What will hapen to Iraq when the Americans leave?

OTK

civil war?
Iranian invasion?
glorious freedom and democracy?
kurdish independence?
saddam mkII?
Islamist state?

I think the Iranians will invade because nobody will defend them

wes

OTK wrote:

civil war?
Iranian invasion?
glorious freedom and democracy?
kurdish independence?
saddam mkII?
Islamist state?

I think the Iranians will invade because nobody will defend them

If the Iranians invade the Turks may invade, I don't think they want a more powerful Iran on there door step.

As for Iraq, whether the US/UK stays or goes, it looks like there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

SeanW

It's a troubling question alright. If the US/UK leaves now or any time soon my guess is Iraq will be taken over by whichever of the terrorist factions are slaughtering the most civilians.

Zebra3

Hopefully Iraq breaks up into three seperate states along ethnic lines.

The country shouldn't exist and is only there as a relic of bygone imperial days.

Dr_Teeth

You can say that about every country. It's not going to split up, the Shia death-squads will just keep doing their thing and the Sunni suicide bombers will continue doing their thing. Eventually (if no other country interferes) it will burn itself out and there will be some kind of reconciliation, but that will take decades seeing as most of the sensible people (upper and middle classes) have already left or are in the processs of doing so.

Without the US/UK there to do their dirty work for them, I wonder what the Saudis will do to counter-balance Iranian influence..

Zebra3

Dr_Teeth wrote:

Eventually (if no other country interferes) it will burn itself out and there will be some kind of reconciliation, but that will take decades seeing as most of the sensible people (upper and middle classes) have already left or are in the processs of doing so.

What makes you say all this? Why won't it go the way of Yugoslavia and break up?

Kevster

I don't think the Iranians will invade at all; why would they? I feel that the country will go the route of Yugoslavia. The first to go will be Kurdistan and, from there, other sects will break-away over the coming decades. Through all this, tens-of-thousands more people will die.


Kevin.

Dr_Teeth

Zebra3 wrote:

What makes you say all this? Why won't it go the way of Yugoslavia and break up?

The various states of Yugoslavia were a lot more distinct in terms of culture, religion and history. In Iraq the Sunnis and the Shias are still one nation, they just don't like each other very much. You can look at the map and say "this area is Sunni-dominated" but there's no basis there for a functioning new country - and even if here was, the Sunni bits of Iraq don't have any oil, so that's not going to work out very well for them.

As for the Kurds, well they're not going to be allowed to break off, since they'd be looking to take a chunk of Turkey and Iran with them.

Kevster

Dr_Teeth wrote:

As for the Kurds, well they're not going to be allowed to break off, since they'd be looking to take a chunk of Turkey and Iran with them.

That's the one sticking point isn't it. I feel that the Iraqi government would eventually let the Kurds go, but Turkey is already making it clear that it won't happen; and Iran? - For some reason I cannot picture Ahmadinejad ceading to the Kurds either :rolleyes: ... ...

... unless he benefits from it somehow.

johnnyskeleton

Zebra3 wrote:

What makes you say all this? Why won't it go the way of Yugoslavia and break up?

Oil.

Generally, I think there will be another saddam after a couple of years. My idea is based on a very primitive model of how countries work - out of anarchy comes a tyrant who brings the country together, then that tyrant makes concessions after the people revolt, then eventually there is an assembly without much power, and then the stage is set for a democratic coup. This, as I say is very basic, however, it can be seen in many countries throughtout history. This progression was twarted by the American invasion, and Iraq will have to go back to stage 1 and start the process afresh. Ulimately the American Invasion has set them back a peg and killed a lot of people, and the only benefits of the invasion are for America, not for Iraq.

Rousseau also noted that people will not respect democracy unless they have fought for it themselves. Imposing democracy on a people is like trying to get a child to eat vegetables and as many children do, they won't eat the vegetables - not because the vegetables are not good for them, but because they are being forced to eat them.

lostexpectation

they're never going to leave, there still in japan etc

jonny72

lostexpectation wrote:

they're never going to leave, there still in japan etc

They aren't getting killed in Japan, or South Korea or Germany.

sovtek

I think Sadr may very well unite Iraq again (possibly barring the Kurds). He is already making overtures to the Sunni's for peace between the factions and has started to purge those elements of his militia that were participating in death squads.
He has a huge following amongst the Shia and could be a strong influence in uniting the country. It's probably why America is still trying to kill him.

Fratton Fred

sovtek wrote:

I think Sadr may very well unite Iraq again (possibly barring the Kurds). He is already making overtures to the Sunni's for peace between the factions and has started to purge those elements of his militia that were participating in death squads.
He has a huge following amongst the Shia and could be a strong influence in uniting the country. It's probably why America is still trying to kill him.

I think you may be right. Maybe a seperate Kurdish state as well. I can see the Yanks staying for a while but with a sort of uneasy peace with a leader like Sadr pulling the place together.

off the top of my head, I can't think of that many democratic Muslim countries, so why should Iraq be any different?

AbusesToilets

The US is probably trying to capture/kill him because the Madhi militia that fights under his cause is responsible for killing a lot of Iraqis and inflaming the civil war.

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

I think Sadr may very well unite Iraq again (possibly barring the Kurds). He is already making overtures to the Sunni's for peace between the factions and has started to purge those elements of his militia that were participating in death squads. He has a huge following amongst the Shia and could be a strong influence in uniting the country.

Heh. I can see Sadr leading Iraq just after they elect me president.

sovtek wrote:

It's probably why America is still trying to kill him.

