How will Iraq turn out?

magick

How do you think Iraq will turn out say from 5 to 10 years now? Do you think it will eventually become a stable democracy in the Middle East(though so far that looks like wishful thinking)? Or do you think it will fragment into 3 separate countries (Kurd, Shiite, and Sunni) states?

El Stuntman

magick wrote:

How do you think Iraq will turn out say from 5 to 10 years now? Do you think it will eventually become a stable democracy in the Middle East(though so far that looks like wishful thinking)?

no, there is no democratic tradition in the region (apart from Israel).

magick wrote:

Or do you think it will fragment into 3 separate countries (Kurd, Shiite, and Sunni) states?

at this stage, that's probably the best case scenario

marco murphy

El Stuntman wrote:

no, there is no democratic tradition in the region (apart from Israel).



at this stage, that's probably the best case scenario

Thats your opinion. However, you cannot call a country un-democratic because you don't agree with it. Iraq will only become democracy when the US+Brit troops pullout, a united call from ALL Iraqis.

Israel democratic... LOL.

Dirk Gently

magick wrote:

Or do you think it will fragment into 3 separate countries (Kurd, Shiite, and Sunni) states?

I think this is the most likely outcome. Maybe not so much "countries" but certainly largely self autonomous regions. Iraq as a sovereign entity doesn't look like making a reappearance. I expect the Turks will be very worried about the Kurds wanting to incorporate the Turkish Kurd population into their "region" and Iran will for all intents and purposes become expanded to include the sh'ite "region".

Perhaps it will be called

"The divided Federation of failed neo con experiments"

wes

Iraq will probably no longer exist or become a failed state.

RedPlanet

Iraq is already a failed state.
It only functioned in the past as a political entity because there existed a "strong-man" leader that had the backing of other major world powers at the time.
Now, today; Iraq will be another Afghanistan (pre-Taliban).
A black hole in the region that sucks resources in, but only lawlessness, corruption and violence leak out.
It will be a destabilizing influence to it's immediate neighbours.
It will probably take an extraordinary event, person or political/religious movement to gain control. Which will probably be distasteful to the sentiments of "the west".

Manic Moran

Balkans, is my guess. Eventually (maybe after 10 years) they'll get sick of it all, and settle down into a sort of hostile peace, likely segregated, but people can get back to the job of living.

NTM

Akrasia

The Occupation will continue and the violence will continue. hundreds of thousands more will die

Sand

Going by pundits and talking heads, whatever the present situation is will be the future. Until of course the present situation changes, in which case the future will change to mirror the present situation.

Gonzo_Reporter

All the foreign troops in the world cant help Iraq, that’s not saying that everybody should just stand by claming they were against the invasion in the first place, something drastic has to be done soon. But even if the US and England were to pull out it wont improve the situation (not in the long term anyway) once the celebrations are over the fighting will continue, just with more civilian deaths.
The country is in the middle of a power struggle, it will not be won with votes in a Pro American Government or more American troops it will be won or decided with guns. And America doesnt have the money or the support at home to prevent this, but they should be held accountable.

I think the answer lies with the rebuilding of the country and not just within the Green Zone and the capital but to rural countryside where a lot of young fighters would be recruited or altleast would be more angry than those in the cities. The majority of the country is without running water, electricity, proper infrastructure and basic medical supplies for there hospitals.
So in my opinion if Iraq is to have a future or become a "stable" Middle Eastern State these things have to be addressed ASAP.

Akrasia

America can't rebuild the country because anything they touch will become tainted as a part of the occupation propaganda.

(plus they keep 'losing' billions of dollars of Iraqi oil money earmarked for reconstruction)

There are two major factors in the current violence.
1. The Occupation
2. The 60% unemployment rate.

First the occupation must end, and then the U.S. should pay reparations to allow the Iraqis rebuild their infrastrucure (helping to reduce the unemployment problem)

If these two things happen, Iraq might have a future, but unfortunately, America will refuse to leave, and they'll continue to 'lose' most of the reconstruction money.

Gonzo_Reporter

I never said America alone should rebuild Iraq but i agree in general. Although even if the US was to give them the money Iraq cant do it alone, the country is still routed in corruption and you have to bribe a lot of people to get anything done. The main reason why the food for oil scheme fell on its face.
America will leave eventually, or at least the troops will, at the moment Bush is just trying to save face, we will have wait and see what (i hope) a Democratic government will do. But yes there will always be a Western influence there be it an American base (as they have on almost every continent) or big Multi Nationals Organisation.

