What will hapen to Iraq when the Americans leave?

OTK

civil war?
Iranian invasion?
glorious freedom and democracy?
kurdish independence?
saddam mkII?
Islamist state?

I think the Iranians will invade because nobody will defend them

wes

OTK wrote:

civil war?
Iranian invasion?
glorious freedom and democracy?
kurdish independence?
saddam mkII?
Islamist state?

I think the Iranians will invade because nobody will defend them

If the Iranians invade the Turks may invade, I don't think they want a more powerful Iran on there door step.

As for Iraq, whether the US/UK stays or goes, it looks like there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

SeanW

It's a troubling question alright. If the US/UK leaves now or any time soon my guess is Iraq will be taken over by whichever of the terrorist factions are slaughtering the most civilians.

Zebra3

Hopefully Iraq breaks up into three seperate states along ethnic lines.

The country shouldn't exist and is only there as a relic of bygone imperial days.

Dr_Teeth

You can say that about every country. It's not going to split up, the Shia death-squads will just keep doing their thing and the Sunni suicide bombers will continue doing their thing. Eventually (if no other country interferes) it will burn itself out and there will be some kind of reconciliation, but that will take decades seeing as most of the sensible people (upper and middle classes) have already left or are in the processs of doing so.

Without the US/UK there to do their dirty work for them, I wonder what the Saudis will do to counter-balance Iranian influence..

Zebra3

Dr_Teeth wrote:

Eventually (if no other country interferes) it will burn itself out and there will be some kind of reconciliation, but that will take decades seeing as most of the sensible people (upper and middle classes) have already left or are in the processs of doing so.

What makes you say all this? Why won't it go the way of Yugoslavia and break up?

Kevster

I don't think the Iranians will invade at all; why would they? I feel that the country will go the route of Yugoslavia. The first to go will be Kurdistan and, from there, other sects will break-away over the coming decades. Through all this, tens-of-thousands more people will die.


Kevin.

Dr_Teeth

Zebra3 wrote:

What makes you say all this? Why won't it go the way of Yugoslavia and break up?

The various states of Yugoslavia were a lot more distinct in terms of culture, religion and history. In Iraq the Sunnis and the Shias are still one nation, they just don't like each other very much. You can look at the map and say "this area is Sunni-dominated" but there's no basis there for a functioning new country - and even if here was, the Sunni bits of Iraq don't have any oil, so that's not going to work out very well for them.

As for the Kurds, well they're not going to be allowed to break off, since they'd be looking to take a chunk of Turkey and Iran with them.

Kevster

Dr_Teeth wrote:

As for the Kurds, well they're not going to be allowed to break off, since they'd be looking to take a chunk of Turkey and Iran with them.

That's the one sticking point isn't it. I feel that the Iraqi government would eventually let the Kurds go, but Turkey is already making it clear that it won't happen; and Iran? - For some reason I cannot picture Ahmadinejad ceading to the Kurds either :rolleyes: ... ...

... unless he benefits from it somehow.

johnnyskeleton

Zebra3 wrote:

What makes you say all this? Why won't it go the way of Yugoslavia and break up?

Oil.

Generally, I think there will be another saddam after a couple of years. My idea is based on a very primitive model of how countries work - out of anarchy comes a tyrant who brings the country together, then that tyrant makes concessions after the people revolt, then eventually there is an assembly without much power, and then the stage is set for a democratic coup. This, as I say is very basic, however, it can be seen in many countries throughtout history. This progression was twarted by the American invasion, and Iraq will have to go back to stage 1 and start the process afresh. Ulimately the American Invasion has set them back a peg and killed a lot of people, and the only benefits of the invasion are for America, not for Iraq.

