What is the worst that could happen if US leaves Iraq?

gbh

Just wondering what is the worst that could happen if the US pulls out of Iraq? Certainly there would be 3 states within one with the creation of militias for each ethnic or religious group. There may be a power struggle as well. Iran would probably have a major influence and a divided and conflict ridden Iraq would suit them as well.

The truth is it seems that US involvement seems to make things worse. It lends a facade of security which in truth is not really there. If the US stays for maybe 5 or 10 more years then there will be terrorists who will target innocent Iraqis with car bombings for as long as the US remains there just so as to try change opinion in America. Is it really worth all those lives just to prove to the terrorists that the US can stay the distance? Better to lose face than to lose tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.

I also think the US presence is a raison d'etre for most of the extremists in Iraq and certainly if the US left that would be one less reason for people to join extremist groups.

eoin5

Theyll have to hand control of peacekeeping over to the UN before they pull out. Some groups may target the peacekeepers instead but many could target the US at home since they cant attack them in Iraq. Basically your looking at a possible increase in international terrorism aimed at the US.

Fratton Fred

I don't think it makes any difference whether it is the UN, the Americans or the Brits who are there, the Anarchy will continue.

Yesteray's attack, on a peaceful kurdish sect, was just outright slaughter of innocent people, I'd even go as far as to say genocide.

I don't know what the answer is I'm afraid, but I don't think it is pulling out.

quirk.

Here is a good nterview with pro-resistance Iraqi Nationalist in which he gives his opinion on what he thinks will happen if the US pull out.

Fratton Fred

quirk. wrote:

Here is a good nterview with pro-resistance Iraqi Nationalist in which he gives his opinion on what he thinks will happen if the US pull out.

There has been a series of Articles in the London Times about the British in Basra and they seem to back up what this guy is saying abot the south.

It appears that the British are fighting the Mahdi Army who have taken over Basra, mainly against the wishes of the local people. The Iraqi army are taking over central Basra soon, but it sounds like the less well equiped and trained Iraqi's may be lambs to the slaughter.

The journalist had no doubts that the weapons used by the Mahdi Army, if not the fighters themselves are coming directl from Iran.

quirk.

Fratton Fred wrote:

The journalist had no doubts that the weapons used by the Mahdi Army, if not the fighters themselves are coming directl from Iran.

It's hard to tell where the weapons come from. I don't think there was exactly a shortage of weapons in Iraq before the invasion and my guess this is where they are mostly from. But it suits the US to point the finger at Iran.

gbh

My guess is a lot of resistance fighters are not merely fanatically religious although you cannot doubt the religious element. They are also fanatical nationalists who are opposed to any foreign force on their nation's soil. By extension, Al Quida largely came into being because of two foreign occupations, the occupation of Afghanistan by the Russians and the basing of US troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Nationalism (or soverignty over your own soil) and religion are closely aligned then in the Middle East. There are sites of religious significance in every country in the area and it seems almost every town. Protecting these sites from descecration and descecration for example can include an infidel visiting them is probably more important than control over any other national resource.

And resisting the infidels is a core tenent of Islam.

So I think if the US get out of Iraq or the infidels as they are perceieved my most resistance groups, Shia, Sunni, or Al Quaida, then you have removed a major stumbling block to the future stability of Iraq because you give people less motive to become involved in extremist violence. George Bush Snr, not a foolish man, recognised the futility of invading and occupying Iraq after the first Gulf War because of the trouble it would cause. It's a pity the Neo-Cons didn't heed his example.

Fratton Fred

quirk. wrote:

It's hard to tell where the weapons come from. I don't think there was exactly a shortage of weapons in Iraq before the invasion and my guess this is where they are mostly from. But it suits the US to point the finger at Iran.

the article showed shells fired at the Basra Palace, where the British have a base, that are date stamped 2007. There was no doubt that this was new ordanance being fired.

Fratton Fred

gbh wrote:

My guess is a lot of resistance fighters are not merely fanatically religious although you cannot doubt the religious element. They are also fanatical nationalists who are opposed to any foreign force on their nation's soil. By extension, Al Quida largely came into being because of two foreign occupations, the occupation of Afghanistan by the Russians and the basing of US troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Nationalism (or soverignty over your own soil) and religion are closely aligned then in the Middle East. There are sites of religious significance in every country in the area and it seems almost every town. Protecting these sites from descecration and descecration for example can include an infidel visiting them is probably more important than control over any other national resource.

And resisting the infidels is a core tenent of Islam.

So I think if the US get out of Iraq or the infidels as they are perceieved my most resistance groups, Shia, Sunni, or Al Quaida, then you have removed a major stumbling block to the future stability of Iraq because you give people less motive to become involved in extremist violence. George Bush Snr, not a foolish man, recognised the futility of invading and occupying Iraq after the first Gulf War because of the trouble it would cause. It's a pity the Neo-Cons didn't heed his example.

but how can someone be a resistance fighter when they bomb a market, or a school, or a mosque?

