What do you think would happen if the US left Iraq.

[DeepIron]

al-Sadr made this comment during a recent interview: "I call, through Al Jazeera, for the departure of the occupying troops from Iraq as soon as possible."

Ok, let's just say we leave. Pull out, no US soldier left on Iraqi soil.

What do you think would happen?

Could al-Maliki and al-Sadr form a partnership to bring stabiity back to Iraq using al-Maliki's governing with al-Sadr's force?

Would Iran make a move to occupy Iraq?

Would al Qaeda step up efforts to remove lawmakers and terrorize the populace into obedience. Would they have to if the infidels were gone?

What's your spin on it?

[DeepIron]

I think that after a few more bloody years Iraq will slowly split into 3 countries, Chi'ites backed by Iran, Sunnis messing with Al Qaeda, and Kurds. Actually I can imagine that happening with or without US presence :-? A year or so back wasn't this suggested? I found an article from November of '06 that discussed the idea. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555130,00.html\ (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555130,00.html%5C)

Quoting from that article: "Most Iraqis do not want civil war. But they have rejected the idea of a unified Iraq. In the December 2005 national elections, Shi'ites voted overwhelmingly for Shi'ite religious parties, Sunni Arabs for Sunni religious or nationalist parties, and the Kurds for Kurdish nationalist parties. Fewer than 10% of Iraq's Arabs crossed sectarian lines. The Kurds voted 98.7% for independence in a nonbinding referendum."
I can understand wanting a unified Iraq, but given the deeply rooted religious and social differences, I can't see it happening anytime soon. Nor can I see the US using force to reconcile the issues either.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think there would be civil war. What, the prime minister tried to flex some muscle a few days ago that turned into a blood bath? The leadership is not ready yet.

[Brag]

The only achievement of the US occupation is a delay in the fall of Maliki and company. The ethnic cleansing in the various provinces is nearly complete and a break up of the country as a political entity is the reality. The country called Iraq no longer exists.

[DeepIron]

Civil War. With Iran walking in to pick up the pieces or at least covertly supporting one side or the other I guess...

The only achievement of the US occupation is a delay in the fall of Maliki and company. So who do you think would fill the vacuum?

[Tchocky]

Besides the civil war already in effect there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_in_Iraq

:dead:

[DeepIron]

Besides the civil war already in effect there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_in_Iraq

:dead:Well that's really part of the problem isn't it? How can the US, militarily backing particular participants in this war expect to achieve success? We can see it's not working... The "brute force" method isn't going to bring any long lasting stability unless the real underlying causes of the war are addressed. These issues, to me are more religious and humanitarian...

Makes me wonder what would have happen in the US during the Civil War if the British and the French had taken up the cause of the Confederacy, which they were inclined to do. Fortunately, a guy named Charles F Adams kept both Britain and France from recognizing Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy.

[August]

Makes me wonder what would have happen in the US during the Civil War if the British and the French had taken up the cause of the Confederacy, which they were inclined to do. Fortunately, a guy named Charles F Adams kept both Britain and France from recognizing Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy.

Adams or not I think there was no way that the British at least would ever recognize the Confederacy as long as they maintained the institution of slavery.

[DeepIron]

Makes me wonder what would have happen in the US during the Civil War if the British and the French had taken up the cause of the Confederacy, which they were inclined to do. Fortunately, a guy named Charles F Adams kept both Britain and France from recognizing Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy.
Adams or not I think there was no way that the British at least would ever recognize the Confederacy as long as they maintained the institution of slavery.

The British abolished slavery in 1807 and most certainly wouldn't have recognized the Confederacy as you point out. On the other hand, the British did have a large investment in the cotton the South provided and England did build a number of commerce raiders for the Conferate Navy so some support was realized.

[MothBalls]

I don't think the Iranians want the US to leave Iraq.

The only way Bush will leave Iraq is when he orders the US Army to invade Iran.

One way or another, those troops (or their replacements) will be in the middle east for the next 20 years, or until the US finds another part of the world that pisses em off.

(I'd feel sorry for Columbia if they ever cut coffee supplies to the US. That alone would justify an invasion there.)


As for Iraq, there would definitely be a civil war, and genocide of the minority. After another 10,000,000 people die, they would rebuild the country with revenues from oil sold to the US. (The US will need oil to invade Columbia).

[Jimbuna]

I should imagine at best, civil war, at worst, genocide on a massive scale.

[Tchocky]

It's a nasty, no-win situation.

Stay, continue to inflame just about every yahoo with an Kalashnikov in the region, and draw in many from outside, prolonging bloodshed.
Stay, take responsibility for destruction and try to put things together.

Go, remove the only halfway professional force in the country, abandon Iraq to what looks like a well-nigh unsolvable bloody mess.
Go, remove the inflaming factor, reestablish the reputation of the US.

Who knows :dead:

[Brag]

Civil War. With Iran walking in to pick up the pieces or at least covertly supporting one side or the other I guess...

