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

gbh

Just wondering what is the worst that could happen if the US pulls out of Iraq? Certainly there would be 3 states within one with the creation of militias for each ethnic or religious group. There may be a power struggle as well. Iran would probably have a major influence and a divided and conflict ridden Iraq would suit them as well.

The truth is it seems that US involvement seems to make things worse. It lends a facade of security which in truth is not really there. If the US stays for maybe 5 or 10 more years then there will be terrorists who will target innocent Iraqis with car bombings for as long as the US remains there just so as to try change opinion in America. Is it really worth all those lives just to prove to the terrorists that the US can stay the distance? Better to lose face than to lose tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.

I also think the US presence is a raison d'etre for most of the extremists in Iraq and certainly if the US left that would be one less reason for people to join extremist groups.

eoin5

Theyll have to hand control of peacekeeping over to the UN before they pull out. Some groups may target the peacekeepers instead but many could target the US at home since they cant attack them in Iraq. Basically your looking at a possible increase in international terrorism aimed at the US.

Fratton Fred

I don't think it makes any difference whether it is the UN, the Americans or the Brits who are there, the Anarchy will continue.

Yesteray's attack, on a peaceful kurdish sect, was just outright slaughter of innocent people, I'd even go as far as to say genocide.

I don't know what the answer is I'm afraid, but I don't think it is pulling out.

quirk.

Here is a good nterview with pro-resistance Iraqi Nationalist in which he gives his opinion on what he thinks will happen if the US pull out.

Fratton Fred

quirk. wrote:

Here is a good nterview with pro-resistance Iraqi Nationalist in which he gives his opinion on what he thinks will happen if the US pull out.

There has been a series of Articles in the London Times about the British in Basra and they seem to back up what this guy is saying abot the south.

It appears that the British are fighting the Mahdi Army who have taken over Basra, mainly against the wishes of the local people. The Iraqi army are taking over central Basra soon, but it sounds like the less well equiped and trained Iraqi's may be lambs to the slaughter.

The journalist had no doubts that the weapons used by the Mahdi Army, if not the fighters themselves are coming directl from Iran.

quirk.

Fratton Fred wrote:

The journalist had no doubts that the weapons used by the Mahdi Army, if not the fighters themselves are coming directl from Iran.

It's hard to tell where the weapons come from. I don't think there was exactly a shortage of weapons in Iraq before the invasion and my guess this is where they are mostly from. But it suits the US to point the finger at Iran.

gbh

My guess is a lot of resistance fighters are not merely fanatically religious although you cannot doubt the religious element. They are also fanatical nationalists who are opposed to any foreign force on their nation's soil. By extension, Al Quida largely came into being because of two foreign occupations, the occupation of Afghanistan by the Russians and the basing of US troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Nationalism (or soverignty over your own soil) and religion are closely aligned then in the Middle East. There are sites of religious significance in every country in the area and it seems almost every town. Protecting these sites from descecration and descecration for example can include an infidel visiting them is probably more important than control over any other national resource.

And resisting the infidels is a core tenent of Islam.

So I think if the US get out of Iraq or the infidels as they are perceieved my most resistance groups, Shia, Sunni, or Al Quaida, then you have removed a major stumbling block to the future stability of Iraq because you give people less motive to become involved in extremist violence. George Bush Snr, not a foolish man, recognised the futility of invading and occupying Iraq after the first Gulf War because of the trouble it would cause. It's a pity the Neo-Cons didn't heed his example.

Fratton Fred

quirk. wrote:

It's hard to tell where the weapons come from. I don't think there was exactly a shortage of weapons in Iraq before the invasion and my guess this is where they are mostly from. But it suits the US to point the finger at Iran.

the article showed shells fired at the Basra Palace, where the British have a base, that are date stamped 2007. There was no doubt that this was new ordanance being fired.

Fratton Fred

gbh wrote:

My guess is a lot of resistance fighters are not merely fanatically religious although you cannot doubt the religious element. They are also fanatical nationalists who are opposed to any foreign force on their nation's soil. By extension, Al Quida largely came into being because of two foreign occupations, the occupation of Afghanistan by the Russians and the basing of US troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Nationalism (or soverignty over your own soil) and religion are closely aligned then in the Middle East. There are sites of religious significance in every country in the area and it seems almost every town. Protecting these sites from descecration and descecration for example can include an infidel visiting them is probably more important than control over any other national resource.

And resisting the infidels is a core tenent of Islam.

