If we have a troop withdrawal, what will happen to Iraq?

[gravity]

I want the war to end as soon as possible as anyone else, but I don't think that just cutting funding or demanding withdrawal is the way to do it.

The problem is that the war will still continue if we leave Iraq in the unstable state it is right now. Iraq is on the verge of a civil war as we speak, and these tensions aren't going to disappear. The situation can get much worst than it is right now with the full blown civil war resulting in even more civilian deaths, while Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia could easily claim their own stake of the land, causing even more bloodshed and instability in the region.

There needs to be a plan for transitioning power to the Iraqis and assurance that the country isn't going to collapse into even further anarchy more than anything.

If we don't have an actual realistic plan for Iraq after we leave, then any withdrawal of the troops would be as reckless as starting the war on the first place. The problems in Iraq aren't going to magically fix themselves once we leave the country. Things can easily get worst and the biggest mistake people can make is thinking things can't get worst.

What I would like to see more than anything is competent leadership, but that probably won't occur until 2008. I guess there are no easy solutions to solve the problems in Iraq right now. We are stuck between Iraq and a hard place.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Then by all means, go to Iraq yourself.

This "we need to stay in Iraq to stabilize it" bullshit is the same sort of shit we heard about WMDs.

[Critters2]

6. Exactly. Who's "we" ? nt

[gravity]

20. Staying the course is continue a failed strategy

We should change our goals and strategy in Iraq to address the situation at hand.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Saying we need to stay in Iraq, without going to Iraq...

is exactly what the chickenhawks do.

[whistle]

2. Well Iraqis get to keep their oil

[EFerrari]

3. We are eliciting the violence in Iraq. And after the horrible mess

we've made, what makes you think Iraqis can do any worse than we have?

OUT NOW

[gravity]

10. Because they are fighting each other now

They will continue to do so unless there is a stable government in place

[Bandit]

28. And you know this to be a fact...How?

What makes you think the oldest civilization on earth can not figure out how to govern themselves, Bush* and Cheney, or do you have other inside information?

[EFerrari]

45. That's probably true. And that can be brokered by the UN

or some other body. We are too hated there to do the slightest bit of good.

[BobRossi]

4. Right..

We are making it SO very stable. The gates of hell have been opened, we can leave any time and nothing will change that.

[gravity]

11. We made it unstable

but at the same time, we are the only thing keeping the country from going into a full blown civil war

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. LOL

Yeah, and those WMDs got to be around there somewhere.

[gravity]

22. It's not about WMDs anymore

It's now about the future of Iraq

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. LOL

"It's now about the future of Iraq"

:rofl:

[krispos42]

50. Yes, that is the problem

The Bush plan with the 'surge' (well, really shallow ramp to a 15% increase) is to provide troops to pacify Baghdad so that in the peace, the Iraqi government can establish law and order and become an effective government.

Now that views of the above statement have stopped laughing at Bush's poor idea, let's talk about why it's a bad idea.

We would need somewhere in the range of 800,000 troops in Iraq to eventually pacify the place. It would take years to accomplish this task, if ever. We would have to institute a draft and boost the size of the standing Army to about, oh, 2 million people, and also increase the size of the Marine Corps to about 500,000 or so. Assuming two-year terms of service, we would need to draft about a million people a year. We would also need to impliment war taxes, rationing, and nationalization of broad segments of the defense industry.

We're not willing to do that. Despite the yammering from Bush (as recently as yesterday in New London) about how critical it is to 'win' in Iraq, nobody it saying what really needs to be done to do it. If we did, then the Shia-dominated government would eventually manage to get government working as they negotiated with the various rebel and insurgent groups for political representation. Eventually... maybe in 2025.

So, unwilling to do what needs to be done for Bush's plan (peace so government has time to become effective) then we have to recognize that the troop levels we are maintaining there are enough to establish limted, local, temporary order without being enough to surpress the violence and insurgents organizations, while polarizing the population against us.