Rousseau also noted that people will not respect democracy unless they have fought for it themselves. Imposing democracy on a people is like trying to get a child to eat vegetables and as many children do, they won't eat the vegetables - not because the vegetables are not good for them, but because they are being forced to eat them.

lostexpectation

they're never going to leave, there still in japan etc

jonny72

lostexpectation wrote:

they're never going to leave, there still in japan etc

They aren't getting killed in Japan, or South Korea or Germany.

sovtek

I think Sadr may very well unite Iraq again (possibly barring the Kurds). He is already making overtures to the Sunni's for peace between the factions and has started to purge those elements of his militia that were participating in death squads.
He has a huge following amongst the Shia and could be a strong influence in uniting the country. It's probably why America is still trying to kill him.

Fratton Fred

sovtek wrote:

I think Sadr may very well unite Iraq again (possibly barring the Kurds). He is already making overtures to the Sunni's for peace between the factions and has started to purge those elements of his militia that were participating in death squads.
He has a huge following amongst the Shia and could be a strong influence in uniting the country. It's probably why America is still trying to kill him.

I think you may be right. Maybe a seperate Kurdish state as well. I can see the Yanks staying for a while but with a sort of uneasy peace with a leader like Sadr pulling the place together.

off the top of my head, I can't think of that many democratic Muslim countries, so why should Iraq be any different?

AbusesToilets

The US is probably trying to capture/kill him because the Madhi militia that fights under his cause is responsible for killing a lot of Iraqis and inflaming the civil war.

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

I think Sadr may very well unite Iraq again (possibly barring the Kurds). He is already making overtures to the Sunni's for peace between the factions and has started to purge those elements of his militia that were participating in death squads. He has a huge following amongst the Shia and could be a strong influence in uniting the country.

Heh. I can see Sadr leading Iraq just after they elect me president.

sovtek wrote:

It's probably why America is still trying to kill him.

Care to back that up? According to a US military spokesman giving an interview on an american network last weekend they are treating Sadr like any other Iraqi citizen and have been for quite some time. They are not looking for him, to kill him or to do otherwise nefarious things to him.

murphaph

One feels really sorry for the ordinary Iraqis who seem very decent people. Hard to see any positive outcome in the short-medium term.

flogen

I find it hard to see anything other than another dictator - maybe one that's similar to the 1980's era Saddam (ie one that the US love because he hates Iran).

Other than that, an escelation of the civil war currently going on - maybe leading to the intervention of surrounding states, who break the country up a la post WW2 Germany and administer it themselves. For the good of the Iraqi people, of course.

homah_7ft

Any takers on an Arab Vs. Iran showdown?

wes

homah_7ft wrote:

Any takers on an Arab Vs. Iran showdown?

Nah, Arab nationalism seems to be dead. Sunni vs Shia would be more likely if such a conflict were to take place, but no peace has been made with Israel and I am sure that common foe will prevent things from blowing up too much. Also the Saudi's seem to be making efforts to prevent a Sunni/Shia conflict so its become even more unlikely.

sovtek

Moriarty wrote:

Heh. I can see Sadr leading Iraq just after they elect me president.

Can you organize massive protests like Sadr is known for doing on a few occasions in Iraq? You may not be aware that he has a strong following in Iraq. Of course I'm assuming you are referring to a truly democratic election when you made that wisecrack.

Care to back that up? According to a US military spokesman giving an interview on an american network last weekend they are treating Sadr like any other Iraqi citizen and have been for quite some time. They are not looking for him, to kill him or to do otherwise nefarious things to him.

US Military spokesman are typically very honest and upstanding when referring to their objectives and operations.
Treating him like any other Iraqi citizen leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05262007.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05212007.html

FTA69

Dr_Teeth wrote:

but that will take decades seeing as most of the sensible people (upper and middle classes) have already left or are in the processs of doing so.

Sure of course the middle and upper class in Iraq's Sunni elite are the only sensible ones! :rolleyes:

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

Heh. I can see Sadr leading Iraq just after they elect me president.