So I think if the US get out of Iraq or the infidels as they are perceieved my most resistance groups, Shia, Sunni, or Al Quaida, then you have removed a major stumbling block to the future stability of Iraq because you give people less motive to become involved in extremist violence. George Bush Snr, not a foolish man, recognised the futility of invading and occupying Iraq after the first Gulf War because of the trouble it would cause. It's a pity the Neo-Cons didn't heed his example.

but how can someone be a resistance fighter when they bomb a market, or a school, or a mosque?

I don't buy the statement that Americans are doing it themselves, sure it plays into their hands, but this is sectarian, not patriotic.

Morlar

gbh wrote:

Just wondering what is the worst that could happen if the US pulls out of Iraq?

It the US/UK cut and run they will leave a god awful mess for the Un and everyone else to try and clean up . It could lead to a destabilised region. Civil war, ethnic cleansing and an increase in terrorism. Basically everything they said they were going to solve - they will have caused the opposite of it. I wouldnt be surprised if in several years after the pullout weapons of mass destruction (chemical/biological) do come to be found there - and if they are it will be as a consequence of the invasion.

I think the failure of invasion/occupation and inevitable retreat is one of the reasons why the US has agree to give $30,000,000,000.00 in military aid to israel in the next 10 years.

sovtek

Morlar wrote:

It the US/UK cut and run they will leave a god awful mess for the Un and everyone else to try and clean up . It could lead to a destabilised region. Civil war, ethnic cleansing and an increase in terrorism.

You mean what's happening now?

Morlar

sovtek wrote:

You mean what's happening now?

Potentially yes. I suppose it depends on how they cut and run and who gets left to clean up the mess.

RedPlanet

Fratton Fred wrote:

There has been a series of Articles in the London Times about the British in Basra and they seem to back up what this guy is saying abot the south.

It appears that the British are fighting the Mahdi Army who have taken over Basra, mainly against the wishes of the local people. The Iraqi army are taking over central Basra soon, but it sounds like the less well equiped and trained Iraqi's may be lambs to the slaughter.

The journalist had no doubts that the weapons used by the Mahdi Army, if not the fighters themselves are coming directl from Iran.

What makes you state that?
Insofar as i understand things, the Mahdi Army are popular.

Fratton Fred

RedPlanet wrote:

What makes you state that?
Insofar as i understand things, the Mahdi Army are popular.

The articles I read said otherwise, but I guess you will get differing opinions all over Basra. The article Quirl linked to said that "Foreign" fighters are not welcome and it mentioned the Mahdi Army so I would believe that opinion.

tallus

Maybe they meant the coalition of the willing when they said "Foreign". Lets be honest, they aren't exactly natives there.

Fratton Fred

tallus wrote:

Maybe they meant the coalition of the willing when they said "Foreign". Lets be honest, they aren't exactly natives there.

Q: There are more and more reports that Shiite tribes fight against the government forces. Can you explain this phenomenon?

With the occupation the Iranian militia in the South and East went to kill officers of the former Iraqi army accusing all its enemies to be Baathists. So many people were assassinated.

Although they all belong to some tribes they were afraid to defend them. But with the evaporation of the state structures the tribes, are becoming more and more important and powerful. Now they cannot accept any more that their tribesmen are being killed by foreigners whether Iranians or Iraqis not belonging to the tribe. If they come now to arrest or kill somebody the tribes mount growing resistance. There are many examples creating a new environment, a sentiment which is directed against the pro-Iranian militias and governmental forces. Recently there occurred a two day battle near Shuk ash Shuyuk in the south where they tried to capture a former officer. Hundreds took up arms to defend him. He fell but not without changing the climate. He belongs to a very combative tribe known for its bravery. They subsequently formed a kind of mutual assistance pact with other tribes against the pro-Iranian militias including the Mahdi army, the army and police indicating a general tendency which, however, remains local and did not yet reach the general political level.

maybe my interpretation is wrong, this is the passage I refer to.

RedPlanet

You should link to the articles you quote from.

By "foreign" i'd say they mean AlQueda and other jihadists from other countries, not Madhi army, whom are indigenous.

But anyway, you said the Madhi army were against the wishes of the majority of local people in Basra and that's what i'm questioning.

Manic Moran

I would like to suggest a modification to the title, to add 'tomorrow' to the end of the phrase. I certainly hope the US leaves Iraq, I think the vast majority of Americans, Iraqis, and third parties hope so too. I just don't think it should be on Fri 17th Aug, the country's just not ready for it.

quirk. wrote:

Here is a good nterview with pro-resistance Iraqi Nationalist in which he gives his opinion on what he thinks will happen if the US pull out.

