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

[Venatore]

Implosion!

[Skybird]

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

[Brag]

Originally Posted by 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"...

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

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.

Originally Posted by August

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.