Ramifications Of Withdrawal From Iraq

And btw, I don't care how wordy or verbose you get. Honest points of view are the point!

If the terrorists continue to be effective in Iraq it will not make a difference when we leave they will continue to attack the Iraqi forces and police the same way they attach our forces. I doubt that the Iraq forces will EVER be as effective in a military sense as our forces.

The only way to defeat the terrorists is if the Iraqi people stop supporting them. There are 25 Million people in Iraq and they can stop the terrorism if they want to badely enough. That is why it is time for the U S to set a date when they must be willing to stop the terrorism. The radical factions in Iraq and in the Moslem world will continue to battle the West just because they do not want a non Moslem Army occupying a Moslem country. We are providing the radical Moslem factions with the means to get more Moslems to join them in fighting the infadels. That is why the Iraq War has NOT made America safer from another 9/11.

I think that Bush has one idea, but the Iraqis have a different one.  And woe be unto Bush if he does not live up to his statement that we will leave when asked!  So I think 12 months is more like it, with complete withdrawal perhaps in 3 years.  I think the Iraqis are still rough, but then most new armies are.  We have given them a lot of training, and the rest is experience.

As far as what happens when we do?  I dont see much of a change.  But I see most of the violence being Sunni on Shiite and vice versa.  most of the Terrorists will then start attacking other Arab nations trying to get to us.

As far as what happens when we do? I dont see much of a change.

I'd have to agree. History doesn't speak well of the politics of that area of the world. From kingdoms, to Sheikdoms, colonial rule to dictatorships. Not a real good track record. With a society that has no memory of self rule, a democracy seems to be pie in the sky. I see a new Iraqi government comming to a fairly rapid and unfortunately bloody end when we do withdraw.

That is why the Iraq War has NOT made America safer from another 9/11.

It does sort of make one wonder if the occupation is just diverting terrorist attacks here and abroad. I shudder to think of all the "veteran" terrorists being created there. Did we bust up all the smaller terroist training camps, just to create one large one?

I see a new Iraqi government comming to a fairly rapid and unfortunately bloody end when we do withdraw.

I dont. I see the bloody part, but I think the democracy will hang on, at least for a dozen years or so. Before some tinpot declares martial law, and viola. But I think it will take more time than 'fairly rapid'.

I see a new Iraqi government comming to a fairly rapid and unfortunately bloody end when we do withdraw.

Along the lines of the fall of Saigon.

Before some tinpot declares martial law, and viola. But I think it will take more time than 'fairly rapid'.

I have a suspicion it'll be a move towards a Theocracy like Iran. I suppose it depends on your definition of "rapid", but all the players are in place to convince the government at the point of the sword to comply or die.

suppose it depends on your definition of "rapid",

True, and that is why I said a dozen years (just a swag) to indicate I dont think it will be soon. ANd it may not happen. But when and if it does occur, I dont see a theocracy. Iraq is not Iran. But another Saddam? Possible.

but I think the democracy will hang on, at least for a dozen years or so

One could argue that South Vietnam did as well...as long as we were there. The Iraqi Army's new incarnation seems to be awfully similar. Corrupt and willing to change sides to whomever has the power at the time. Isn't it a bit arrogant of us to assume we can impart and instill the values it took this country over 200 years to attain, and that after hundreds of years of European common law? I mention the Iraqi Army under the assumption it would be called upon to defend the new government of Iraq. When a U.S. soldier takes the oath of enlistment, he at least has a vague idea of what the constitution and our principals of freedom stand for. I doubt very much Private Ahmad will or does.

Iraq is not Iran. But another Saddam? Possible

Agreed, however I do believe that it was Saddam that kept a Theocracy from happening, just as the Shah did until his overthrow. We currently fill the vacuum created by Saddams removal. When we are gone the strongest group will be Islamic fundamentalism, backed by the insurgents/terrorists (also self proclaimed fundamentalists).