As a counter-point, Michael Yon interviewed a leader of the 1920s Revolution Brigade last month. The whole article is a lot longer than this snippet.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/al-qaeda-on-the-run-feasting-on-the-moveable-beast.htm

A current leader in Burhiz and member of the 1920s Revolution Brigades (1920s) goes by the name Abu Ali. On Monday 9 July, I drove in the back of a Stryker and talked on the streets of Buhriz with Abu Ali. Just months ago our forces would have shot Abu Ali on sight, and he surely would have done the same to us. Today we are allies, for now.
<snip>
We had certainly killed a lot of his people, and the 1920s certainly had killed many American soldiers. During severe fighting with al Qaeda in April 2007, the 1920s reached out to American soldiers, and together they have been dismantling al Qaeda here in Baqubah and other places. If we had to fight an allied force of 1920s and al Qaeda, there is no telling how many soldiers we would have lost.
<snip>
Before the tape was running, I asked Abu Ali why he and the 1920s turned against al Qaeda in Buhriz. Speaking through LT David Wallach, a native Arabic speaker, Abu Ali said that “al Qaeda is an abomination of Islam: cutting off heads, stealing people’s money, kidnapping . . . every type of torture they have done.”

The recent stories of baked children came to mind. I asked if Abu Ali had heard about children being baked. Ali said no, he had not heard such a story, but he would not be surprised if it were true because al Qaeda had done so many crimes, such as cutting off a man’s head, putting it up on a stick and parading it around town.

Ali said people had been afraid in their own homes because of al Qaeda. I asked if he had fought Americans and Ali laughed and said through Wallach, “What kind of question is that?” I chuckled. Unfortunately, we had to go to other meetings, so the time for taping was short. In closing, I asked Abu Ali if there was something he would like to say to Americans. The markets that had been closed under al Qaeda were bustling around us.

Ali thought for a moment as some local people tried to interrupt him with greetings, and he said, “I ask one thing,” and now I paraphrase Ali’s words: “After the Iraqi Army and Police take hold and the security forces are ready, we want a schedule for the leaving of the American forces.”

Unfortunately, there is more going on than anti-occupation fighting, and also unfortunately, American forces are the most trusted by the Iraqi citizenry, followed by the Iraqi Army, and the police force trailing a good bit behind. For example, tips from Iraqis to Americans led the latter today to search a house and free six kidnap victims who had been held for $100,000 ransom each for the last two weeks. (And arrest five people). This was absolutely nothing to do with the occupation, and was simply people trying to take criminal advantage of the situation.

NTM

RedPlanet

The worst case scenario would probably be that iraq becomes a AlQueda terrorist training centre.

.... doh!

Liam Byrne

RedPlanet wrote:

The worst case scenario would probably be that iraq becomes a AlQueda terrorist training centre.

.... doh!

Pretty ironic, isn't it......it was Afghanistan that had AlQuaida before the U.S. invaded Iraq.

As for the original question, I'm not sure what should happen......while I'd love to see the war finished, and finally dump the stigma of Ireland's involvement in it, the ordinary decent people of Iraq deserve a stable country - otherwise they, too, will be disgruntled towards "the west" [read: America & UK, but they won't make that distinction] interfering, with possibly disastrous consequences as terrorist groups work on that disgruntlement.

What I think is sad is that around 5 years ago, no-one was asking the proper question.....which would be the thread title with the word "invades" replacing the word "leaves"......

Jon Stewart on The Daily Show last night was absolutely brilliant on this topic.....he even ditched the comedy/satire angle to treat it with the seriousness that it requires and got even bigger cheers from the audience than if he was being satirical.

Manic Moran

Der Spiegel recently weighed in, with an 8-page special.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html

Those who believe that a speedy withdrawal of US troops would result in the problem capable of resolving itself are deeply mistaken. Though this premise might have rang true in late 2003 or early 2004, when terrorism had not yet stirred up the infernal forces of religious hatred, the situation today is different.

In the Iraq of 2007, that is, in its capital Baghdad, the respective factions in a future civil war are forming along religious lines, and so far only the Americans have been able to prevent it from happening. If the forces in Washington that are demanding the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq prevail, the country will descend into full-fledged civil war, complete with reports of horrific religious cleansing operations, large-scale massacres arising from the blind fury of fanaticism and acts of revenge against anyone who has ever dared to cooperate with the Americans.

The whole article is entitled 'Hope and Despair'

There are some interesting snippets, though.

Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq -- it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe

NTM

RedPlanet

yeah, they are really successful aren't they?
Afterall Iraq is a shining beacon of freedom and democracy today right?
I mean it's not like US Soldiers go around raping children or anything; or randomly spraying gunfire in places where civilians are around.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=q7nM-uSCvks -US Soldier talks about killing unarmed civilians

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=zB91aHee1rk&mode=related&search= -Soldiers talking about killing random civilians.

