Why would civil war in Iraq necessarily be a bad thing?

Question

Ok so we're always hearing how civil war is the worst possible outcome in Iraq.

With everything being the way it is, there seems to be little to anything we can do to actually prevent civil war long-term. Since it's what the people of Iraq obviously want, so why not just let them have it. Innocents will die of course, but s**t happens, it's war. The US had a bad one, and we came out ok.

So why not pull U.S. troops, let the Sunnis and the Shites sort it out for the next number of years until there's a clear winner. and once there is, work with the leader of the winning side to get access to the oil (since that's the only reason we're there in the first place, really). And if the new leader doesn't want to play nice, take him out like we did Saddam...let civil war ensue again...repeat ad nauseism.

Maybe it's not all touchy-feely like "LETS SPREAD DEMOCRACY!" but still wouldn't it be a better way since it it frees up our military/money for things that actually might make a difference.

I should mention that I never felt that the U.S. should have gone over to Iraq in the first place. If we could turn back the clock and not go, that would certainly be the best solution.

Unfortunately, the situation stands...

Answer 1

Negativity around an Iraqi civil war is more about 'look what we have done' than anything else.

Bush promised this peaceful, open-arms democracy in Iraq where the ppl would jump for joy to be liberated...

A civil war illustrates the depth of Bush not being able to predict anything and his lack of knowledge concerning foreign affairs.

Answer 2

There has been a civil/sectarian war there for years, very actively for the past couple of years. Or are the 2000+ Iraqi deaths per month caused by a few really bad traffic accidents? Refusing to call it a civil war until now doesn't change the reality.

Just like it doesn't change the reality that our presence there is obviously not helping, and likely causing more harm than good.

Let's look at it from a cost-benefit perspective. How much money (tens of millions) and how many lives (dozens) did it cost for the US to invade Iraq and topple Saddam's government . How much money (tens of billions) and how many lives (thousands) has it cost for the US to remain in Iraq and try to force them to set up a new government. Which, by the way, is nowhere close to being ready to take over their country.

What we should have done is pull out after "Mission Accomplished" and allow Iraq to set up whatever government it wanted. If we didn't like the results, we go in, topple it, and tell them to try again. We could have done that 10 times and still spent only 1% of the money and lost 1% of the lives that we have so far under the current plan.

So, regardless of the goals, the means we're using to accomplish them are highly wasteful of both resources and American lives. And from any perspective, stupid means are not a good way to achieve any goals.

Answer 3

You're making an incorrect assumption. When there is an Iraqi civil war, the U.S. does NOT plan on pulling out. That's why there is so much concern. The U.S. and its allies will be stuck right there in the middle of a horribly bloody Muslim debacle. If the numbers are looking pretty bad right now, you could multiply that by at least 5x the number of casualities. It could get so bad that it would make Vietnam look like a Suday School potluck picknick.

Answer 4

What would it say about the U.S. as the "cradle" of democracy. We went to Iraq because of WMD's they have .... errr..... let's change the story. We went there for freeing the Iraqi people from a dictator who supposedly possessed WMD's, besides some billion barrels of oil. (That is still the official story, right)

Anyhow ... now that we are there, laid the country to waste and destabilized the region, we cannot allow this country to tumble into civil war. Then we would be the instigators of that, because before we wanted to get our grubby fingers on the oil, Iraq was contained and not doing anything to anyone. Remember the late 90's when there was relative peace and prosperity in this world?
Now ... what do we have got? Hundreds of thousands of people killed, billions of dollars spend and what do we have to show for it? We arrested one man (Saddam) and brought a country on the brink of civil war.
Was it the right guy we caught? Hell no! The guy to catch was Osama. Do we still care about him? Nah... those 3000 dead pale in comparison to all that oil we can get our hands on. All that oil will benefit the American public.... err..... the American oil companies that are public.

Why would it be so bad to have a civil war there? Because it would be us who started it.

Answer 5

That's a good question. The "democracy" idea that we've tried to spread may not be what these people want. Sure they voted 6 or 7 months ago after the removal of Saddam but that was the only option available to them. What else were they supposed to do? It's a tough situation, I was against us going to Iraq in the first place but that's water under the bridge and I really think the Iraqi people need to decide if that's what they really want and if they really even want us to remain?

Answer 6

Civil war in Iraq is bad for the US because the
Sunni, Shiites and Kurds Will have alliances outside Iraq, like Iran, Syria and Turkey.
the result will be 3 countries, out of which 2 will be under control of Syria and Iran. This represents an even greater danger to the US and it's allies in the middle east, especially oil producers, and will provide safer and richer havens for terrorists.

Answer 7

Its a bad thing in that it could go for years and kill Hundreds of thousands. It may be the only thing to settle Iraq down. I think the Shias will definately win (they are the majority and they got Iran and Hezbollah).

Hell, even the US had to go through a Civl War before it settled its young a$s down.

The reason they don't pull the troops is because without the US Iraq would not be going to war with itself, and like Colin Powell told Bush: You break Iraq, you own it!!!!!

Answer 8

I think it would be a very bad thing. The Pentagon put out a report a few days ago and I will post a link to it. If you read the executive summary at the beginning -its only a page or two long - you will see for yourself the possibilities for disaster when the US leaves..

Answer 9

Civil war would be bad only because it would mean the state had failed and could not control its borders or activities of its citizens. It would be soemthing of a Taliban Afghanistan writ large. Other than that the thought of the differnt sects of violent Muslims killing one another is called a win-win for the West.

Answer 10

they have been in a Civil War since we attacked..many people happy and tryingto live in a free country and a few militant groups trying to stop it, win control of the country and the oil and become quickly a very formiible force in the world