stroke). Now, if this were the case, would not the deployment above made a lot more sense, versus a risky invasion and occupation of a country?

We were already in Kuwait. An occupation of Kurdistan could have been sold based on the presence of Ansar al-Islam. And we could have strong-armed Jordan into a forward operating base on their eastern desert. I am not proposing that we should have done this. I am simply pointing out to Iraq War fans there were other, much less risky, ways to expand our military presence in the region. Also, I think it makes it clear that occupation (for oil) was the purpose. If all we wanted was containment/threat reduction, there were a hell of a lot easier ways to accomplish this goal.

So why do I think we need deployments at these locations now? Because we have destabilized the region, a 'region' that contains 67% of the worlds petroleum and 40% of the natural gas reserves. More significantly, this region probably contains most of the worlds energetically viable petroleum. Unless one considers tar sands and Orinoco heavy oil energetically viable, which IMHO it is not.

An emergency energy transformation program will take 20 years minimum to begin to have a marked effect on stabilizing the energy supply/demand relationship. A gulf wide regional war carries with it the specter of the loss of Middle East energy resources. In other words, $250+/bbl oil followed by, at best, collapse of the western economies.

If there is one thing we should have learned from this Iraq adventure, is that all the king's horses and the king's men couldn't put Humpty together again. We need to keep Humpty up on that wall until we can make a significant dent in our petroleum dependence.

Thing is, see anyone, including the Democrats, talking about emergency CAFE restrictions to 50 mpg+? Immediate $3/gal gas taxes?

Nope. Just bitching when the price goes up 10 cents.

On Edit: And I agree that it seemed like we had an obligation to try to make things better for the Iraqis. Thing is, with nearly every poll and analysis stating that we are only making things worse, it really does seem pointless.

Unless you are an Oil Company CEO or connected politician, of course.

[roamer65]

22. Give Al-Anbar province (western Iraq) to a joint Saudi-Jordanian force

and then we only have to occupy Kurdistan and Kuwait. Al-Anbar is mainly Sunni and would have no problem with the Jordanians and Saudis.

[Poiuyt]

26. It seems to me that the smartest thing to do is to get out now and

use the billions and billions of dollars that we would save into research for alternative energy sources. It seems like we are going to have to be prepared for life with little oil in the not too distant future. I'm sure that if the US put a "Manhattan Project-like" effort into finding alternatives to oil we could be ready in a short time (years rather than decades).

Good analysis. Thank you.

[Raine]

17. Yes

I have not doubt about it whatsoever.

[Deja Q]

18. It might.

Saudi Arabia will want to take control... as will Iran.

We would NOT want to let Iran seize control.


Not to mention oil. That transcends the greed of the oil companies...

[BrotherBuzz]

19. I have a feeling Saudi Arabia is more concerned about their own internal stability than...

seizing control of Iraq. I suspect Turkey is experiencing the same discomfort.

[roamer65]

21. Yes, unless we engineer a partitioning plan.

Much the same as the Mountbatten Plan that formed India and Pakistan in 1947. That's how the British de-escalated the sectarian strife and got out of India in one stroke.

[Strelnikov_]

23. The Sticking Point Is Oil Revenue For The Sunnis

Maybe we could cut a deal with the Kurds to split the northern fields with Sunnistan for a promise of a US military presence to protect their interests.

It is a lot like India 1947, with the exception that our colonial adventure lasted under four years.

[Selatius]

25. I'm not sure we should repeat the British Empire's experience in India

The Pakistanis and the Indians fought three bloody wars since the end of colonialism, and they almost fought a fourth one over territorial disputes left over from the departing Empire. The big difference is that the fault-line won't be over Kashmir. It will be over oil rights instead. If somebody accuses another of "slant drilling" into their own oil reservoirs like Saddam accused Kuwait of doing, there will be trouble, and the trouble will negatively impact worldwide oil markets.

[spanone]

24. We sparked the civil war that's raging there now.

[Disturbed]

27. US Occupation of Iraq will not end for another two years

at least. It may not end then either. The Dems will not cut off funding for it. It may take another 10 years for the situation to settle down. The US will still have a presence there for many years unless the Iraq Govt., whatever that may be, demand an end to the US Occupation.

[dysfunctional press]

31. yes. instead of spreading democracy throughout the region-

* will be spreading war, death, and destruction...

Exactly like they planned.

[JacksonWest]

32. Yes. But there already is a regional war.

If we leave, it will become a free for all. Iran will move in, Turkey will move in, and the Sauds will try and claim the land.

[Hubert Flottz]

33. The invasion of Iraq to begin with is what will end up causing a

regional war. We tried to warn Bush, but he knew everything...he thought!