Moriarty

RedPlanet wrote:

yeah, they are really successful aren't they?
Afterall Iraq is a shining beacon of freedom and democracy today right?
I mean it's not like US Soldiers go around raping children or anything; or randomly spraying gunfire in places where civilians are around.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=q7nM-uSCvks -US Soldier talks about killing unarmed civilians

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=zB91aH...elated&search= -Soldiers talking about killing random civilians.

I love the smell of an agenda in the morning.

Would you believe me if I put up a video on youtube claiming certain controversial things? After the previous outed fakes exactly like this, I have to wonder why people aren't more sceptical without hard proof of allegations. Or is anything that backs up your position, be it the truth or fabricated, all good? Irony of irony's from the "war under false pretences" crowd. Throw enough mud and some will stick and all that.

That's how it comes across to me as a fairly impartial observer. You'd have to wonder why.

RedPlanet

skip it

banaman

That's easy. They'll go and do the same somewhere else, probably Iran

gbh

Tbh I wasn't around during the Vietnam war but I think commentators like Walter Conkrite had a significant bearing on the decision to withdraw through their criticism of the conflict. Its time for some commentators like that today.

First off it's fairly obvious that the Iraq war is an unwinnable war for the US. It's not cutting and running to say that, it's stating fact. You litterly now have thousands of terrorists in Iraq who see killing civilians, committing atrocities and dying in suicide blasts as a path to martyrdom.

The continued US involvement doesn't I believe contribute much in the way of stability. Plus weapons and arms are poured into Iraq from surrounding countries due to the US presence and if that presence was removed I suspect the flow of these weapons would stop. I think possibly a UN backed Muslim army would be the best one to replace the Americans. That to me is the only viable solution at the time being. But certainly I think its time the Americans were planning an exit, because they only attract terrorists and terrorists atrocities in Iraq.

Liam Byrne

Moriarty wrote:

Would you believe me if I put up a video on youtube claiming certain controversial things? After the previous outed fakes exactly like this, I have to wonder why people aren't more sceptical without hard proof of allegations.

That would be a perfectly fair comment, if it weren't for the propaganda, fakes and completely unfounded allegations which were spouted by the U.S. Administration as an excuse to invade in the first place.

If you set the bar by lying and spouting lies and propaganda, you can't really complain if your opposition starts to do the same thing, can you ?

Moriarty

Liam Byrne wrote:

That would be a perfectly fair comment, if it weren't for the propaganda, fakes and completely unfounded allegations which were spouted by the U.S. Administration as an excuse to invade in the first place.

If you set the bar by lying and spouting lies and propaganda, you can't really complain if your opposition starts to do the same thing, can you ?

.. but then both positions are equally flawed and neither camp is worth listening to. The "problem" is, the American administration will be at least listened to no matter what they say because they're a super power, where as the anti-war camp only has their word to stand on so can't afford to negate it.

Hey look, they just made themselves irrelevant and easier to ignore. Oops.

Either way, we're veering off topic.

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.

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote:

Unfortunately, there is more going on than anti-occupation fighting, and also unfortunately, American forces are the most trusted by the Iraqi citizenry, followed by the Iraqi Army, and the police force trailing a good bit behind. For example, tips from Iraqis to Americans led the latter today to search a house and free six kidnap victims who had been held for $100,000 ransom each for the last two weeks. (And arrest five people). This was absolutely nothing to do with the occupation, and was simply people trying to take criminal advantage of the situation.

NTM

Who where the kidnap victims by the way? It is strange given the current situation to think that there are average Iraqi's (not connected to the occupation) who would be able to stump up over half a million dollars in ransom.

Manic Moran

Probably why they were still hostages after a couple of weeks, I'd wager.

I have no knowledge of who they were. There was one incident when a chap came to us saying his daughter had been taken for ransom: I doubt he'd have had more than $1000 to his name.

That said, there are plenty of rich Iraqis who have nothing to do with the occupation. You should see some of their houses.

NTM

LegacyUser

Just getting back to the original question...IMHO I think it would be very bad indeed for the US to leave Iraq. As others have pointed out theres 3 main players in the game...Sunni,Shia and Kurdish.

There is another problem that most have overlooked and thats with the setting up of a Kurdish state of sorts and thats Turkeys opposition of such a scenario.It would be viewed in Ankara as a stronghold of Kurdish resistance in Turkey....and in thoery be subject to military action...then youd have the Shia influaece of Iran. They are already on thin ice with the US and Israel so thier influence in a Shia controlled Iraq could cause some major problems down the road...but then of course you have the minority Sunnis,who have the support of Al-Queda and other fundememtalist secular terrorist groups.

Really theres no clear cut solution to Iraqs problems...but as for now its alot better for the US to remain.

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.