What would happen to Iraq?

Question

What would happen to Iraq if the USA pulled out of Iraq tomorrow?

Answer 1

i did my time in iraq and i was part of our impact, i personally returned a family's farm back to where they could grow food on it again. it had a huge tower and bunker on it and i bulldozed it down and hauled it off, then leveled it out. Those people were so grateful, i will always remember how we are doing good in iraq, and if we can show love, peace will follow in time. Pulling out a mistake for us and bad for all of the middle east..

Answer 2

The rise of the Persian empire, Iraq would split up into three groups. Kurds, Sunni, and Shia'. The Shia in Iran would all but set up a puppet state in the former Iraq. Not good at all.

You would possibly even see a civil war in Turkey with the Kurds in southern Turkey wanting to join with the Kurds in the former Iraq.

The middle east would go from a horrible situation to hell on earth.

Answer 3

The current Iraqi military and police force haven't been truly tested yet. It's hard to say how much they could handle. The fact that alot of them would calm down after we pulled out, would most likely be countered with the fact that there will be less enforcement of laws and the war between Sunni's and Shiite would most likely escalate out of control. If the police and military force wouldn't be able to contain it, the country would probably split after extreme civil war. And if the Government wasn't thrown over by terrorists against democracy in the middle of it, their might be something left of what we spent years there putting together. If we pulled out tomorrow, they would be in a world of ****. But it's not going to happen, not until they can carry their own.

Answer 4

the U. S. (u . s . a . of america is a continent - the U. S. in elementary terms the nastiest component to it) gained't go away Iraq interior the foreseeable destiny. Saddam replaced into put in with techniques from the U. S. & uk to repress the democratic stirrings in a Shi'ite majority us of a which, as a democracy must be a lot less subservient. This Sunni in fee, also prevented any chance of alliance between Shi'ite Iran and Shi'ite southern Iraq with plausible ramifications for yet another Shi'ite enclave interior the properly accurate nook of Saudi Arabia which has been brutally repressed with techniques from the Sunni extremist US-sponsored totalitarian Saudi kinfolk. those Shi'ite parts also ensue to be those the position many of the middle east, and the worlds somewhat accessible oil is - ring any bells? Saddam confirmed signs and warning signs of independence so had to bypass - for that reason the lies to 'justify' the 'warfare' (more advantageous an armed robbery - 'warfare' implies the potential to strive against decrease back), yet this of route opened the possibilities he replaced into emplaced to stay away from. regrettably, even as the lies were uncovered, the 'imposed democracy' replaced into each and each and every of the intellectually challenged neo-cons ought to arise with. actual democracy is the severe element that the U. S. ought to tolerate for the above causes so that you could not go away. this is a large defeat. with techniques from the way 'embedded' screams "unreliable journalist fed propaganda with techniques from in contact social gathering", 'Marine' even more advantageous so.

Answer 5

I dug this article out a couple of weeks ago, see what you think.

By Ivan Eland.

In the wake of the recent crushing Democratic election victory, most pundits in Washington have been expecting the Bush administration to change course in Iraq. For those people, last week’s testimony by General John Abizaid, the U.S. commander ultimately in charge of the Iraq war, was disappointing.General Abizaid rejected all alternative policies for Iraq that have been proposed, including a phased withdrawal of troops, adding more troops, or partitioning the country. Yet, with verbal gymnastics that would have made George Orwell proud, when accused by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) of favoring the status quo, Abizaid denied it and suggested only marginal changes to the current approach. Apparently, “stay the course” has turned into what some call “stay and pray.”

Retired generals who have disparaged the administration’s Iraq policy have also been critical of the Democrats’ proposed phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. The generals have insisted that rather than forcing the Iraqi government to improve security and bringing the various sectarian and ethnic groups together to negotiate resource and power-sharing, a phased withdrawal would signal that the United States has given up on Iraq, thus giving the groups an incentive to start planning for a cataclysmic civil war. General John Batiste, a retired Army major general who was a division commander in Iraq and called for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation, called the Democrats’ proposal “terribly naïve.” Among other initiatives, Batiste argues that the United States has to make new efforts to secure Iraq’s borders, weaken or eliminate the Iraqi militias, step up training of the country’s security forces, reduce Iraqi unemployment, and solicit more cooperation from tribal leaders. To do all of these things, Batiste recommends increasing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq. General Anthony Zinni, one of Abizaid’s predecessors as Middle East commander and another critic of administration policy, as well as Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), agree that more U.S. troops should be sent.