The only achievement of the US occupation is a delay in the fall of Maliki and company. So who do you think would fill the vacuum?

We are already seeing it in Basra. The final piece of the action will be when the Sunnis get back into the game. There will be a battle for Baghdad, which may end up like Berlin or Jerusalem.

The last thing Iran wants is get involved with the mess in Iraq. They are just keeping their options and contacts open with all the Shia factions.

At the moment the only great beneficiary of the Iraq fiasco has been Putin. Having the Americans mired in Iraq is not only convenient, but profitable in arms sales as Iran and Syria have made huge purchases of Russian Kornet and other antitank missiles should the Americans want to invade another country.

[DeepIron]

I wonder what would happen if al-Maliki went to al-Sadr and other militia commanders and said "Ok, look, you're pissed because of the American occupation, but they won't leave because you're disruptive and causing instability. IF you promise to support my government, help establish stability and quit fighting with the Americans and each other, I'll make them go away and WE will reforge our country together."

Think any of them would go for it? Knowing good and well there are still social and religious differences but getting their main PITA (the US) out of the country? I would think it's well within al-Maliki's province to tell the Bush Adminstration to "take your people out of my country"...

[Sailor Steve]

Makes me wonder what would have happen in the US during the Civil War if the British and the French had taken up the cause of the Confederacy, which they were inclined to do. Fortunately, a guy named Charles F Adams kept both Britain and France from recognizing Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy.
Adams or not I think there was no way that the British at least would ever recognize the Confederacy as long as they maintained the institution of slavery.

The British abolished slavery in 1807 and most certainly wouldn't have recognized the Confederacy as you point out. On the other hand, the British did have a large investment in the cotton the South provided and England did build a number of commerce raiders for the Conferate Navy so some support was realized.
Another point is that there was a cotton glut in Europe at that time, and Britain and France both needed someone to refine and manufacture the extra cotton that they couldn't. That someone was the United States.

[Venatore]

Implosion! :/\\x:

[Skybird]

Maybe one should have thought about this question five years earlier - before one went in.

[Brag]

I wonder what would happen if al-Maliki went to al-Sadr and other militia commanders and said "Ok, look, you're pissed because of the American occupation, but they won't leave because you're disruptive and causing instability. IF you promise to support my government, help establish stability and quit fighting with the Americans and each other, I'll make them go away and WE will reforge our country together."

Think any of them would go for it? Knowing good and well there are still social and religious differences but getting their main PITA (the US) out of the country? I would think it's well within al-Maliki's province to tell the Bush Adminstration to "take your people out of my country"...

Deep,
It would work if Maliki wasn't a US stooge. The only place he has credibility is with the Bushies in Washington.

[DeepIron]

It would work if Maliki wasn't a US stooge. The only place he has credibility is with the Bushies in Washington. That bodes no good then. If his credibility lays with the current administration, and if either Obama or Clinton gain office, there could be a radical change in the support both politically and militarily for the al-Maliki government.

All the more reason IMO, for al-Maliki to start building bridges and mending fences with opponents and lessen his dependence on US resources...

[Hylander_1314]

Once the U.S. pulls the plug, they will start in-fighting again, and of course they will join the ranks again of those who wish to see Israel destroyed, as their would be no distraction for them. That's why politics and religion should always remain separate.

[August]

The only way Bush will leave Iraq is when he orders the US Army to invade Iran.

You really think Congress would authorize an invasion of Iran because Bush asked for it in the few months he has left as President?

[Hylander_1314]

Congress didn't authorize (vote on a declaration of war), for the invasion of Iraq either. Congress was asked to support the UN on that one. I have yet to see the WMDs that everyone was told were the reason for going into Iraq in the first place. I think George jr. had to upstage Dad. Was Sadam a menace? I believe so, but let somebody else police the world for a change. Like the UN. Sorry, they'll just make it worse since they don't know their backsides from a hole in the ground.

[DeepIron]

Let's please keep the thread on topic. The background relating to the US invasion has been well discussed, is usually emotionally charged and generally leads to getting the thread locked. Thx. ;)

[HunterICX]

What would happen?

whats been said times before in this thread ''Civil War''
and there is nothing that will prevent it from happening.

HunterICX

[DeepIron]

What would happen?

whats been said times before in this thread ''Civil War'' and there is nothing that will prevent it from happening.

HunterICX

That seems to be the general consensus and even now the internal state that Iraq appears to be in...

The situation appears to be an endless loop: If we stay and continue to be involved in Iraqi affairs, we "instigate" the very situation we're trying to remedy. If we leave, more chaos will ensue and we'll have to go back to support al-Maliki which will start the loop all over again...

[Brag]

To understand what really is going on and why, I recommend reading Robert Baer's Se No Evil and Sleeping with the Devil.

Baer was a career officer in the CIA and tells it how it is. I give him a lot of credit but wonder how a guy like him managed to stay with the Agency as long as he did. I quit for the same reasons he did, but much much earlier. Thanks to his staying power, we have at least two powefull books!

