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

LegacyUser

going slightly off topic here but found this link. Some might find it intresting.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=9099034601896343271&q=CHECHNYA%3A+THE+DIRTY+WAR&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

skelliser

a speedy withdrawl would destabilise the region,oil prices skyrocket, proper all-out civil war and finally potentially draggin the saudi's into the **** weakening the yanks power base, so i cant see it happening.

some of there short-term policies have kinda worked, like arming and sending the new iraqi army to take on the insurgents, this helps the americans P.R at home cause there has been a decline in the no. of casualties in the last few months, hence no news is good news back in america

the more likely eventuallity will be a locally based U.N force kinda like the African union sent in to "calm" things down. i have already seen some movement to this, there was a call last week for greater u.n involement in iraq, not sure however who said it.

The yanks cant afford to be seen by iran as backing down

gbh

Moriarty wrote:

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.

I just think there should be an analysis done of the motives or reasons why the average foreign terrorist is attracted to Iraq and why the average domestic terrorist takes up arms and fights. I just wish we could get the truth of the conflict and not the propaganda and lies of the US administration which has lost all credibility on the issue. No-one can really trust what the US government says anymore because some people including in this country think the US government is (a) infallible and (b) impartial when it comes to reporting on Iraq. I also think those who planned and those who supported the war in the mainstream media (a certain Sindo writer comes to mind) have lost all moral and intellectual credibilty on the issue and shown that they are incapable of forming a proper concept of a balanced foreign policy.

You can't defeat Islamic jihadism just by fighting them. You have to look at the motives of the Jihaddi and ask how can we lesson those motives.

The original crusade wars went on for two hundred years or for as long as there were infidals in the middle east. The same will happen this time. And in the original Crusades it was the civilians who suffered most, while the fighting men paid little or no regard to their wellbeing.

I think that the average insurgent is attracted to Iraq by the US...Now stay the distance is clearly not an option because the Iraqi people suffer as a conequence. So if you are in favour of staying the distance you are in favour of continuing the needless burden of suffering on Iraqis.

My view is the solution is to get a UN backed Muslim army involved. Soldiers from each sect should be in the area of their own sect. Its time that the Saudis started to pay back the support they recieve by being peacemakers in Iraq.

Not only do I think the US attracts foreign insurgents to Iraq and will do as long as they are there, because lets be honest if its a matter of religious faith to resist occupying infedels then its not going to stop tomorrow, but the US also has given legitimacy to many of the sectarian killings which would not have happened if the US were involved.

Finally I think everyone should put the interests of the Iraqi people first. Saying the US would lose face if it pulled out is and I'm not criticising the messengers of this, but the actual policy makers in Washington, is just a morally corrupt, immature and completely foolish way of looking at resoloving the problem. Does that mean the US should stay in Iraq for the next thousand years, because to pull out would make them look weak to their enemies? Surely the Washington policy makers would not condone that sort of arrangement.

Moriarty

gbh wrote:

I just think there should be an analysis done of the motives or reasons why the average foreign terrorist is attracted to Iraq and why the average domestic terrorist takes up arms and fights.

Hang on, isn't the amount of foreign jihadists in Iraq very small proportionally? I remember seeing figures a couple of months ago that said they made up a very small percentage of those involved in the fighting.

gbh wrote:

You can't defeat Islamic jihadism just by fighting them. You have to look at the motives of the Jihaddi and ask how can we lesson those motives.

Agreed, it takes a combined approach of military force to combat the present jihadists and addressing the underlying issues so that their support base and future enlistees are reduced.

gbh wrote:

I think that the average insurgent is attracted to Iraq by the US...Now stay the distance is clearly not an option because the Iraqi people suffer as a conequence. So if you are in favour of staying the distance you are in favour of continuing the needless burden of suffering on Iraqis.

The vast majority of people involved in the fighting in Iraq appear to be Iraqis. Your argument is flawed because it's based on a number of wild assumptions: firstly that the violence will continue at its present (or a higher) level as long as US forces are there, and secondly that conditions will not get worse if US forces withdraw. I would contest both assumptions.

gbh wrote:

My view is the solution is to get a UN backed Muslim army involved. Soldiers from each sect should be in the area of their own sect. Its time that the Saudis started to pay back the support they recieve by being peacemakers in Iraq.