We have to recognize that most of the world sees us invading and occupying Iraq exlusively for oil. This perception also is shared by the Iraqi people, which is part of the reason why they fight, aside from a general dislike of Americans, foreign occupation, and fear of religious oppression.

So, we have enough troops there to get the country boiling in rage and anger, but not enough to put the rage and anger to rest. We're not willing to put in enough troops to put the rage and anger to rest. Therefore the only solution is to withdraw militarily from the country.

We will have to continue helping Iraq on the political, diplomatic, and ecomonic fronts. Without our troops to fight, the people of Iraq will start moving towards some sort of accomidation that may or may not take the form of a full-blown civil war. Probably not a civil war.

Iraq has powerful neighbors that want two things: a stable, friendly nation on their borders, and the US out of messing with the Middle East. They currently are willing to forego the former so they can achieve the latter, watching us drain ourselves economically, politically, and militarily. Once we stop draining ourselves in Iraq the neighbors have no reason to continue to desire chaos on their borders and will act to keep the disorder and bloodshed under control. They will intervene politically in Iraq, vying with other neighboring countries for influence in the reconstruction, economic growth, and regional politics.

That is the best result possible for Iraq now. Iraq might well split into three seperate nations, or into a loose confederation of some sort. The central goverment will be Shia, and Iranian-friendly. They will also hate the Unites States for decades to come, probably longer. But that cannot be helped anymore.

[heidler1]

62. The sooner they find out that their on their own, the quicker it'll be over.

Sure it will be bloody while they get real, but the same thing will be true in ten years from now.

Probably another strong man will emerge who will be very similar to Saddam. We are not letting a strong man take charge. To me there is the problem. We want their oil, a strong man would keep us from getting it. Even if the current government signs away their oil rights a strong man would ignore the fact. Look at Putin and Chavez plus the Saudis did it long ago. The strong man would rewrite the law to his and an Iraqi advantage. IMO This is Bush's biggest blind sided mistake.

[babylonsister]

5. And exactly which segment of the Iraqis would you like to transition

power to?

[mudesi]

7. It sure is a pickle, isn't it?

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. There is literally no solution to this mess. The omelette has been scrambled.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

[Bluerthanblue]

8. Iraq was destroyed when we chose to go in- unless we

plan to stay there forever- and be willing to use force and threats to stay there- we are only post-poning the inevitable.

I hold out no hope of any significant change really happening in 2008. 2006 has accomplished little actual change. A lot of posturing, but very little real change.

[hfojvt]

39. alot of countries have been destroyed

England, France, Germany, Russia, Poland. Why should anything be inevitable?

[Bluerthanblue]

48. i admit to not being a historian or

claim to be 'very well' versed on post WWII facts, but when a country that has been operating under a dictatorship (one that was empowered by outside forces to boot) is toppled, the reality that there will be a lot of civil unrest, chaos and turmoil doesn't seem to be avoidable, unless that country is then formally occupied by the conquering force-

I could be wrong- can you educate me if i am? Do new 'regimes' come into power without oppression and genocide in situations such as this??? i honestly don't have any examples to compare this to.

[Igel]

54. Both peaceful and violent transitions are possible.

Look at the Warsaw Pact. They all had economic turmoil, going from command-control to more or less free economies (with Belorus completely abstaining from the project, and Slovakia backing off capitalism and reverting to state control). But Russia had minority regions bailing, only returning after threats or coaxing, and with Chechnya being an on-going problem. Most other areas were reasonably peaceful, even when the former masters were ethnically distinct from the new masters.

Serbia is a problem, however, and Macedonia had a bit of church burning and anti-Xian violence, oddly paralleling Kosovo. (Ok, not so oddly--the Albanians even chose an organizational name that provided an abbreviation identical to the Kosovo anti-Serb group, so they could use the same uniforms.)

This was paralleled by the range of outcomes in Central Asia.