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

There are two major factors in the current violence.
1. The Occupation
2. The 60% unemployment rate.

Don't suppose I could submit factor number three, that being two ethnic groups that aren't getting along incredibly well right now?

NTM

edanto

Thugs will always use the violence created by an invasion to settle old fueds and profit (the disappearing reconstruction funds).

As to the original question, what will happen to Iraq, well I don't know. Hazarding a guess, I think that the US will try to establish bases there and get the UN to rubberstamp that. With the new US president next year, the troop withdrawel will begin and it's impossible to know what might happen after that.

There might (but hopefully won't) be another terrosist attack that a fading or rising superpower can manipulate to it's advantage and life will go on. With any luck, a change in government here might slow down the troops going through Shannon and our hands will have less blood on them, though the recent stopover policy change will make that policitally difficult.

InFront

Don't suppose I could submit factor number three, that being two ethnic groups that aren't getting along incredibly well right now?

No, not really. Shias and Sunnis get on perfectly normally in Dublin and Paris and London and elsewhere across Europe and the US, as they have done in Iraq and throughout the ME for many, many years... the factional fighting has a lot more to do with politics than religion. I think Akrasia is pretty correct: severe unemployment and/ or occupation are fuelling the unrest, the invasion opened a Pandora's box of trouble.

The US opened that box, they're in charge of the Iraqi security... fix it.

I think we'd be stretching imagination a bit to say sunni's and shia's got on in Iraq in Sadams time.
Mind you Sadam was an enforcer back then and often when theres a ruthless enforcement regime,you either don't hear about the unrest/political disagreement or it is quelled so good that it stays in its place (not that it should-the non violent part of it that is).

Back in the days of Breznev,no one ever heard of chechnya or the like.

edanto

It would be a real victory for the Ministry of Truth if the official reason for the war was ever changed to peacekeeping between the Sunnis and the Shias!!

I don't think we can blame the US for the fact that there are two ethic groups with some hatred to work out, but we can blame the US for breaking down civil society, in so far as it existed under Saddam, and creating the conditions for an escalation of tit for tat violence.

Manic, I'd be interested to know what the military are telling soldiers that have to go to Iraq now about the mission. Is there any talk of an end to the mission? What are they saying that your role is now?

Then, how would you think that soldiers feel about being oil field security guards? Any US soldiers that I've talked with seemed to be in complete denial about the Oil Motive and seemed to think that I was making up, or at least putting a pinko-liberal slant on things like the pillaging of oil by American companies. Are soldiers talking about this?

marco murphy

Tristrame wrote:

I think we'd be stretching imagination a bit to say sunni's and shia's got on in Iraq in Sadams time.

Have you anything to prove the opposite?

FYI

Poblachtach wrote:

Have you anything to prove the opposite?

Here's what the famous 'non-partisan' [Council memebers include: Dick Cheney, Jonothan S. Bush - George W. Bush's First Cousin, Fred Thompson, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz] think tank 'The Council for Foreign Relations' thought of the pre-invasion Sunni/Shia relations:

"Do most Sunnis consider Shiites ‘infidels?’

No. In Iraq, for example, Shiites and Sunni Arabs often intermarry, particularly among the urban middle classes. Some Iraqi tribes feature both Sunni and Shiite branches. And experts say Iraqi nationalism remains important to both groups (Shiites and Sunnis fought side by side against the British after the post-World War I collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and also against Iran in the 1980-1988 war). However, some radical Sunni Arabs, so-called taqfiris, consider Shiites to be infidels and therefore fair game for targeted killings. Among this branch of radical Islam is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda in Iraq, which considered "near enemies"—Shiite collaborators with the U.S.-led government, as well as Shiite civilians—suitable targets for suicide bombs. Some experts say the death of Zarqawi may lead the sectarian bloodshed between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq to level off. "

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10903/shiite_muslims_in_the_middle_east.html#8

It's very easy for people to apologise for the present religious 'tension' by way of arguing that Saddam simply brokered peace through suppression. While there may be some element of truth in that - since elementary reasoning will allow you to come to the conclusion, given there is very little leeway for other forms of power to exist under a despotic regime such as Saddam's. But to suggest he kept the lid on a simmering pot appears at best far fetched, and at worst apologetic.

yeah the treatment of the marsh arabs...

Manic Moran

Poblachtach wrote:

Have you anything to prove the opposite?

