End game in Iraq?

Question

When and how will coalition troops be withdrawn?

Answer 1

A slow, phased withdrawal, gradually transferring law enforcement to the Iraqi army and police force. This will most likely be ordered by the new Commander-in-Chief, when he/she takes office in 2009. This President will be a Democrat.

Answer 2

The official plan is to withdraw allied units as official Iraqi units are ready to take over their roles. When the Iraqi security service can handle their own security and create a peaceful Iraq, our troops will no longer be needed and we can withdraw in a fanfare of Mission Accomplished (no really, we really really mean it this time)

When this happens, we in the west, will be encouraged to celebrate mission really accomplished, but not look too closely at what we replaced Saddams evil and brutal regime with.

The WMD did not exist (don't start on very very poor quality, old, inert, harmless munitions that posed NO threat, that where not hidden by Saddam, but where hidden FROM Saddam, prior to 1992 due to their poor quality and complete unsuitability for use as weapons.) Saddam did NOT have links to, or offer any support for, Al Queda. And the only other reason to depose him was how much of a brutal dictator he was.

Well if we can only remove our troops, by allowing the new regime in Baghdad to use a brutal security service to visciously erradicate dissent, then what have we really accomplished there?

We have spent BILLIONS and killed hundreds of thousands, displaced over a million people to replace a brutal dictator, with another brutal dictator who is slightly more to our liking.

After all, the only reason that their current elected prime minister is in power, is because the previously elected prime minister was not acceptable to Bush and Blair. So the newly elected Parliament had to ditch him and accept the USA's recommended replacement.

The USA also handed over Abhu Graib back to Iraqi control, and now they are hanging people in there again.

So what have we achieved? We have created a balance of power schizm in an unstable middle east that has handed Iran a huge boost, to the point where the USA has almost no power to force Iran to stop the enrichment of Uranium. The only way to attempt this would be strategic airstrikes. The consequences of which are likely to be, that the USA merely disrupts rather than ends the production. The USA does not know where all the production takes place. much of it may be hidden. A terrorist backlash across the region enveloping our over-extended troops and a refurbished and boosted Hezbollah attack on Israel using much more modern weaponry than what was used to fight the Israeli forces to a standstill. Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem could be targetted.

Not to mention an Iranian war on shipping in the Straights of Hormuz, stopping 40% of the worlds oil from getting to market. Oil prices sky-rocketting and the gas for your car going up to $10 - $15 dollars a gallon

Not to mention a massive backlash from Shia Muslims all over the west. Suicide bombings happening in major cities all over the west. Exporting the violence of Baghdad to YOUR neighbourhoods.

With the current bunch of lunatics and delusional, meglomaniac religious fundementalists in the Whitehouse, facing off against another bunch of delusional, megalomaniacal religious fundementalists in the middle east, we are facing a modern crusades with another trip to the dark ages.

We need wise leaders at a time like this, people of intelligence, widom, grace and courage. or the end game is going to be very expensive for all of us.

Answer 3

As it benefits politicians. Civil war always was the end game, but the White House would not listen - even Powell said 'if you break it, you own it'

Now it will go on until Bush (I pick on him here because he is the only one who can decide when - the Dems would do the same if they could) decides it is the politically best time for him and the Repub party.

So, American soldiers and Iraqis die, and the mess grows unchecked - just so politicians can maximize voter turnout that benefits themselves.

It's pathetic, of them, and of us for letting them get away with it.


kenhallonthenet -

We hastened the inevitable - Hussein eventually would have died of natural or intentional reasons anyway - and the civil war would have erupted then.

Second, we will now be blamed (sometimes rightly - sometimes wrongly) for every problem in the Middle East and in the war on terror (by everybody on both sides).

There's little upside for us until we can restore our reputation among the other countries of the world. Without friends, we will always be chasing AQ's shadow.

Answer 4

since we are still in germany i dont know what your asking. iraq will from now on have us troops within its borders. we will stay because of iran and syria. as for the one who believes iraq is no better off without saddam. get real. why is it that democrats seam to care more about the enemy then our allies?

Answer 5

Here's what's REALLY going on in Iraq!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm

Answer 6

The US turn it over to the Iraqis and pulls out. It is not like we are going to make it the 51st state.

Answer 7

as they die off !