I don't think total, complete withdrawl was ever our intention. I expect in the back of the Pentagon's mind was the hope we would end up with a situation like Germany and Japan, where we had "strategic interests" for decades. A jumping off point would be highly valuable in the region, especially since things didn't go so well in Saudi Arabia.

That said, the only way we can do that safely is to crush the insurgency, and until the Iraqi people are tired of seeing their peers blown up we can't. It's a supreme lack of sympathy on their part that is the problem. The people who hide al qaeda don't mind seeing people in other areas blown up. Baathists don't mind seeing shiite mosques attacked. The shiites don't mind the US wreaking havoc in sunni areas.

If the people harboring these terrorists would one day look at the carnage after a bombing, and say "I don't care if I personally don't like those people, this has to stop", the insurgency would be over. The places these people live have neighbors who know they are there. Those neighbors have neighbors. Until Iraqis align themselves with Iraq as a whole instead of terrorists and subgroups, this won't end.

I'm afraid that there is a lot of dirty work to be done, frankly. I expect when we leave for there to be a Stalinesque "purge" that will either cement the new government or destroy it. Put simply there are people in Iraq that will not tolerate peace under these terms, and until they are somehow convinced or purged from the society, there won't be peace.

That said, you can have a stable nation without it. Israel has withstood these kinds of attacks for years without the need of a occupying force. I don't think we can be out in six months, but I don't think the next President will be managing their affairs. Expect a strategic base to be eventually set up, probably in Northern Iraq, and for our forces to be use it for many years to come, though.

Expect a strategic base to be eventually set up, probably in Northern Iraq

I think that's a given, considering the situation with Iran and to a lesser extent with Turkey and Syria. I think "outpost" may be a more accurate description however!

Iraq government officials have said that they need about a year and a half to get their infrastructure up to the point where they would be able to do without foriegn troops.

Prs. Bush has said that we will have troops in Iraq until their government asks us to leave. Since their government has made their assessments, I think we should continue to help them until that time.

We also need to keep in mind that war is not a static situation. Missions and operations change and so do areas of emphasis. So any assessment of continued need must be based on those changes.


I think anything less would be abandoning them in the worst of ways.

I think anything less would be abandoning them in the worst of ways.

Although I agree with that from a moral perspective, it does beg the question, "Who invited us in the first place?"

We also need to keep in mind that war is not a static situation. Missions and operations change and so do areas of emphasis. So any assessment of continued need must be based on those changes.

From experience in that business, I do understand the concept of the dynamic nature of warfare. However assesment and reassesment are symptoms of an unclear set of goals. If an end point is not spelled out, if not initially at least at some point, we have the proverbial viscious circle. I think that may well be why public opinion is not as supportive as when the war began.

Prs. Bush has said that we will have troops in Iraq until their government asks us to leave.

Understood. But you have to ask, "when will that be?" Why would a government, any government be in a hurry to assume responsibility for it's own security, or the monetary and human costs of it when it's underwritten by another nation? The one thing I don't see discussed openly by our government or media is remuneration for services rendered. That may be cold hearted, but I would like to know what we're getting for our blood, sweat, and tax dollars. Or are we morally responsible to suck it up? I've heard "...their government asks us to leave" from another Texan. It did'nt work then either.

Ted,
As a personal aside, I appologize if that came off sounding like an attack. I respect your opinions. I do want this article/piece/posting/blog to be an exchange of ideas and opinions. Sometimes it seems a little too one sided around here. That gets stagnant. So please excuse me if I play devil's advocate from time to time.

Although I agree with that from a moral perspective, it does beg the question, "Who invited us in the first place?"

Very true and the crux of the debate. However, who is villifying whom for Rwanda and Sudan? Sometimes, good people must act to stop evil. Period. Now that should be the debate. And I dont think you want to argue the con side of it.

", it does beg the question, "Who invited us in the first place?"