I think it's safe to say that any situation where you have a minority ethnic group basically running a majority ethnic group for a couple hundred years is going to cause some friction. Ever since the Ottoman days, Sunnis were the government administrators in Iraq, they see it as their rightful position, and many do not believe that they are the numerical minority. The Shia now have the opportunity to take advantage of the weight of numbers to take over.

Is that really much different from the Ireland/England case?

Manic, I'd be interested to know what the military are telling soldiers that have to go to Iraq now about the mission. Is there any talk of an end to the mission? What are they saying that your role is now?

The main cause is stability and security. Trying to reduce the death toll, while trying to get the Iraqi government to stand on its own. I think most of the military is getting sick of the place, and would like very much to pull out, but only when the conditions warrant. It's a case of 'Hurry up and sort yourselves out, we want to go home.'

Then, how would you think that soldiers feel about being oil field security guards? Any US soldiers that I've talked with seemed to be in complete denial about the Oil Motive and seemed to think that I was making up, or at least putting a pinko-liberal slant on things like the pillaging of oil by American companies. Are soldiers talking about this?

I have yet to meet a troop who has spent his year as an oil field security guard. There is an Iraqi government unit (Not police or military) whose job that is, but I only ran into them once as my sector didn't have any oilfields in it. I'm not saying definitively that there are no US troops at any oil facilities, I'm just saying that they're uncommon enough that I've not met or heard of one yet. My year was spent hunting insurgents, training Iraqis and doing community support gigs, not guarding anything.

The whole thing about the Oil Law is another thread entirely. The text is here.
http://web.krg.org/uploads/documents/Draft%20Iraq%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Law%20English__2007_03_09_h17m2s47.pdf

Of all the complaints I've seen levvied about it, the only one that I can find supported by the text is the comment that 'Most of the major oil-producers have no such agreements in place.' It is also to be said that 'most of the major oil-producers tend to be rather authoritarian governments with centralised economies'. The largest oil producer in the world (Russia) has no issue with private companies extracting oil, for example. But to answer the question, no, the troops aren't talking about oil at all. We tend to focus on the issues we're concerned with.

NTM

democrates

I suspect the OP is close to the money as I similarly posited on another thread but with a twist, enter Iran, Syria, and Turkey.

Iran has an interest in the oil-rich south with the holy Shi-ite cities of Najaf and Karballa, Syria would hardly abandon the Sunni centre. If reports are to be believed these neighbours are already fuelling the flames. What this worsening conflict does is make it impossible for USA/UK to complete their mission as planned, and when they finally leave they aren't likely to go back in for round 3 even if Iran and Syria annex territories with a stated goal of stabilising the region.

I wasn't sure about Turkey in the Kurdish north but since I posted a Turkish general has come out and said they should go in 'to tackle PKK terrorist cells'. Maybe Turkey are testing the EU water with this, the political leaders let a general say it so if necessary they could deny they are seriously considering it, but if the EU isn't outraged that can be taken as a nod and a wink. In any event its a rattling of the sabre for the benefit of the Kurds and Iran which may be all they're after for now.

The US captured 5 Iranian government agents in the Kurdish North, are they already collaborating on a post-occupation pincer alliance against Syrian-backed Sunni? I don't know what they're planning but the idea that no plans are being drawn up by those on the borders of a strife-torn oil-rich nation soon to be without an effective united army is not credible to me.

sovtek

democrates wrote:

The US captured 5 Iranian government agents in the Kurdish North,

Kidnapped to use the parlance of our times...at least when it's the Iranians doing it. They were diplomats!

are they already collaborating on a post-occupation pincer alliance against Syrian-backed Sunni?

No they are setting up a diplomatic mission.

I don't know what they're planning but the idea that no plans are being drawn up by those on the borders of a strife-torn oil-rich nation soon to be without an effective united army is not credible to me.

Supposition without evidence is not credible.

democrates

sovtek wrote:

Kidnapped to use the parlance of our times...at least when it's the Iranians doing it. They were diplomats!

No they are setting up a diplomatic mission.

Supposition without evidence is not credible.

I'd say taking things at face value is niaive given that history is littered with subterfuge. A skeptic tries to read between the lines and I'm clearly speculating based on circumstantial evidence rather than asserting.

You can assert the Iranians were diplomats, fine, that's a job title, but it's not necessarily the full extent of all five job roles. What was discussed, or what documents delivered? I can't assert anything.