Care to back that up? According to a US military spokesman giving an interview on an american network last weekend they are treating Sadr like any other Iraqi citizen and have been for quite some time. They are not looking for him, to kill him or to do otherwise nefarious things to him.

murphaph

One feels really sorry for the ordinary Iraqis who seem very decent people. Hard to see any positive outcome in the short-medium term.

flogen

I find it hard to see anything other than another dictator - maybe one that's similar to the 1980's era Saddam (ie one that the US love because he hates Iran).

Other than that, an escelation of the civil war currently going on - maybe leading to the intervention of surrounding states, who break the country up a la post WW2 Germany and administer it themselves. For the good of the Iraqi people, of course.

homah_7ft

Any takers on an Arab Vs. Iran showdown?

wes

homah_7ft wrote:

Any takers on an Arab Vs. Iran showdown?

Nah, Arab nationalism seems to be dead. Sunni vs Shia would be more likely if such a conflict were to take place, but no peace has been made with Israel and I am sure that common foe will prevent things from blowing up too much. Also the Saudi's seem to be making efforts to prevent a Sunni/Shia conflict so its become even more unlikely.

sovtek

Moriarty wrote:

Heh. I can see Sadr leading Iraq just after they elect me president.

Can you organize massive protests like Sadr is known for doing on a few occasions in Iraq? You may not be aware that he has a strong following in Iraq. Of course I'm assuming you are referring to a truly democratic election when you made that wisecrack.

Care to back that up? According to a US military spokesman giving an interview on an american network last weekend they are treating Sadr like any other Iraqi citizen and have been for quite some time. They are not looking for him, to kill him or to do otherwise nefarious things to him.

US Military spokesman are typically very honest and upstanding when referring to their objectives and operations.
Treating him like any other Iraqi citizen leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05262007.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05212007.html

FTA69

Dr_Teeth wrote:

but that will take decades seeing as most of the sensible people (upper and middle classes) have already left or are in the processs of doing so.

Sure of course the middle and upper class in Iraq's Sunni elite are the only sensible ones! :rolleyes:

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

Heh. I can see Sadr leading Iraq just after they elect me president.

Can you organize massive protests like Sadr is known for doing on a few occasions in Iraq? You may not be aware that he has a strong following in Iraq. Of course I'm assuming you are referring to a truly democratic election when you made that wisecrack.

He has a strong following in parts of Iraq. He is the equivalent of a populist Gerry Adams with a cult of personality complex. Vote for me and I wont send people to kill you and your family.

sovtek wrote:

US Military spokesman are typically very honest and upstanding when referring to their objectives and operations.
Treating him like any other Iraqi citizen leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05262007.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05212007.html

I'd say everyone has been aware of the past goings on with Sadr back in the summer of 2004 and that the americans targetted him then. It's a pity you couldn't just give a straight "No, I can't back that up" answer though. Why is it that conspiracy theories are welcome here when they bend to a certain political persuasion?

sovtek

Moriarty wrote:

He has a strong following in large parts of Iraq. He is the equivalent of a populist Gerry Adams with a cult of personality complex. Vote for me and I wont send people to kill you and your family. I'll pick up the trash which these funny looking guys with guns and tanks can't seem to manage.

I'd say everyone has been aware of the past goings on with Sadr back in the summer of 2004 and that the americans targetted him then.

Oh I guess they want to be his friend now

It's a pity you couldn't just give a straight "No, I can't back that up" answer though.

It's a pity you spoke too soon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2088299,00.html

Why is it that conspiracy theories are welcome here when they bend to a certain political persuasion?

it's a conspiracy fact.

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

I'll pick up the trash which these funny looking guys with guns and tanks can't seem to manage.

That might be because the mehdi army shoots at those troops and murders anyone they feel like (collaborating sanitation workers, anyone?). You have a strange set of priorities when you think keeping the place clean is more important than killing people, I'll give you that.

sovtek wrote:

It's a pity you spoke too soon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2088299,00.html

it's a conspiracy fact.

I'm missing the part where it says they tried to target Moqtada al-Sadr. You know, the thing that we're talking about here.

Manic Moran

Moriarty wrote:

That might be because the mehdi army shoots at those troops and murders anyone they feel like (collaborating sanitation workers, anyone?). You have a strange set of priorities when you think keeping the place clean is more important than killing people, I'll give you that.

When we arrived in Mosul, the city refuse collection agency had just started work again. It was something of a high priority for the US commanders, as it's a very obvious sign of a central government operaion, is pretty simple, and frankly, makes people feel a bit better about things.

NTM

sovtek

Moriarty wrote:

That might be because the mehdi army shoots at those troops and murders anyone they feel like (collaborating sanitation workers, anyone?). You have a strange set of priorities when you think keeping the place clean is more important than killing people, I'll give you that.

That statement assumes a lot.

I'm missing the part where it says they tried to target Moqtada al-Sadr. You know, the thing that we're talking about here.

I guess it's a tin foil hat conspiracy theory to make the logical leap from Mehdi army leaders to Sadr.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

When we arrived in Mosul, the city refuse collection agency had just started work again. It was something of a high priority for the US commanders, as it's a very obvious sign of a central government operaion, is pretty simple, and frankly, makes people feel a bit better about things.

NTM

Maybe that was the case in Mosul but the rest of the country didn't seem to be to much of a priority.

banaman

found this today
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2099173,00.html

Doesn't seem like the US is going to leave Iraq anytime soon.
Not to mention their bases throughout central Asia and then there's the pipeline in Afghanistan to bring oil from the Caspian Sea region.

No wonder the Russians are getting restive.

Manic Moran

I just don't see how that can be a practical possibility, even in the next decade. The troops are welcome long-term in Korea, somewhat less so in Iraq. I also don't see the point, the US has facilities in enough Gulf states as it is.

NTM

lostexpectation

jonny72 wrote:

They aren't getting killed in Japan, or South Korea or Germany.

i till wonder if there was no insurgency in germany and japan?