I don't buy the statement that Americans are doing it themselves, sure it plays into their hands, but this is sectarian, not patriotic.

Morlar

gbh wrote:

Just wondering what is the worst that could happen if the US pulls out of Iraq?

It the US/UK cut and run they will leave a god awful mess for the Un and everyone else to try and clean up . It could lead to a destabilised region. Civil war, ethnic cleansing and an increase in terrorism. Basically everything they said they were going to solve - they will have caused the opposite of it. I wouldnt be surprised if in several years after the pullout weapons of mass destruction (chemical/biological) do come to be found there - and if they are it will be as a consequence of the invasion.

I think the failure of invasion/occupation and inevitable retreat is one of the reasons why the US has agree to give $30,000,000,000.00 in military aid to israel in the next 10 years.

sovtek

Morlar wrote:

It the US/UK cut and run they will leave a god awful mess for the Un and everyone else to try and clean up . It could lead to a destabilised region. Civil war, ethnic cleansing and an increase in terrorism.

You mean what's happening now?

Morlar

sovtek wrote:

You mean what's happening now?

Potentially yes. I suppose it depends on how they cut and run and who gets left to clean up the mess.

RedPlanet

Fratton Fred wrote:

There has been a series of Articles in the London Times about the British in Basra and they seem to back up what this guy is saying abot the south.

It appears that the British are fighting the Mahdi Army who have taken over Basra, mainly against the wishes of the local people. The Iraqi army are taking over central Basra soon, but it sounds like the less well equiped and trained Iraqi's may be lambs to the slaughter.

The journalist had no doubts that the weapons used by the Mahdi Army, if not the fighters themselves are coming directl from Iran.

What makes you state that?
Insofar as i understand things, the Mahdi Army are popular.

Fratton Fred

RedPlanet wrote:

What makes you state that?
Insofar as i understand things, the Mahdi Army are popular.

The articles I read said otherwise, but I guess you will get differing opinions all over Basra. The article Quirl linked to said that "Foreign" fighters are not welcome and it mentioned the Mahdi Army so I would believe that opinion.

tallus

Maybe they meant the coalition of the willing when they said "Foreign". Lets be honest, they aren't exactly natives there.

Fratton Fred

tallus wrote:

Maybe they meant the coalition of the willing when they said "Foreign". Lets be honest, they aren't exactly natives there.

Q: There are more and more reports that Shiite tribes fight against the government forces. Can you explain this phenomenon?

With the occupation the Iranian militia in the South and East went to kill officers of the former Iraqi army accusing all its enemies to be Baathists. So many people were assassinated.

Although they all belong to some tribes they were afraid to defend them. But with the evaporation of the state structures the tribes, are becoming more and more important and powerful. Now they cannot accept any more that their tribesmen are being killed by foreigners whether Iranians or Iraqis not belonging to the tribe. If they come now to arrest or kill somebody the tribes mount growing resistance. There are many examples creating a new environment, a sentiment which is directed against the pro-Iranian militias and governmental forces. Recently there occurred a two day battle near Shuk ash Shuyuk in the south where they tried to capture a former officer. Hundreds took up arms to defend him. He fell but not without changing the climate. He belongs to a very combative tribe known for its bravery. They subsequently formed a kind of mutual assistance pact with other tribes against the pro-Iranian militias including the Mahdi army, the army and police indicating a general tendency which, however, remains local and did not yet reach the general political level.

maybe my interpretation is wrong, this is the passage I refer to.

RedPlanet

You should link to the articles you quote from.

By "foreign" i'd say they mean AlQueda and other jihadists from other countries, not Madhi army, whom are indigenous.

But anyway, you said the Madhi army were against the wishes of the majority of local people in Basra and that's what i'm questioning.

Manic Moran

I would like to suggest a modification to the title, to add 'tomorrow' to the end of the phrase. I certainly hope the US leaves Iraq, I think the vast majority of Americans, Iraqis, and third parties hope so too. I just don't think it should be on Fri 17th Aug, the country's just not ready for it.

quirk. wrote:

Here is a good nterview with pro-resistance Iraqi Nationalist in which he gives his opinion on what he thinks will happen if the US pull out.