Can you organize massive protests like Sadr is known for doing on a few occasions in Iraq? You may not be aware that he has a strong following in Iraq. Of course I'm assuming you are referring to a truly democratic election when you made that wisecrack.

He has a strong following in parts of Iraq. He is the equivalent of a populist Gerry Adams with a cult of personality complex. Vote for me and I wont send people to kill you and your family.

sovtek wrote:

US Military spokesman are typically very honest and upstanding when referring to their objectives and operations.
Treating him like any other Iraqi citizen leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05262007.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05212007.html

I'd say everyone has been aware of the past goings on with Sadr back in the summer of 2004 and that the americans targetted him then. It's a pity you couldn't just give a straight "No, I can't back that up" answer though. Why is it that conspiracy theories are welcome here when they bend to a certain political persuasion?

sovtek

Moriarty wrote:

He has a strong following in large parts of Iraq. He is the equivalent of a populist Gerry Adams with a cult of personality complex. Vote for me and I wont send people to kill you and your family. I'll pick up the trash which these funny looking guys with guns and tanks can't seem to manage.

I'd say everyone has been aware of the past goings on with Sadr back in the summer of 2004 and that the americans targetted him then.

Oh I guess they want to be his friend now

It's a pity you couldn't just give a straight "No, I can't back that up" answer though.

It's a pity you spoke too soon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2088299,00.html

Why is it that conspiracy theories are welcome here when they bend to a certain political persuasion?

it's a conspiracy fact.

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

I'll pick up the trash which these funny looking guys with guns and tanks can't seem to manage.

That might be because the mehdi army shoots at those troops and murders anyone they feel like (collaborating sanitation workers, anyone?). You have a strange set of priorities when you think keeping the place clean is more important than killing people, I'll give you that.

sovtek wrote:

It's a pity you spoke too soon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2088299,00.html

it's a conspiracy fact.

I'm missing the part where it says they tried to target Moqtada al-Sadr. You know, the thing that we're talking about here.

Manic Moran

Moriarty wrote:

That might be because the mehdi army shoots at those troops and murders anyone they feel like (collaborating sanitation workers, anyone?). You have a strange set of priorities when you think keeping the place clean is more important than killing people, I'll give you that.

When we arrived in Mosul, the city refuse collection agency had just started work again. It was something of a high priority for the US commanders, as it's a very obvious sign of a central government operaion, is pretty simple, and frankly, makes people feel a bit better about things.

NTM

sovtek

Moriarty wrote:

That might be because the mehdi army shoots at those troops and murders anyone they feel like (collaborating sanitation workers, anyone?). You have a strange set of priorities when you think keeping the place clean is more important than killing people, I'll give you that.

That statement assumes a lot.

I'm missing the part where it says they tried to target Moqtada al-Sadr. You know, the thing that we're talking about here.

I guess it's a tin foil hat conspiracy theory to make the logical leap from Mehdi army leaders to Sadr.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

When we arrived in Mosul, the city refuse collection agency had just started work again. It was something of a high priority for the US commanders, as it's a very obvious sign of a central government operaion, is pretty simple, and frankly, makes people feel a bit better about things.

NTM

Maybe that was the case in Mosul but the rest of the country didn't seem to be to much of a priority.

banaman

found this today
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2099173,00.html

Doesn't seem like the US is going to leave Iraq anytime soon.
Not to mention their bases throughout central Asia and then there's the pipeline in Afghanistan to bring oil from the Caspian Sea region.

No wonder the Russians are getting restive.

Manic Moran

I just don't see how that can be a practical possibility, even in the next decade. The troops are welcome long-term in Korea, somewhat less so in Iraq. I also don't see the point, the US has facilities in enough Gulf states as it is.

NTM

lostexpectation

jonny72 wrote:

They aren't getting killed in Japan, or South Korea or Germany.

i till wonder if there was no insurgency in germany and japan?

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

I just don't see how that can be a practical possibility, even in the next decade. The troops are welcome long-term in Korea, somewhat less so in Iraq. I also don't see the point, the US has facilities in enough Gulf states as it is.