[hfojvt]

56. Both Germany and Austria were dicatorships before the end of WWII

but they had fairly strong national identities, and parliamentary histories. It's probably more common though, for countries to not collapse when they are defeated. I am guessing that all over Germany, for example, that there were mayors, chiefs of police, governors, and all manner of officials who stayed in their same jobs, same positions before and after the defeat.

But, I don't know, didn't the British and French conquer the middle east, Africa, and much of Asia and the pacific islands and set up fairly stable colonial governments? Truthfully, I cannot think of any concrete examples of chaos and bloody civil wars (except in Africa where it seems to be pandemic). Perhaps I should ask you for examples of when it was unavoidable.

But no amount of history can convince me that something is 'inevitable' because some people were always acting in ways to make events happen. Assassinations are not inevitable, They depend on assassins and the people who hire assassins, and they can be prevented sometimes with security.

[panader0]

9. We destablized Iraq. We ruined their infrastructure. We killed

thousands upon thousands of their people and made many more refugees. The only way is to get out. There may be chaos for a while, but it's chaos now, and the US presence will only continue the chaos.

[gravity]

15. I agree, but how would leaving now make things better

We were the catalyst for this mess, but we aren't the root cause of the tensions between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds

[Bluerthanblue]

26. we enabled Saddam to come into, and remain

in power- We helped 'stabilize' Iraq then- even at the cost of the oppression of the Shites and the Kurds- A new power would emerge- and it would likely not be 'fair'- but what we are supporting and creating isn't 'fair' either.

There is no 'happy ending' to this sad volume.

[gravity]

That's the problem

The cynic in me think we should have just put Saddam back into power, and just leave. But it's too late for that now.

[Bluerthanblue]

32. sometimes cynic's are actually optimists who

aren't willing to wait forever to find out if they're wrong-

Saddam was no saint- but *'s making him look better and better all the time- maybe that is why the military let him 'slip' into the hands of those he oppressed?-

:shrug:

[dave_p]

47. Not the root cause?

So what is the root cause? They have differences? Funny how they got along for centuries until the US prompted a sectarian Shia revolt in 1991, abandoning it to the inevitable reprisals.

The US is the root cause of the violence. It has nothing to offer Iraqis beyond massive reparations to the government that replaces the present stooge outfit.

[Ganja Ninja]

12. Self Determination.

It's not our place to go around the world trying to dictate how other people govern themselves. We need to save this country first before we start trying to fix everyone else's problems.

[gravity]

17. Self determination by civil war

is not the best way to establish a government

[The2ndWheel]

29. It is the only way though

Which might say more than anything else.

Would America exist without our civil war? No, at least not the way it has since. One side has to win and own power for government to be able to function. It takes a lot of energy to govern people, and anyone who doesn't see your power as legitimate has to be taken care of, somehow, until they're no longer any real threat.

Stability comes at a price. Actual diversity can be very messy. Too many people thinking they should have this, or access to that, you can't run a country that way.

[gravity]

30. The price could be genocide

We can't predict what will happen if Iraq ends up in a civil war.

If you say a civil war is inevitable, I would think that the US could just prop up a dictator similar to Saddam and leave, so we at least ignore the civil war part and more civilian deaths

[wuushew]

35. Did you ever think that being in Iraq carries huge opportunity costs?

Why are you so worried about Iraq when most of the world's humanitarian problems are in Africa? If the U.S. Army is in Iraq who is going to intervene in Darfur?

How is poking the hornet nest which is the Middle East helping win the War on Terror?

[The2ndWheel]

41. Well, America wouldn't exist without genocide either

The problem is that we have to deal with the fuck ups from decades and decades ago. If Britain doesn't carve Iraq into existence for British interests, there is no Iraq.

I don't know what the answer is, but if a stable government and state is what is needed, it's going to take force to do it. Whether that force is a dictator, the US military, factions within Iraq fighting to the death, it won't be pretty. At some point in the future fewer people may die, but to start a state basically from the ground up(or top down)? Somebody has to win and break the will to fight of any other group.