As a counter-point, Michael Yon interviewed a leader of the 1920s Revolution Brigade last month. The whole article is a lot longer than this snippet.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/al-qaeda-on-the-run-feasting-on-the-moveable-beast.htm

A current leader in Burhiz and member of the 1920s Revolution Brigades (1920s) goes by the name Abu Ali. On Monday 9 July, I drove in the back of a Stryker and talked on the streets of Buhriz with Abu Ali. Just months ago our forces would have shot Abu Ali on sight, and he surely would have done the same to us. Today we are allies, for now.
<snip>
We had certainly killed a lot of his people, and the 1920s certainly had killed many American soldiers. During severe fighting with al Qaeda in April 2007, the 1920s reached out to American soldiers, and together they have been dismantling al Qaeda here in Baqubah and other places. If we had to fight an allied force of 1920s and al Qaeda, there is no telling how many soldiers we would have lost.
<snip>
Before the tape was running, I asked Abu Ali why he and the 1920s turned against al Qaeda in Buhriz. Speaking through LT David Wallach, a native Arabic speaker, Abu Ali said that “al Qaeda is an abomination of Islam: cutting off heads, stealing people’s money, kidnapping . . . every type of torture they have done.”

The recent stories of baked children came to mind. I asked if Abu Ali had heard about children being baked. Ali said no, he had not heard such a story, but he would not be surprised if it were true because al Qaeda had done so many crimes, such as cutting off a man’s head, putting it up on a stick and parading it around town.

Ali said people had been afraid in their own homes because of al Qaeda. I asked if he had fought Americans and Ali laughed and said through Wallach, “What kind of question is that?” I chuckled. Unfortunately, we had to go to other meetings, so the time for taping was short. In closing, I asked Abu Ali if there was something he would like to say to Americans. The markets that had been closed under al Qaeda were bustling around us.

Ali thought for a moment as some local people tried to interrupt him with greetings, and he said, “I ask one thing,” and now I paraphrase Ali’s words: “After the Iraqi Army and Police take hold and the security forces are ready, we want a schedule for the leaving of the American forces.”

Unfortunately, there is more going on than anti-occupation fighting, and also unfortunately, American forces are the most trusted by the Iraqi citizenry, followed by the Iraqi Army, and the police force trailing a good bit behind. For example, tips from Iraqis to Americans led the latter today to search a house and free six kidnap victims who had been held for $100,000 ransom each for the last two weeks. (And arrest five people). This was absolutely nothing to do with the occupation, and was simply people trying to take criminal advantage of the situation.

NTM

RedPlanet

The worst case scenario would probably be that iraq becomes a AlQueda terrorist training centre.

.... doh!

Liam Byrne

RedPlanet wrote:

The worst case scenario would probably be that iraq becomes a AlQueda terrorist training centre.

.... doh!

Pretty ironic, isn't it......it was Afghanistan that had AlQuaida before the U.S. invaded Iraq.

As for the original question, I'm not sure what should happen......while I'd love to see the war finished, and finally dump the stigma of Ireland's involvement in it, the ordinary decent people of Iraq deserve a stable country - otherwise they, too, will be disgruntled towards "the west" [read: America & UK, but they won't make that distinction] interfering, with possibly disastrous consequences as terrorist groups work on that disgruntlement.

What I think is sad is that around 5 years ago, no-one was asking the proper question.....which would be the thread title with the word "invades" replacing the word "leaves"......

Jon Stewart on The Daily Show last night was absolutely brilliant on this topic.....he even ditched the comedy/satire angle to treat it with the seriousness that it requires and got even bigger cheers from the audience than if he was being satirical.

Manic Moran

Der Spiegel recently weighed in, with an 8-page special.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html

Those who believe that a speedy withdrawal of US troops would result in the problem capable of resolving itself are deeply mistaken. Though this premise might have rang true in late 2003 or early 2004, when terrorism had not yet stirred up the infernal forces of religious hatred, the situation today is different.

In the Iraq of 2007, that is, in its capital Baghdad, the respective factions in a future civil war are forming along religious lines, and so far only the Americans have been able to prevent it from happening. If the forces in Washington that are demanding the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq prevail, the country will descend into full-fledged civil war, complete with reports of horrific religious cleansing operations, large-scale massacres arising from the blind fury of fanaticism and acts of revenge against anyone who has ever dared to cooperate with the Americans.

The whole article is entitled 'Hope and Despair'

There are some interesting snippets, though.

Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq -- it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe

NTM

RedPlanet

yeah, they are really successful aren't they?
Afterall Iraq is a shining beacon of freedom and democracy today right?
I mean it's not like US Soldiers go around raping children or anything; or randomly spraying gunfire in places where civilians are around.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=q7nM-uSCvks -US Soldier talks about killing unarmed civilians

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=zB91aHee1rk&mode=related&search= -Soldiers talking about killing random civilians.

Moriarty

RedPlanet wrote:

yeah, they are really successful aren't they?
Afterall Iraq is a shining beacon of freedom and democracy today right?
I mean it's not like US Soldiers go around raping children or anything; or randomly spraying gunfire in places where civilians are around.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=q7nM-uSCvks -US Soldier talks about killing unarmed civilians

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=zB91aH...elated&search= -Soldiers talking about killing random civilians.

I love the smell of an agenda in the morning.