NTM

9/11 was about gettign the troops out of saudi etc

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote:

i till wonder if there was no insurgency in germany and japan?

There was, actually (at least, in Germany), but it was smaller, and a lot better handled. I'd have to look up Japan.

NTM

mike65

Germany had its Werewolves, who sought to resist the Allied occupation. They had no popular backing (indeed they sought to terrorise civilians as a means of keeping them from building a link with the occupiers) and the Soviet forces dealt with them and collaborators very harshly.

Mike.

Hoops1888

OTK wrote:

I think the Iranians will invade because nobody will defend them

When was the last time Iran invaded a country?

Bad bad man

Moriarty wrote:

I'm missing the part where it says they tried to target Moqtada al-Sadr. You know, the thing that we're talking about here.

I have the feeling that if the Americans wanted Sadr dead, he'd be dead. I've wondered why they let him live and don't have a good answer. How did Gerry Adams go on breathing so long?

Bad bad man

Hoops1888 wrote:

When was the last time Iran invaded a country?

They have terror cells in Lebanon. Does that count?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012359.php

Bad bad man

lostexpectation wrote:

9/11 was about gettign the troops out of saudi etc

Wee, that's not what Osama bin Laden said. He mentioned the Palestinian issue, although I suspect he hates all things Western. Even been in London and see the anti-Western propaganda available by the radical Muslims that the Brits are supporting with their taxes?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/frontpage/seattle_pima1x220041030.pdf
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article685035.ece

mr_angry

I figure Iraq will go much the same way as Afghanistan. The US will eventually convince the UN to take over most of the responsibility for security. Baghdad will be controlled by the Al-Malik government, and the rest of the country will be run by a bunch of warlords that control various segments. The Kurds wont cecede from the nation of Iraq because they know the Turks would never stand for an independant Kurdistan, and Turkey is every bit as much an ally of the US as the Kurds, meaning they're unlikely to receive much protection in that regard. Like the rest of outlying Iraq, they'll govern themselves without paying too much attention to the centralised leadership.

Eventually things will settle down into the same mundane pattern as Afghanistan. The natives will view the foreign peacekeepers as moving targets, and various militias will take pot-shots at them from time to time. Regional warlords will assume control of the oil industry, and the money they make will mostly be spent on consolodating their power, and expensive foreign guns with which to shoot into the air at weddings. The oil will keep flowing, the Saddams of the previous generation will be replaced by equally as viscious warlords, and the population will remain largely poor and uneducated.

Mission accomplished.

wes

Bad bad man wrote:

They have terror cells in Lebanon. Does that count?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012359.php

Jihad watch, very impartial source there :rolleyes: . Of course I am sure they mention Israel sponsorship of Christian Phalangist terrorists groups in the Lebanon. I am sure it also condemns that.

Lets look at things the "West" has done. The US and the UK have sponsored terrorism. We know the UK did it up North, the US all over South America. I am not even gonna bother with links, there so well known at this point. Check out Amnesty or Human Rights Watch, I am sure you will find plenty of info there.

We also know that a War of aggression was committed in Iraq by these 2 nations. Now they want to invade Iran, mess up the ME even more than it already is. Dick Cheney keeps trying to link Saddam to 9/11, despite it being debunked. So we are suppose to believe a word that comes from the US or a hopelessly partisan site? Also lets all remember in 2003 the US threatened Iran, and this was when the reformists were running the show. As we know the hawks in Iran soon won an election, I am sure the US's threat helped them a great deal.

Of course now we have the US as much as possible trying to blame there glorious failure on Iran, Syria and eventually I am sure they will blame it on the Iraqi's. Now if they didn't try to do there invasion on the cheap (or finished the war in Afghanistan first) and did it properly, well now they wouldn't be in this mess.

