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]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

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\

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

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Besides the civil war already in effect there?

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by August

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

[Brag]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

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

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]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

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.