Would you believe me if I put up a video on youtube claiming certain controversial things? After the previous outed fakes exactly like this, I have to wonder why people aren't more sceptical without hard proof of allegations. Or is anything that backs up your position, be it the truth or fabricated, all good? Irony of irony's from the "war under false pretences" crowd. Throw enough mud and some will stick and all that.

That's how it comes across to me as a fairly impartial observer. You'd have to wonder why.

RedPlanet

skip it

banaman

That's easy. They'll go and do the same somewhere else, probably Iran

gbh

Tbh I wasn't around during the Vietnam war but I think commentators like Walter Conkrite had a significant bearing on the decision to withdraw through their criticism of the conflict. Its time for some commentators like that today.

First off it's fairly obvious that the Iraq war is an unwinnable war for the US. It's not cutting and running to say that, it's stating fact. You litterly now have thousands of terrorists in Iraq who see killing civilians, committing atrocities and dying in suicide blasts as a path to martyrdom.

The continued US involvement doesn't I believe contribute much in the way of stability. Plus weapons and arms are poured into Iraq from surrounding countries due to the US presence and if that presence was removed I suspect the flow of these weapons would stop. I think possibly a UN backed Muslim army would be the best one to replace the Americans. That to me is the only viable solution at the time being. But certainly I think its time the Americans were planning an exit, because they only attract terrorists and terrorists atrocities in Iraq.

Liam Byrne

Moriarty wrote:

Would you believe me if I put up a video on youtube claiming certain controversial things? After the previous outed fakes exactly like this, I have to wonder why people aren't more sceptical without hard proof of allegations.

That would be a perfectly fair comment, if it weren't for the propaganda, fakes and completely unfounded allegations which were spouted by the U.S. Administration as an excuse to invade in the first place.

If you set the bar by lying and spouting lies and propaganda, you can't really complain if your opposition starts to do the same thing, can you ?

Moriarty

Liam Byrne wrote:

That would be a perfectly fair comment, if it weren't for the propaganda, fakes and completely unfounded allegations which were spouted by the U.S. Administration as an excuse to invade in the first place.

If you set the bar by lying and spouting lies and propaganda, you can't really complain if your opposition starts to do the same thing, can you ?

.. but then both positions are equally flawed and neither camp is worth listening to. The "problem" is, the American administration will be at least listened to no matter what they say because they're a super power, where as the anti-war camp only has their word to stand on so can't afford to negate it.

Hey look, they just made themselves irrelevant and easier to ignore. Oops.

Either way, we're veering off topic.

I firmly believe that for Iraq to come out of this for the better, the US military will have to stay there in force for another couple of years. Both the US military and the US administration made massive, unforgiveable mistakes after the invasion. I think the US military have certainly demonstrated in the past year that they've learnt from those mistakes. Unfortunately US politics seems to be lagging behind events in Iraq by about by about a year. The situation on the ground is moving too quickly for politicans more concerned with polls and party politics to keep up. We may very well end up in the farcical situation of the US administration drawing down troop numbers at the very time they have become the most effective force for positive change in Iraq, after years of bloody and quite often ineffective sacrifice on all sides.

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote:

Unfortunately, there is more going on than anti-occupation fighting, and also unfortunately, American forces are the most trusted by the Iraqi citizenry, followed by the Iraqi Army, and the police force trailing a good bit behind. For example, tips from Iraqis to Americans led the latter today to search a house and free six kidnap victims who had been held for $100,000 ransom each for the last two weeks. (And arrest five people). This was absolutely nothing to do with the occupation, and was simply people trying to take criminal advantage of the situation.

NTM

Who where the kidnap victims by the way? It is strange given the current situation to think that there are average Iraqi's (not connected to the occupation) who would be able to stump up over half a million dollars in ransom.

Manic Moran

Probably why they were still hostages after a couple of weeks, I'd wager.

I have no knowledge of who they were. There was one incident when a chap came to us saying his daughter had been taken for ransom: I doubt he'd have had more than $1000 to his name.

That said, there are plenty of rich Iraqis who have nothing to do with the occupation. You should see some of their houses.

NTM

LegacyUser

Just getting back to the original question...IMHO I think it would be very bad indeed for the US to leave Iraq. As others have pointed out theres 3 main players in the game...Sunni,Shia and Kurdish.

There is another problem that most have overlooked and thats with the setting up of a Kurdish state of sorts and thats Turkeys opposition of such a scenario.It would be viewed in Ankara as a stronghold of Kurdish resistance in Turkey....and in thoery be subject to military action...then youd have the Shia influaece of Iran. They are already on thin ice with the US and Israel so thier influence in a Shia controlled Iraq could cause some major problems down the road...but then of course you have the minority Sunnis,who have the support of Al-Queda and other fundememtalist secular terrorist groups.

Really theres no clear cut solution to Iraqs problems...but as for now its alot better for the US to remain.