Bad bad man

wes wrote:

Jihad watch, very impartial source there :rolleyes:

Well, if you could ever cite a single lie of bit of misinformation from Jihadwatch, please show me. Of course, you might have Googled the issue and saved yourself some embarassment and realized that that you might find the same information in dozens of major publications, including the BBC, Wikipedia, and the New York Times.

Apologist such as yourself, who are more than willing to turn a blind eye for whatever drives your obsessive hatred of the West, Israel or whatever will probably need a kilo of C-4 up your tailpipe by an al Qaeda thug before you start blaming those who need blaming.

Here in Canada we had an al Qaeda cell plot to kill tns of thousands of people, and why? Hatred of the West, much like yours.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

al qaeda cell plot? it was a couple of idiots and some fertiliser, and they were caught (iirc) pretty quickly and without too much bother.

how were they caught? policework, the only way to fight terrorism without spawning more of it.

wes

Bad bad man wrote:

Well, if you could ever cite a single lie of bit of misinformation from Jihadwatch, please show me. Of course, you might have Googled the issue and saved yourself some embarassment and realized that that you might find the same information in dozens of major publications, including the BBC, Wikipedia, and the New York Times.

Apologist such as yourself, who are more than willing to turn a blind eye for whatever drives your obsessive hatred of the West, Israel or whatever will probably need a kilo of C-4 up your tailpipe by an al Qaeda thug before you start blaming those who need blaming.

Here in Canada we had an al Qaeda cell plot to kill tns of thousands of people, and why? Hatred of the West, much like yours.

Oddly enough I never said they lied. Did you read my post? I said they were biased (well I said the following to be exact "Jihad watch, very impartial source there" being sarcastic, no mentioned of them telling lies, just a questions of there partiality.). Please read my posts before pointless accusations about my "hatred" of the West. To reiterated I never said I hated the "West" or said Jihad watch lied about anything.

Also as for Al Qaeda, I am well aware of Al Qaeda and there plots. I never excused them either. Again read my posts. In fact I never mentioned Al Qaeda. Odd you equate not mentioning Al Qaeda with hatred of the "West", I didn't mention evolution either, therefore I must hate dinosaurs or something. Strange you would bring them up at all, I was talking about Iran for the most part.

Also, how am I an "Apologist", where did I turn a blind eye? Questioning some of the things being said about Iran? Considering the last time a nation was accused of sponsoring terrorism and developing WMD's it turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Can you show me proof for Iraqs WMD's or there sponsorship of Al Qaeda despite Bin Laden's hatred of Saddam and his secular regime. So when similar claims are being made of Iran, I am sure they are up for question. Also the US and the UK have sponsored terrorism. Its bear mentioning what with them claiming other nations are doing exactly that. Here is an interview with Noam Chomsky discussing the US's sponsorship of terrorism: http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101chomsky.htm. Just showing that the US has apparently also sponsored terrorism. Bear mentioning I think considering the accusations the US makes.

As for mentioned Israel, they sponsored terrorism in the Lebanon, I was wondering if a site like Jihad watch would mention that. Perhaps they conveniently left that out. It was the first example of a foreign nation I taught of that Jihad watch to the best of my knowledge have never mentioned, who have apparently sponsored terrorism in Lebanon. I should also mention Syria, but then I am sure they mentioned Syria.

You threw out some canned response, odd you didn't address any of the stuff I mentioned about the US and UK being untrustworthy. As for killing, well now the US and UK and brilliantly adept at that. Or have we forgotten UNICEFS reports on half a million children under the age of 5 dieing, the people who came up with the sanctions surprisingly the "West" aka the US/UK.

Liam Byrne

Bad bad man wrote:

Apologist such as yourself, who are more than willing to turn a blind eye for whatever drives your obsessive hatred of the West, Israel or whatever will probably need a kilo of C-4 up your tailpipe by an al Qaeda thug before you start blaming those who need blaming.