[Ganja Ninja]

42. Guarantee me that if we stay things will get better ....

peace will break out and Iraqi's will live in harmony. You can't can you. The fact of the matter is we have no idea what will happen if we go. There will likely be a fight but how long it will last is any body's guess. It might last 6 months or 6 years but it will be their fight and they will determine when they've had enough.
We can however pretty much tell by how things have gone up until now what will happen if we stay. More bombings, more killings and no resolution. We are only delaying the inevitable. The sooner we leave the sooner they will settle things.

[Carolina]

44. UH, please review American history

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. See Vietnam

these predictions of dooom were also made back then

By the way, how are going to solve a crisis between Shi'a and Sun'i going back to the seventh century?

[WillyT]

27. Exactly !!!

And like Vietnam, more people are gonna die if we stay, and more people are gonna die if we leave.

We shouldn't have gone there, and we should not stay.

:shrug:

[hfojvt]

46. didn't some of those predictions come true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat_people#Vietnam_war_boat_people

"In Vietnam, the new communist government sent many people who supported the old government in the South to "reeducation camps", and others to "new economic zones." An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.<1> 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.<1> Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed."

[Igel]

55. Saying things like that'll get you in trouble.

On the other hand, I tutored some boat people and Cambodian refugees, and in grad school was friends with "boat person". His family had to flee, since, well, his grandfather had--the horror--been a dentist (bourgeois) and had actually worked on Americans (a bourgeois traitor). Not all, however, got out. He told me about uncles that were shot *before* getting to the re-education camps, and other relatives that had been in them.

He held views not incompatible with being a conservative dem, but was a single-issue repub voter. Whenever a dem asked him why he didn't vote dem, he'd ask them about Vietnam. A fair number of undergrads were livid at the idea of re-education camps and executions, and some said the boat people business was vastly inflated. The more left the dem, the greater the indignation.

[mmonk]

14. We won't get the oil contracts.

[TwilightGardener]

16. There are things we can do while withdrawing troops, politically

and support-wise. We have reached the law of diminishing returns, militarily. Nobody is gaining from our combat presence. Iraqis are even fighting Al Qaeda pretty effectively on their own. There's no good reason to keep the kind of presence there that we have now. We won't/can't pull ALL of our troops, IMO--but we can keep them in safer places to act if needed, without exposing them daily to IED's, snipers, and mortar attacks.

[Sapere aude]

19. We can't improve the situation by staying. That is the real statement that we are ignoring.

There is no military solution to the sectarian violence. The idea that things will worsen if we leave is a red herring. It is used to sell you on the idea of staying. Those in the administration who want to stay want to stay for reasons other than the well being of the Iraqi people. They want control of the oil reserves.

The other red herring is that we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq and keeping America safe. The anti American sentiment is growing everyday we are in Iraq. If we wanted to make our country safer from terrorists we need to stop invading their countries and taking their resources for ourselves.

We have to see that Palestinians have a right to a homeland too. We have to leave Saudi Arabia, stop this neo con idea that we can build friendly democracies in the Middle East.

You are just buying into the administrations plan with your OP.

[Jim Lane]

37. In defense of the OP -- I think things will get worse whenever we leave

There is now sectarian violence, but all the sects know that a major mobilization -- a large military force -- would be subject to attack by the occupation forces. The resulting battle would be precisely the kind of set-piece conflict at which the U.S. and its allies excel. Therefore, no one will try that as long as we're there. Instead, they'll stick to "insurgency"-type tactics, in which the violence is more diffuse.

Whenever the occupying Coalition forces leave, that constraint will disappear. Each of the three major factions will become more powerful in its area of strength, with no effective force to counterbalance it. Iraqis who are "caught" in the wrong area (Sunnis in the south, etc.) will be killed or will be forced to flee to the area controlled by their sect.

So, when we leave, I'd expect a period of intensified violence (more Iraqis dying than at present), followed by the de facto and possibly de jure partition of the country.