Hussein, when he violated the terms of the Gulf War cease fire, fired on our aircraft, paid bounties to suicide bombers, thwarted sanctions and starved his people, etc. Just because one President could ignore it for eight years doesn't mean every President would.

And I dont think you want to argue the con side of it.

No way Jose! Besides, I'm too nice, and I'm Catholic (wink); I'd suffer from terminal guilt!

Hussein, when he violated the terms of the Gulf War cease fire, fired on our aircraft, paid bounties to suicide bombers, thwarted sanctions and starved his people, etc. Just because one President could ignore it for eight years doesn't mean every President would.

Point well taken. But isn't that more in the UN's lane than the U.S.? We did fire back in the no fly zones, and quite accurately as I remember. Personally I thought Clinton could have been a little more aggressive than he was.

No way Jose! Besides, I'm too nice, and I'm Catholic (wink); I'd suffer from terminal guilt!

I gathered that from my religion stuff. I would like you to correct, or comment on my Catholic stuff. It was inspired by someone who called Catholicism a cult. he later backpedalled. But I see the misconceptions all the time, and I am not a scholar by any means. I just left and came back when I realized that what I did not like, I did not understand, or they figured it was just smoke and mirrors.

But dont worry about the terminal Guilt. My Rabbi friend says that is a hold over from our roots!

The real measure of Bush attacking Iraq and removing Saddam will be the type of government that emerges after we leave. The shape of that government or the process by which it is establish may set the stage for our future relationship with the new Iraq. If we are unbable to deal with that government of Iraq like we can not deal with Iran or Seria, this war will be a total failure.

2. What do you think would happen when we withdraw? All hell could break loose or the Sunnis would no longer join the al Qaeda thugs and chse them out. When you enter war its an unknowable and ending it, too, is unpredictable.

Ted, As a personal aside, I appologize if that came off sounding like an attack. I respect your opinions. I do want this article/piece/posting/blog to be an exchange of ideas and opinions. Sometimes it seems a little too one sided around here. That gets stagnant. So please excuse me if I play devil's advocate from time to time.

Not at all Nadeon, I didn't feel attacked at all.

WIth respect, The whole "when will that be" thing is a red herring. We have never asked ourselves that in any war up until now, so why is it such an all-fired important question now?

When we deployed to Desert Shield, there was no "time table", rotation schedule or anything else. When I watched the coast of the U.S. disappear I had no idea when I'd be seeing it again. Even after the air war started, there was no talk of "when". "The quickest way home is through Baghdad" was the running joke... but that was all we had.

When Murtha, Kerry, or anyone else whining for a time table can show me where they called for a time table before, I might quit laughing in their faces. ;~D

Hussein, when he violated the terms of the Gulf War cease fire, fired on our aircraft, paid bounties to suicide bombers, thwarted sanctions and starved his people, etc. Just because one President could ignore it for eight years doesn't mean every President would. Point well taken. But isn't that more in the UN's lane than the U.S.? We did fire back in the no fly zones, and quite accurately as I remember. Personally I thought Clinton could have been a little more aggressive than he was.

Nadeon, remember, there was the Ceasefire signed outside of Safwan then there was the UN Resolutions based on that ceasefire agreement. No one from the UN signed the Safwan Accords. The UN Resolution was between Iraq and The UN... The Safwan Accords were between the US led Coalition and Iraq.

If the UN was too spineless, cowardly and criminal to back it's own resolution that didn't mean we couldn't enforce the ceasefire.

It's kind of ironic, Prs. Clinton used enforcement of the ceasefire as the basis for bombing targets in Iraq, without playing "Mother May I" games with the UN... and nobody questioned it. However, when Prs. Bush used the same Ceasefire agreement as the basis to return to hostilities, all of the sudden it was all about the UN resolution and the ceasefire agreement between the US & Iraq was forgotten.

Apparently to too many "who" was in the White House was more important than "what" was done to enforce the ceasefire agreement... or even the agreement itself.