As far as I know, Iraqis don't want a UN force consisting of middle eastern armies. I've seen many comments saying that they would never accept it as they're less likely to ever leave. That's not to mention the bad blood between many in that area of the world.

gbh

Well I don't think continued US presence or a long term presence ie more than five more years will serve the Iraqi people. The more dependent Iraqis become on the US the worse it will be for them long term. The Iraqi army and politicians have to step up to the mark. There should also be a date set for the withdrawel of the US and I would say it should coincide with the end of George Bush's stay in the White House.

The US presence attracts insurgents and creates conditions for extremism in Iraq which would not be there if they weren't there.

RedPlanet

As you may know, Moqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Mahdi Army (possibly the largest armed group in Iraq), has pledged to support the UN should they replace the US.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C08%5C21%5Cstory_21-8-2007_pg4_1

Moriarty

"If the troops which are keeping my militia from committing further genocide in check are withdrawn from the country, we promise not to shoot too much* at the replacement UN troops who we will be able to intimidate far easier. Instead, we'll sponsor glorious martars to attack the Great Satan and new Lesser Satan at home. All hail the glourious Shia Iraqan Empire."

*until we disagree with a decision they make, natch. Just look at our record of on-again off-again cease fires.

Dr_Teeth

If the U.S. leaves Moqtada and his lads will definitely be in charge.. witness how they're already assassinating rival governors in the south of the country to smooth the transition of power from the British to them.

I think Iraq will look like this:

Moqtada's faction will be in charge of the government, police and army, and most of the country. They will continue rounding up suspect Sunnis and shooting them.

The Sunnis will continue their suicide bombings of Shias.

The Kurds will keep to themselves up north, bringing as many areas as they can under their control. Turkey will not invade them en mass but there will be plenty of dodgy to-ing and fro-ing on the border (a la the Afghanistan/Pakistan border).

The Sunni/Shia fighting will go on for quite a while, but will not degenerate into total war.. the country will be a crap-hole for the foreseeable future due to all of the educated, resourceful, entrepreneurial people leaving for good.

Iran will be the government's best friend and will invest heavily in getting Iraq's oil production back on track, meaning that Iraq and Iran will essentially be a single political entity in terms of oil production, which should be fun for the U.S.

RedPlanet

Moriarty wrote:

Instead, we'll sponsor glorious martars to attack the Great Satan and new Lesser Satan at home. All hail the glourious Shia Iraqan Empire."

So now the Madhi army replaces Al Queda as a terrorist organization with a global reach?
What fantasies are you basing that on?
For the US, UK, UN, EU whomever, to get behind al-Sadr and his Mahdi army, is no different than when they give their backing to the "Northern Alliance" for example in Afganistan. It's making practical decisions based upon realities on the ground. And realities being what they are, the "Government of Iraq" has almost zero credibility and will probably always be hampered politically, by being the pet poodle of the Americans.
How can any self respecting people of any nation, give their alliegience to a collaborator of a foreign invasion? It's ignorant and arrogant to expect them to. The iraqis survived 12 years of a particularly harsh UN Sanctions regime, taken in that context it's a generous offer al-Sadr makes.

Here's an interesting analysis from some US troops
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1187841600&en=977bf4bf3ec3f31d&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

Moriarty

He also warned that Britain’s involvement in Iraq had endangered its citizens at home: “The British put their soldiers in a dangerous position by sending them here but they also put the people in their own country in danger.”

“They have made enemies among all Muslims and they now face attacks at home because of their war. That was their mistake.”

Last I checked, he is a muslim cleric with a large military capacity under his finger which he has shown many times he has no qualms about using, isn't he?

RedPlanet

Moriarty wrote:

Last I checked, he is a muslim cleric with a large military capacity under his finger which he has shown many times he has no qualms about using, isn't he?

Isn't he just stating the obvious?
7/7 bombers, and whatever that last fiasco was at Glasgow.