Some DU members seem to think that all we have to do is leave and Iraq will suddenly become a place of peace and justice. It won't. There will (for a time at least) be more deaths than there are now.

Our problem is that we have no obvious way of preventing that. The alternative to permanent occupation is "the Iraqis stand up so we can stand down". They haven't, though. We've given it a shot and it didn't work. Therefore, our current choice is between prompt withdrawal and permanent occupation.

As between those two, I favor prompt withdrawal. Let's not kid ourselves about the consequences, though. In particular, let's not make wildly optimistic statements that can be quoted back at us, post-withdrawal, as the reports of massacres in Iraq come in.

We should offer asylum to the Iraqis who helped us (interpreters, drivers, etc.), and whose lives would be endangered if they stayed in Iraq. Other than that, there's nothing we can do.

[TexasProgresive]

23. There is nothing that can be done

Iraq is ruined. It was never much of a nation as it had to be held together with strong man tactics. What is going on there will get worse and worse until it spills over to the neighbors and destroys what passes for stability in the region. Many thought this before this ill advised adventure and just as every prediction of the neocon misadministration has been wrong so the oppositions predictions have been eerily true. The one "good" thing that BabyBitch has done is to afford PoopyBitch a bit of wisdom in my book for not going to Baghdad.

[Hekate]

25. You may be too young to remember Vietnam.The US kept thinking like that...

We had to transition, we had to keep the Communists at bay, China would take over Southeast Asia, our allies would be slaughtered, there would be chaos... The rationale was remarkably similar.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands more Americans died, and countless Vietnamese as well.

When we left, some of these things happened. Some of our allies were killed, more were sent to be rather cruelly rehabilitated and re-educated. There was chaos when we pulled out.

Then the Vietnamese reasserted their own government, which became stable rather quickly. Communist China did not take over Southeast Asia, nor did they storm the beaches of California.

Americans stopped dying in Vietnam, although many continue to pay a lifelong price for their service.

We are now trading partners with China (who is getting what it wanted via capitalism, not military might) and friendly with Vietnam.

No one knows exactly what will happen when we pull out of Iraq, because it is a different culture with a different mindset. We have stirred up a hornet's nest in an entire region.

But we do know what will happen if we stay: more of the same, getting worse all the time, while more Americans and Iraqis die or are maimed.

Hekate

[hfojvt]

51. I have been reading for a couple of years

that there are steps we could take to stabilize the region - negotiating with Iran and Syria for one. I cannot recite them, but I distinctly remember reading something by William Pitt in which he talked about a number of things we should be doing.

I would rather see plans like that, and discussions about ways we can leave without creating a disaster. Instead of seeming wishful thinking - we leave, a miracle (or 'inevitable' disaster, and I have never been a believer in 'inevitablity') occurs, and life goes on.

[EFerrari]

52. The United States has always has so much confidence

in its ability to spread democracy around the world and it has never done it.

Psychologists call that delusion. Businessmen call that a marketing strategy.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. They were living peacefully before * bombed them.

[LoZoccolo]

57. Under an authoritarian leader who was supported by the U.S....

...to carry out an assassination plot against General Abdul Karim Qassim in the late fifties, and received our support up until the nineties.

This war is waaaaaaaay more complicated than either side's more vocal representatives are making it.

[magellan]

34. The Iraqis want us out

They want to get down to the immense job of cleaning up this mess we've made -- they HAVE wanted that for some time now -- and our ongoing presence is an obstacle to that. We just keep setting one side against the other by continuing to meddle. The Iraqis should be permitted the dignity of sorting it out themselves. WE HAVE NO BUSINESS dictating to them what WE think is a stable government. And if they fail to stabilize, well, they and we will have no one but BUSHCO to blame for opening this damn can of worms in the first place. WE ALL REAP WHAT BUSH** HAS SOWED EITHER WAY.

[David__77]

36. Sovereignty will pass to the people of Iraq.

It's a crime that so much damage has occurred, and the crime will carry years into the future. But each day of occupation only compounds that crime. Iraq belongs to Iraqis.