[MothBalls]

The only way Bush will leave Iraq is when he orders the US Army to invade Iran.

You really think Congress would authorize an invasion of Iran because Bush asked for it in the few months he has left as President?

He doesn't have to ask. He can declare an emergency and send in the USMC without any authorization. He can then send in whatever he deems necessary to support the original contingent. They already went down the path of trying to find an excuse (nuclear weapons) and couldn't come up with anything.


Back on topic.



The US has itself in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation again. Either choice doesn't do anything for the country. Everyone is pretty sure what will happen if the US pulls out, or stays.


I guess a better question would be;

If you were the US President, what would you do? or What is the right thing to do in Iraq now?

[DeepIron]

If you were the US President, what would you do? or What is the right thing to do in Iraq now?
Personally, I think the US occupation is one of the prime reasons unrest continues.

If I were the Prez, I'd get together the factions as best I could along with al-Maliki and al-Sadr and tell them we'll pull out as long as they will sign an accord of some kind to re-establish law and order. I'd ask the UN to try and oversee the process and to insure that human rights issues are addressed. I'd also ask the UN to keep an eye on Iran...

I'm an idealist...

[August]

The only way Bush will leave Iraq is when he orders the US Army to invade Iran.
You really think Congress would authorize an invasion of Iran because Bush asked for it in the few months he has left as President?
He doesn't have to ask. He can declare an emergency and send in the USMC without any authorization. He can then send in whatever he deems necessary to support the original contingent. They already went down the path of trying to find an excuse (nuclear weapons) and couldn't come up with anything.

Congress has the power to stop him from sending anyone anywhere. It's right there in the US constitution so you are incorrect. I'm just sayin...

[Stealth Hunter]

Since the Iraqi's have such a weak and practically useless government, I'm almost positive that there would be a civil war eventually, OR else we would see a terrorist invasion of the country, as Bush predicted in the past, and it would eventually become a terrorist government (although Bush's prediction will only be made true because he threw the man who was keeping the terrorists out in the first place off his throne).

Assuming the terrorists do not successfully take over, then I'd say that, following a civil war, the Iraqi's will be split into two major states (a Shi'ite state and a Sunni state) with one smaller state (which would go to the Kurds). With the country in this state, I'd say we'd see major alliances between the states and surrounding countries (Iran backing the Shi'ites, Saudi Arabia backing the Sunnis, and the Kurds... being backed by fellow Kurds who are spread all over the general location, although a country might actually aid them... possibly those damned Turks).

Assuming that the terrorists do successfully take over, then I'm very sure that we'd see an uproar in Washington, demands in the U.N., and a war in the Middle-East equivalent to the Fourth Crusade (United States + any of its allies v. EVERY Muslim country in the area). That would be very, very bad... so lets all join hands and hope that it never happens... and also try to actually take action to ensure it never happens...

At the point Iraq is in at the moment, we need to leave, but we run the risk of having the terrorists flooding in and taking over. It's a dangerous situation, which could have been prevented if we'd gone directly for Bin-Laden in the first place and avoided Iraq altogether.

Congress has the power to stop him from sending anyone anywhere. It's right there in the US constitution so you are incorrect. I'm just sayin...

Quite true. The problem is, WILL they want to stop him if he does? It's like Johnson during the Vietnam War: total control over the American military in the name of an anti-Communism war. Good motive, got back-up for the subject (Gulf of Tonkin), OK, lets go to war.

[kiwi_2005]

The American soldiers will go home to be greeted by religous fanatics telling them they deserved to go to hell they're all sinners!!:nope:

I watched this documentay ( I love Google video :) )on this religious fanatic group in the USA forgot the name of the group their leader a washed up self proclaimed prophet who looks in his 90s im sure he probably is well known in the US. He sends his followers of to protest at dead soldiers funerals with banners claiming they deserved what they got & all going to hell, the mothers should be ashamed of themselves etc., They do this in front of the parents of the dead soldier AT THE FUNERAL!!!:down: .... Freedom of speech who cares throw these ppl in Jail they're a shame to your countrymen:nope:

I was so angry when i watched it i found myself swearing at the monitor:roll:

[DeepIron]

watched this documentay ( I love Google video :) )on this religious fanatic group in the USA forgot the name of the group their leader a washed up self proclaimed prophet who looks in his 90s im sure he probably is well known in the US. He sends his followers of to protest at dead soldiers funerals with banners claiming they deserved what they got & all going to hell, the mothers should be ashamed of themselves etc., They do this in front of the parents of the dead soldier AT THE FUNERAL!!!:down: .... Freedom of speech who cares throw these ppl in Jail they're a shame to your countrymen:nope:

Yeah, they are quite the nut cases... Kind of like radical Islamists without the suicide bombs... BTW, it's like ONE guy and his family if I remember correctly...