But if the Democratic plan is naïve, this proposal is just plain crazy. Almost as dumb as planning to invade and occupy a fractious country, with too few troops and no post-war stabilization plan, is throwing more troops into the quagmire when an election has just demonstrated that the war has become very unpopular at home. In a democracy, that is political suicide. In this respect, the administration may be more realistic than the aforementioned generals and senators. To fight this proposal off, Abizaid dreamed up a congressional version of Goldilocks and the three bears. McCain asked Abizaid why he didn’t support adding more troops, and Abizaid replied that they would provoke more violence. (Demonstrating Abizaid’s point, adding more U.S. forces to Baghdad has increased the violence there.) McCain then closed the rhetorical trap by noting that, by such logic, reducing U.S. troops should increase stability. Abizaid lamely countered that the number of U.S. troops was just right.

Even more naïve is Batiste’s expectation that, with more troops, the United States can miraculously wish his list of goals into being. But most of Batiste’s suggestions have already been tried and have come up short. Adding more troops will merely accelerate the top-down brand of military socialism that has already failed in Iraq. Even if more U.S. troops would help the situation, where would they come from? Independent analysts have determined that even the current level of U.S. forces in Iraq is unsustainable in the long-term.

In contrast to these Pollyanna recommendations, the Democrats are less naïve than they first appear. They realize that the Iraqis already know the United States will develop war fatigue and leave. The Iraqi groups who are fighting can read U.S. public opinion polls. The Democrats also understand that the United States has lost the war, but just can’t say it. The growing violence in Iraq is likely to get much worse, regardless of whether or not U.S. troops are there. The real question is whether we want U.S. troops to be in the middle of a full-scale civil war. Cutting our losses and withdrawing before many more young Americans are killed or wounded is the smartest course.

But what about the Iraqis who are left to deal with the chaos that the U.S. invasion and occupation has created? To give Iraqis the best chance of ending the violence and recovering from the war, a U.S. timetable for withdrawal should be combined with a formal partition of the country. At this point, Iraq is already essentially partitioned—with militias providing local security in many areas. In addition, the vast majority of Iraqis don’t want to live in a unified Iraq. Only the Sunnis want a unified country because they don’t have much oil in their area. A timetable for a U.S. withdrawal would pull out the last prop under what is basically a Shi’ite/Kurdish government and encourage those groups to share oil or oil revenues with the Sunnis. In addition, a U.S. pull out would end Sunni violence against the foreign occupier.

Codifying the existing partition and decentralizing the Iraqi government would reduce the Shi’ite/Sunni violence, because each group fears that the other group would use the national government apparatus to oppress it. A perfect example is the anti-Sunni violence perpetrated by Iraqi security forces being infiltrated by Shi’ite death squads.

Thus, the Democratic proposal for withdrawal, coupled with a partition, is the best hope for Iraq.

I have to agree with this opinion myself. It makes a lot of sense.

Answer 6

A hollowed-out nation-state that gets filled up with Al Qaeda-like forces. Like Afghanistan was.

Answer 7

Damned if you do damned if you dont :( but I think we put our hand into the cookie jar and its a lil late to take it out without getting slapped. Also Iran would try to make a power play in that region probably.

Answer 8

Civil war, maybe a terrorist take over. Personally I don't think its such a bad thing, let them screw themselves over, its not our problem. If some Muslim extremeists take over and threaten to attack the US and our allies and what not, then its a problem. But then again, thats happened already and not only have we not done anything much to stop it, but the terrorists still haven't bombed us.

Answer 9

Massive shitstorm that even the Middle east hasnt seen before.

Answer 10

I think things would get worse for the ordinary Iraqi citizens.