RedPlanet

Here's a good article about Shiite sentiments (at least in East Baghdad) regarding the Mahdi Army.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-fg-counter23aug23,0,4618919.story?page=1&coll=la-news-comment

Not much point having them outside the political process.

Manic Moran

In them meantime, the presumed leader of the largest anti-American insurgent group has decided to switch sides.

The leader of Iraq's banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the Iraqi authorities to fight al-Qaeda, one of the party's former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1225974555

I presume there's some form of amnesty deal involved: He was King of Clubs on the 'Most Wanted' deck of cards.

NTM

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

In them meantime, the presumed leader of the largest anti-American insurgent group has decided to switch sides.



http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1225974555

I presume there's some form of amnesty deal involved: He was King of Clubs on the 'Most Wanted' deck of cards.

NTM

Yeah ya see?
A US military victory is still possible eh?
:rolleyes:

Ping Chow Chi

I guess if Saddam had managed to stick around for a while longer he could have been able to get a simalar type of deal? By vowing to clean his country of a terrorist group that only enterd Iraq after the US invasion.

There was an article on CNN a few days back on this, I have to say that the US soldiers working with their new sunni friends didn't look best pleased. When one of them asked how he felt, he looked over to the sunni men they where working with and said 'I've lost a few close friends to these guys' ...not happy at all.

But in the end - if it brings a stop to the attacks and gets Iraq closer to what it was pre invasion, then it can only be a good thing.

One word of caution though, this fella has been reported killed and captured before, both turned out to be lies, maybe we should await some hard evidence that he has switched sides first, unless we start to sound like that Iraq information minister

Dr_Teeth

Manic Moran wrote:

In them meantime, the presumed leader of the largest anti-American insurgent group has decided to switch sides.



http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1225974555

I presume there's some form of amnesty deal involved: He was King of Clubs on the 'Most Wanted' deck of cards.

NTM

I don't think that's going to change much. This chap has just realised that the Mahdi Army and friends are his real enemies and he needs to buddy up with the rest of his Sunni countrymen to have a better chance of taking on the Shia on both politically and militarily.

For now his goal is to integrate with the Sunni community and stop his men getting wasted by Americans while they gear up for the civil war.

RedPlanet

I'd be really pathetic tho, if a poorly equiped, poorly trained, underfunded, rag-tag Sunni insurgent group actually succeeds against Al Qaeda; when a huge 1st world army, with a billion dollar budget, wielding the most modern and deadly of weaponry, fail.

Dr_Teeth

I wouldn't say there's more than a handfull of actual AQ people in Iraq. It's just a handy marketing term for the Americans to use. As far as they're concerned, any time someone chucks a rock at a humvee, the order came directly from Osama's cave.

Mick86

Forget about the UN taking over from the US. Firstly the insurgents or whatever you want to call them would just treat the UN troops as they are the Americans at the moment. And what country is going to send it's troops on a suicide mission for the UN, never the most competent of organisations. Even Muslim troops might not work too well. Shia soldiers would be unacceptable to the Sunni and vice versa. Arab troops would be unacceptable to the Kurds. And since Iraq appears to be fracturing along tribal lines nobody from outside the tribe will be acceptable anyway.

The Balkanisation of Iraq seems inevitable in the event of a US withdrawal. At best it will fracture into a Kurdish state and fundamentalist Sunni and Shia areas, the Shia area becoming an Iranian satellite and the Sunni falling into Al Queda's control. No doubt the bloodletting during the process will be savage, given the high regard Muslim fundamentalists hold for human life.

What happens the rest of the world? The US would probably withdraw back inside Fortress America for a decade or so until the pain fades. No such luck for Western Europe. With porous borders and a large Muslim population, a resurgent Al Queda will cause mayhem in Europe.

Iran with it's stock at unheard of levels can get on with creating a nuclear-armed Islamic Superpower in the Middle East.

gbh

Yes all of this may be true...But what might also happen is that the exit of the Americans might in fact create conditions where Sunni, Shia and Kurd see there is no alternative but to form a stable government. Certainly the surge by the Americans has broken the endless cycle or lessened it of tit-for-tat violence and allowed a space for political dialogue to take place. I think if the Iraqi politicians were smart they would see that the sooner they get their act together the sooner the Americans leave and the less sectarian violence or chance of civil war there will be. If they keep their act together then the less chance of the Americans re-invading.