[TZ]

38. More and more I am thinking that like the former Yugoslavia..

the BEST solution (which I have heard several people advocate) might be breaking up Iraq into three separtate countries: a Kurdish state, a Shia state, and a Sunni state because alot of what's going on here is hundreds of years of ethnic conflict that is NOT going to end unless another dicator (like Milosovic or Saddam Hussein) takes over.

[BushOut06]

40. Quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck

I know it sounds callous, and I'm sure there will be lots of bloodshed after we leave. So what? There's lots of bloodshed going on right now, so what would be the difference? The only difference is that our presence there wouldn't be creating any more violence for the purpose to drive us out.

The future of Iraq will HAVE to be decided by the people who live there. Not by us. They're going to have to eventually find a way to live in peace with each other. If they can't do that, then there's really nothing that we can do to force them to live together in peace.

Hell, who knows - maybe another dictator will take over and rule with an iron fist.

Oh, and Bush should be held 100% accountable for everything that's happening in Iraq, and everything that happens after we leave.

[Carolina]

43. And our continued presence

assures WHAT? Our actions have wrought the chaos over there. We are LOATHED and we cannot fix it by staying.

We should never have attacked, invaded and destroyed that nation. We need to get the hell out and let the Iraqis work something out.

The whole mess really began with the Brits after the fall of the Ottoman Empire since, without regard to tribal factions, they carved up the borders of Iraq. In more modern history, the US aided and abetted Saddam Hussein with weapons in their 8 year war with Iran (1980-1988). And why, cause we were pissed with Iran. Iran had the audacity to throw out our CIA-installed Shah, put Khomeni and crew in, capture our embassy and take personnel there hostage. And why did they do such a dastardly thing.

It's all about, and has always been all about, oil. See the Shah let British Petroleum and America control 80% (40% each) of Iranian oil/oil revenue, leaving only 20% for Iranians. The guy overthrown in 1953 wanted 100% iranian oil/oil revenue for Iranians ...

An unending cycle of blowback.

They hate us because we are over there
They hate us because we lie about our motives, we lied to start this fiasco
They hate us because we force ourselves and our ways on others
They hate because we cheat them and steal their natural resources

We must get the out and leave them alone!!

[dave_p]

49. What happens afterward is Iraqis' business

... and America's and Britain's fault.

Ideally the present puppet regime will be destroyed and a nationalist government will emerge. It won't be as secular or as useful in countering Iranian influence as the one stupidly overthrown in 2003, but it's the best outcome that can realistically be expected.

A US presence will just keep the war going while preventing any meaningful national reconciliation and covering the theft of Iraqi assets by foreign monopolies. The US has no right to transfer anything to anyone, it just has a duty to get out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. I don't know. But, I hope we'll find out...soon.

[Disturbed]

60. The Falacy is the Concept of With Drawing.

Most Dems are not calling for a complete drawdown of US Troops. Around 60K would stay to defend the Oil Fields, The US Palace and to fight the various Insurgent groups incl. al Q. The US presence will remain in Iraq for decades, no matter who is in power in the US.

[Solly Mack]

58. They'll follow us here...

the Commander Guy said so

[MadHound]

59. It doesn't matter when we leave, or what actions we take between now and then

Almost the minute that we leave, violence and chaos will break out, as Iraqis tear down the institutions that American Imperialism has installed. We've seen this time and again in former colonial countries, from Vietnam to India.

The scope and length of this violence and chaos is entirely dependent on the actions of the Iraqis after we leave, and nothing that we do now can influence it.

It will be what it will be. Thus, all we're doing by our continued presence is increasing the death and destruction. The sooner we leave, the sooner we stop causing death and destruction.

[bamacrat]

61. We destroyed all chances of a stable Iraq

the best thing we can do is pull out of Iraq leaving some troops in Afghanistan, to continue missions there and address any huge catasrophic event in Iraq but we need to let them decide without us there how there country will be. It will not be good regardless what we do.