Hang on a sec! If people are sceptical of information coming from the U.S., it's only the U.S. that's to blame.....

Given all the lies and mistruths that were used to justify the war, it's only healthy to be able to question whether they're still at it in order to fuel their own agenda [pun partially intended].

As for "turning a blind eye"......it you believe what the U.S. administration trots out to justify their actions, without feeling an urgent need to make sure that it's true, then it's YOU who are turning the blind eye.

You don't need to "hate the west" (or for that matter, the "east") in order to feel the need to question whether we are being told the truth - once bitten, twice shy and all that.

In fact, you could argue that it's only people who are genuinely interested in democracy and what "the west" is supposed to represent who are asking the required questions, since we are the ones who do not want to have warmongering evil dictators doing what they like; that's not what "the west" or "democracy" means, but it's exactly what the U.S. administration - the self-appointed representatives of the free world - are doing.

If questioning the statements of former known liars is required to protect democracy and prevent abuse, in order to protect what "the west" is meant to represent, then so be it.

jonny72

Bad bad man wrote:

Here in Canada we had an al Qaeda cell plot to kill tns of thousands of people, and why? Hatred of the West, much like yours.

"much like yours"...

You comparing him to a jihadist?

Think how much you dislike terrorists yeah.. really think about it.. then imagine they are not "plotting" anymore, imagine they are in your country bombing you with planes, shooting at you with machine guns, kicking in your doors, killing your family members, occupying your country.. how mad would you be then?? would you do something about it?

We're all human, I'm just glad people are slowly waking up to the fact that we in the "West" are just as bad as those we so righteously denounce and depose.

The Americans can always leave Iraq, the foreign fighters can be slowly rooted out.. but the sectarian violence.. neighbour upon neighbour.. that takes much much longer to heal. I would say the country will experience extreme violence for the next decade or two at least.

Offalycool

I’d guess the US economy is so dependent on the war, any war, it will continue to pound the middle east until it can convince everybody else to give it a hand restoring order. The world will attempt to apply the MacDonald’s philosophy of interdependence and incorporate Iraq into the global supply network, manly as a concession for steeling there sh*t. America and co will kick back with the spoils for half a decade until they have squandered the lot on more bombs and satellites. Then the only sensible thing for a power crazed corporate ruling class to do is keep the world in checkmate using a proxy war with China, who think it’s a great idea. Meanwhile Iraq gets trampled on by all its neighbours, who fund the different militia groups. Iran teams up with Russia, and North Korea makes some more friends with Africa, who by now are getting on their feet on their own accord, despite all the odds and with no help from anybody. Everybody forgets about it until somebody vaguely remembers something about 9/11 as a space shuttle plough into the international space station and CNN reports a terrorist attack on our freedoms. Iraq is the first to commit troops.

Liam Byrne

Everybody forgets about it until somebody vaguely remembers something about 9/11

9/11 has nothing to do with the Iraq war, so I'm not sure what you mean....

Hoops1888

Bad bad man wrote:

They have terror cells in Lebanon. Does that count?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012359.php

Terror cells? Oh you mean Hezbollah the group of people the Israeli army couldn't beat.

They also hold 27.3% of parliamentary seats natonwide some support for a terror group.

They were created to stop the Israeli army and you call them terrorist's? One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

In the majority of the Arab world, Hezbollah is seen as a legitimate resistance organization that has defended its land against the Israeli occupying force, and consistently stood up to the Israeli army

And the EU doesnt even regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

Answer the question when was the last time Iran invaded a country?

Offalycool

Liam Byrne wrote:

9/11 has nothing to do with the Iraq war, so I'm not sure what you mean....

Oh that, that’s only a minor thing, I’m sure we can get this to stick if we just show a little bit more imaginativeness. I mean it doesn’t matter what is said or whose fault it is really, all that matters is being the biggest show man at the pig trough... ya its all show biz, and money.. lots and lots of lovely money.