Manic Moran

exit of the Americans might in fact create conditions where Sunni, Shia and Kurd see there is no alternative but to form a stable government

I've often considered the possibility of an analogy to the Foundation. There is going to be a fall, and devastation, after which order will return. The only questions are how long will it take, and how many people will die before it gets there. I view the Coalition these days as the Foundation: Not making it pain-less, but reducing the overall levels of pain that are required before the same result occurs.

NTM

Liam Byrne

Had to laugh when I saw the Sunday Tribune today....apparently Bush - the same Bush who didn't go to Vietnam, is now so knowledgeable about it that he is saying that most of the problems attributed to Vietnam were caused because the U.S. pulled out early, and he's not going to "make the same mistake" in Iraq.

How many times is this guy going to get away with rewriting facts and history ?

irish_bob

Mick86 wrote:

Forget about the UN taking over from the US. Firstly the insurgents or whatever you want to call them would just treat the UN troops as they are the Americans at the moment. And what country is going to send it's troops on a suicide mission for the UN, never the most competent of organisations. Even Muslim troops might not work too well. Shia soldiers would be unacceptable to the Sunni and vice versa. Arab troops would be unacceptable to the Kurds. And since Iraq appears to be fracturing along tribal lines nobody from outside the tribe will be acceptable anyway.

The Balkanisation of Iraq seems inevitable in the event of a US withdrawal. At best it will fracture into a Kurdish state and fundamentalist Sunni and Shia areas, the Shia area becoming an Iranian satellite and the Sunni falling into Al Queda's control. No doubt the bloodletting during the process will be savage, given the high regard Muslim fundamentalists hold for human life.

What happens the rest of the world? The US would probably withdraw back inside Fortress America for a decade or so until the pain fades. No such luck for Western Europe. With porous borders and a large Muslim population, a resurgent Al Queda will cause mayhem in Europe.

Iran with it's stock at unheard of levels can get on with creating a nuclear-armed Islamic Superpower in the Middle East.

very well put , when the americans leave iraq , it is europe on the middles east,s door who face a much greater threat than the usa
i for one do not buy the nonesense arguement i hear regulary on fox news that if america pulls out of iraq , they will follow us home
the jaded line we fight them over there so we dont have to fight them here is ludicrious as if those killers in iraq are going to sail up the hudson river in german u boats , that bull dung line is now only working on 30% of americans, mostly fox news viewers naturally
things are so bad in iraq right now , its hard to see how it can be rescued , as somone said earlier iraq is divided along ethnic and sectarian lines now
it has always been that way , the difference was thier was a strong man to keep everyone in line , unfortunatley he was let dance at the end of a rope last yr
the whole thing has been the biggest cock up from start to finish , rummsfeld was let run the war like a laborotory experiment , see how quickly and with how few men he would steam roll sadamms army , very impressive in that they achived it in under a month but what about securring the borders so as not to let allahs army in to run amok
thier is a sea change in how most of ameirca now sees the war , that it took the american people about 3 yrs longer than everyone else ensured a 2nd terms for bush and worse cheeney who is right now apparently planning for strikes against iran before his junior partner in the white house bush leaves office
one would think that a strike on iran may be designed to divert attention away from the american failures in iraq by pointing the finger at tehran for all that is wrong in mesopotamia but it may well be that the israelis are strong arming the americans to do something or they will , the usa knows that if israel were to attack iran then the whole mid east could go up in smoke and saudi arabia with it , the worlds biggest supplier of oil , the bush admin knows that the only thing worse than an american strike on iran is an israeli one and as such may decide to strike as a form of damage limitation , may sound absurd but with this present admin in washington and the chaos on the mid east right now , its looking like things can only get worse

Manic Moran

I wouldn't say there's more than a handfull of actual AQ people in Iraq. It's just a handy marketing term for the Americans to use

I believe the estimate is at under 2,000. However, that doesn't mean to say that they aren't the greatest threat to stability in Iraq because of their focus on internecine warfare instead of shooting at Americans, or the greatest opportunity for the Americans to show that working with them isn't all that bad given that nationalist insurgent groups stopping their attacks on the Coalition and instead openly working with them against AQI is turning into something of a national trend. It started in Anbar several months ago, but now is happening anywhere from Baquabah to Baghdad.

