Which scenario is most likely if we pull our troops out of Iraq before the go'vt can protect itself?

Question

1. The fighting stops, everyone puts down their guns, while the gov't runs a fair and efficient country, and spends their oil revenues responsibly on the betterment of Iraq.

2. The extremist groups fight until one gains the military advantage to suppress the rest (majority) of the country. The oil revenues are soon controlled by a group who is bent on destroying parts of the world who do not bow down to them, creating another, larger problem/threat for the U.S. and the world.

3. The elected gov't in Iraq is somehow able to put a stop to the fighting between the extremist groups, without the help of the U.S. gov't.

calling saddam an "ally" instead of calling him a balance of two evils is crazy.

So some of you would rather have a crap shoot in regards to who controls the gov't in that area, than try to help the people who elected the gov't run it?

Just because that is the way it has been for years, does not mean that is the way it should continue. Kings ruled for years before the U.S. had the freedoms we take for granted today.

---

langalese, I know my history, and I know the history of the middle east. Letting something happen because that is what happened in history is ridiculous. Inner cities have histories of rape and murder, should we not try to put a stop to it?

Answer 1

To be honest, I don't think any of the above will happen. I think the first sentence in number 2 is correct, but I think you need to differentiate between Iraqis and AlQaeda. The two groups have different members, different goals, and different motivation. If you don't make a distinction, you can't develop a proper strategy.


In Iraq, most likely the Sunnis will regain control of the country, but if the Shiites manage to get some more financial support, the civil war there would probably drag on for quite a while. Whoever wins will control at least some of the oil revenues, but I imagine the Kurds will keep some of the land and revenues as well. I don't think any of these groups have ambitions to destroy parts of the world, just to control the areas they consider their home. These area overlap, and that's why I don't think they'll work it out.

Al Qaeda will go whereever the Americans, Aussies, and Brits are. We've saved them tons on airfare by sending troops so close to their base, but I think they're okay with traveling, too. They mostly want to kill anyone that doesn't follow a strict version of the Sharia law. This includes just about everybody, including other Muslims, so they continue to be a danger. I really don't think our efforts in Iraq have hurt them much at all. In my opinion, this is where all our focus should be and should have been...they are a real problem, and negotiating is not an option.

Answer 2

The "Iraqi government" wouldn't last two days without U.S. troops there to protect it from the country's population and impose it on them.

When we leave, then, that govt will fall.

Will there then be fighting there? Sure, maybe. But where do we get the notion that we're entitled to settle everyone's fights? If Iraq will unify, it must be accepted that fighting is often part of the unification process. Garibaldi didn't unify Italy without fighting.

As another answerer pointed out, there's no particular reason why those people in that artificial national boundary should have to be governed by the same govt. Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis might prefer separate govts. Either way, though, fighting is likely. Unfortunately it's part of human nature, and, in any case, no one elected us to police them.


What's clear is that the Iraqis don't want us there. Instead of worrying about Iraqi affairs after we leave, our responsibility is much simpler: Let's just get out if Iraq.

The war on Iraq has already cost as much as the Vietnam war, and that cost is causing problems at home. The soldier death figures don't even begin to approach the number of soldiers whose lives are ruined by injuries, and the cost to their families. Oh, and then there are the Iraqi victims of the war too.

We don't need to incur those costs so that someone can play global chess.

Answer 3

Some combination of 2 and 3.

The new Iraqi govt would be able to hold control of parts of the country, while insurgent and militia groups hold control of other parts of the country. The most likely long-term result is the break-up of Iraq into separate provinces/countries.

As for who gets power, and how they end up interacting with the US -- don't forget that Saddam was an ally not that long ago. And Iran was run by a pro-west America-friendly govt until 2004. Same with Palestine.

So, the US pulling out will just cause the groups to continue fighting until whoever has more power and more people ends up controlling different parts of the region. And then we get to deal with them, individually rather than collectively.

That's the way politics has worked for thousands of years.

Answer 4

Here is my question to you -- how is the fighting in Iraq going to stop if we DON'T pull our troops out?

The fighting continues with no end in sight. The insurgent groups despise those in power, and always will. It doesn't matter if you have 100,000 U.S. troops on the ground, or 10,000,000. All the training in the world is not going to stop rogue soldiers from betraying the Iraqi government and supporting Al Qaeda.

The issue here is that the separate Iraqi groups do not, and WILL not come to an agreement and accept peace with one another. Peace is a word that extremist Islamic fundamentalists do not understand. It doesn't matter how well organized or disciplined the government is, they will continue to kill each other.

The only reason these groups coexisted under Saddam was because Saddam's government had a policy of brutality. He did not allow opposing groups to speak out against tyranny. Those who publicly opposed his rule were subject to imprisonment or death. If we want the Iraqi government to survive, we are going to have to give them carte blanche to murder their own citizens in the name of greater peace and stability -- something that I don't think anybody in their right mind could comfortably support.

Separate the warring factions. Divide the country by group and territory. Create three or more smaller nations within the borders, each with their own elected governments. Make it clear that acts of violence committed by one territory against another will be met with severe consequences, enforced either by the U.N. or the U.S. military. Continue to train security forces in all 3 territories. Counsel government leaders in all territories and help them to stabilize their economies and infrastructure. With time and a bit of luck, they will eventually learn to thrive as independent nations.

There is no justifiable reason for the U.S. military to continue to act as a police force in a nation that lacks any kind of order or social structure. It is going no where and accomplishing nothing. We are running on a hamster wheel with the current situation.

Answer 5

I'm guessing a variation of (2), with the Shi'ite majority gaining the upper hand, becoming similar to Iran. Sunnis become the new Palestinians, trying to get into Saudi Arabia and causing serious difficulties for the Kingdom. and the Kurds attempting a breakaway, inviting Turkish intervention.

Answer 6

Kaos.

There are more than 3 possible outcomes. Kaos is the most likely.

How long will it take to settle out? Only God or Allah knows.
They have been fighting since the bible and the koran were written and will probably never stop. Those guys fight each other as much as they fight israel or the persians (Iran). That whole bunch of nations over are sick in the head, they are not rational thinkers by our defininition

Answer 7

#2 is the most likely result of the US pulling troops out of Iraq too early. I don't think we should ever have gone into Iraq, but we did and we are there now. We have to finish the job or there will be bigger problems in that region.

Answer 8

We will never leave in full we can back out and supply the government with the weapons needed to gain control but with very minimal of our intervention. Maliki will go nuts and grow balls or leave.

BTW: is exactly what we did we Saddam before but we just screw it up.

Answer 9

The most likely scenario will be #2. President Bush knows it the Democrats know it and the President will get his way after all with regards the troop withdrawal issue.

Answer 10

Gosh ... and what will we spend BILLIONS on next?

Start another war because Republicans think they
are the police of the world? Republicans are the most
dangerous people in the world!!!

Meanwhile....
Bush laughs & rides his tricycle on his 30 day vacation
while our troops fight his war and families cry at funerals...