A US military victory is still possible eh?

Note the following:

I have to say that the US soldiers working with their new sunni friends didn't look best pleased. When one of them asked how he felt, he looked over to the sunni men they where working with and said 'I've lost a few close friends to these guys' ...not happy at all

This appears to confirm that the US military also believes that a political solution is required. You make peace with your enemies, not your friends. They don't need to be happy about it, they do need to do it. Just because the military cannot enforce a solution on its own does not mean that it cannot be an integral part of a political solution.

NTM

Liam Byrne

Manic Moran wrote:

This appears to confirm that the US military also believes that a political solution is required. You make peace with your enemies, not your friends.

If ANYTHING good is to come out of this war/invasion, maybe it's that Bush will finally realise that invading a country on dubious pretences is not the way to do things....

That's looking for slim silver linings in huge crowds, almost like this Irish summer, but hey, since this was a fiasco from even before the initial invasion, and time travel hasn't been invented yet to bring back the facts to Bush-brain, I guess there's no harm in looking for some vague semblance of a silver lining.....

Pity he didn't cop or favour the democratic route 5 years ago, but hey......better late than never, and it's probably not PC to slag off a slow learner, no matter how many people he kills in the interim.....

Dirk Gently

Manic Moran wrote:

I believe the estimate is at under 2,000.

I'm not disputing your figure, just curious as to how the hell someone figures out the numbers. I mean AQ were just a few bearded ex CIA employees up to no good and generally not commanding many active members until they were given a tangible status by US propaganda. I remember a British advance early on in Afghanistan where they spent 3 long months "engaging" AQ across mountain tops. When asked how many AQ members they killed one soldier answered "none, we haven't seen any". Now they are a franchise like Mc Donnalds, opening up new branches on every street corner.

How do you define what AQ is beyond an idea? How do you trace back 2000 people’s actions to a single command centre and considering nearly all of our news from Iraq comes out of the Green Zone how accurate a picture are we getting of the players involved, who they are and what their goals and alliances are?

Manic Moran

clown bag wrote:

I'm not disputing your figure, just curious as to how the hell someone figures out the numbers.

My guess is probably the same way that people figure out how many millions of illegal immigrants are in the US, even though they don't stop at border crossings for a headcount. Combination between statistics from numbers caught, and intelligence reports.

How do you trace back 2000 people’s actions to a single command centre

I would presume it's pretty much the same way the PIRA was structured, with individual cells, knowing little about each other, but all reporting to a central governing body, at least nominally.

and considering nearly all of our news from Iraq comes out of the Green Zone how accurate a picture are we getting of the players involved, who they are and what their goals and alliances are?

If memory serves, the 2,000 figure came from DoD, and they get their intel mainly from outside the Green Zone.

NTM

Dirk Gently

Manic Moran wrote:

If memory serves, the 2,000 figure came from DoD, and they get their intel mainly from outside the Green Zone.

That's what I assumed and to be honest for propaganda reasons it's in their interest to keep reporting the AQ connection. Not saying AQ aren't now a coherent tangible organised force but if they aren't would we still not be told they are?

Manic Moran

Possibly, but as long as there are people claiming to be part of AQI, and as long as their excesses are proving a uniting force to the Coalition benefit, where's the harm?

NTM

Dirk Gently

Manic Moran wrote:

where's the harm?

Well the harm with untruths or propaganda is that it distorts the conflict or possibly even totally misrepresents what's actually going on. When you think that damn near all the media reporting in the west is coming from the DOD or DOD veted sources it makes you wonder if what is generally accepted as happening is actually happening. Is it a civil war, a genuine resistance, random voilence for the sake of it? we simply don't know what's going on and who is doing it except that we see images of bomb going off.