If We Pulled Out Of Iraq
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, Iraq, Military, War
There would be blood. But there could also be a lot of benefits and the division of a state that has begged to be split into thirds since it was unwisely joined by the British.
WASHINGTON � If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold:• Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province.
• Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups.
• The Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there.
In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.
That was the conclusion reached in recent “war games” exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson.
Here’s the thing. There’s going to be violence when we leave eventually anyway. That’s going to happen. And us sticking around is not going to make these warring factions love each other any more. Our credibility as a whole is shot over there. I’m not talking about the men and women on the ground who have strong ties to the community. I’m talking about the head honchos who are calling the shots. And ultimately if the politicians can’t get along, it doesn’t matter how good your street to street community relations are. Iraqis are going to have to go through a period of intense civil strife to realize democracy. I’m now more convinced of this than ever.
And here’s a key finding…
The games also predicted that Iran would intervene on one side of a Shiite civil war and would become bogged down in southern Iraq.
That certainly wouldn’t be a bad thing.
And while all of this should be viewed with a skeptical eye, people have been saying for a while now that the only way Iraq is going to survive is if the country no longer exists. Saddam was one of the only things really holding the country together, and now that he’s gone we should just let nature take its course.
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 19th, 2007 and is filed under Foreign Policy, Iraq, Military, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Liberalism is Dead.
JFK, blown away, what else do I have to say?
July 19th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
If I thought we would have the wit to relocate into the Kurdish area (preferably averting a Turkish invasion there), I’d be a lot happier about the prospects for the future. If the US forces arriving put down the PKK, the Turks might (MIGHT) hold off — at least, if their internal political considerations don’t overwhelm everything.
I would also hope we would provide asylum to those low-level Iraqis who have been working for us (and are therefore at risk of their lives when we leave, even more than they are today). But nothing in current American politics makes me think we will do right by them when it come down to it.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
We don’t know what will happen, we have assessments and predictions as to likelihood of one scenario over another but in the end
we just don’t know.
We aren’t even sure how to withdraw our soldiers if that were inevitable. The U.S. has real worries about it oil interests in the “stable” Middle East countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. If we pull out will it only lead to a falling house of cards or will things only be localized to Iraq for the most part.
Then there is the power struggle. We are talking about Turkey versus the Kurds in northern Iraq. The Iranian Shiites against nationalistic Shiites in the south of Iraq. al Qaeda interests versus Sunni tribal interests in the west. Sunni on Shia dominated Baghdad. Shia on Sunni minorities in Al-Anbar. The possibilities are truly endless. We will likely see them all. And perhaps, some disastrous occurrence unforeseen.
So, what do we do? Do we stay for a decade, or two? Spend Trillions upon trillions of dollars to maintain a peace that is superficial and inevitably going to cost American lives in the 10s of thousands and serious casualties in the 100s of thousands?
Or, will Bush’s plan work to create a stable government, in which we will end up spending a trillion dollars anyway because it will take that long to create a stable government if it is possible at all anyway.
There really is no easy answer. If we stay it is going to cost us dearly. If we leave it is going to cost us dearly and perhaps then some. So? has anyone learned their lesson yet? Lol! we never do.
It’s the human condition. It’s funner to spend reams of money on death and destruction than health care, AIDS, hunger and poverty.
There just is no good plan. There’s the next president and his/her
inherited problem. That’s pray they have the wisdom to see us through it, successfully, as much as that is possible.
July 19th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
You were thinking about the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Baathists, the Islamic Republic of Iran, ect…when you said that, right?
July 19th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Jimmy, so you’re saying we should try to wipe out a tactic, right? Just so we’re clear, that’s what you’re proposing, correct?
July 19th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Jimmy the Dhimmi, that’s quite the laundry list of “bad guys” you pulled out there. Perhaps such a lengthy list of “boogie men” speaks more to our catostrophic failure at diplomacy in the Middle East and more to our inability to see the real political strife of this region.
For too long the United States has treated the Middle East as merely a gas station. We have supported regimes that are neither democratic or peace loving. It suited us just fine when Suddam Hussein was “cooperating” with Washington, but when the sunset honeymoon ended it was time to demonize Saddam like we have demonized the “other uncooperative” tyrants we have had close business deals with in the past.
You know, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t just treat an entire people like a mere side show to your ever increasing hunger for their resources and yet, support governments that marginalize them, persecute them and even torture them.
Fact is, the United States, Great Britain and even France and Russia are all to blame for the current condition this part of the world finds itself in. They all extracted, occupied and molded this region into whatever suited them best. Colonial possessions don’t come at no costs.
I sometimes wonder why it’s okay for us to support and finance a Pakistan that is being led by a military sitting head that gained power through a coup or why it is perfectly okay to allow Israel to possess WMD’s (nuclear weapons) but Iran is forbidden from them. I believe, you see, that these contradictions in our foreign policy in actuality hurt us, they don’t help us. We say we are a freedom loving people, yet we are occupying a sovereign nation under false pretexts. We torture people and don’t allow them to defend themselves.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t be an agressor and have the benefits of calling yourself the “leader of the free world.” People see beyond this window dressing. If you talk the talk you need to walk the walk. Remember during WW2 in our fight against the Japanese. We simply refused to torture prisoners of war, yet here we find ourselves engaging in it now.
You got to pick. Are we going to be the good guys that are unfortunately at a disadvantage because the high road demands that price, or are we going to take the shortcut and slap a little lip service on the way we “like to think we are.”
Honor and integrity are harder to win than short term success or agreeability.
July 19th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
You know, I still haven’t figured out which side you’ve chosen; the, “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty” position – or the realpolitik, negotiating with and appeasing “boogie men” in the name of stability.
You can’t just go around saying everybody else is a hypocrite and abrogate yourself from making a decision. So which is it? More diplomacy with terrorists and terrorist regimes, or aggressively persuing terrorists until they are destroyed or have no where to hide?
You have a point. Our soldiers often would line up enemy prisoners after a battle and shoot them in the head.
You forgot the Turks.
This is because you lack moral judgement.
It sounds like you support the removal of Saddam’s marginalizing and persecutory regime, while replacing it with a representative democracy that doesn’t treat its people like a mere side show. Are you some sort of neo-con or something? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
July 19th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
“So which is it? More diplomacy with terrorists and terrorist regimes, or aggressively persuing terrorists until they are destroyed or have no where to hide?”
Jimmy, by using the word terrorist you can effectively advocate the destruction of an entire people simply becuase they are “terrorists”. Are all Iraqi’s terrorist? Are even a majority of Iraqi’s terrorists? And what is your definition of terrorist anyway?
If someone invaded America tomorrow and started rolling down your streets with tanks and you took up arms against them, would you call yourself a terrorist? or perhaps a patriot? Or would you throw a parade for them and offer them chocolates?
“This is because you lack moral judgement.”
I see, it’s okay to own and possess nuclear weapons as long as your are an ally of the United States, but if you happen to fundamentally disagree with the United States or aren’t in our pocket then you are a “rogue regime” right?
It’s hypocritical for the U.S. to go about building a consensus of anti-nuclear proliferation but then allowing allies to possess them illegally. Never mind that India, a nonsignatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is unlawfully possessing nuclear weapons yet we the United States plan to help them acquire yet more nuclear technology. Never mind that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and they too are in unlawful possession of nuclear weapons but you hear nothing of this fact from the United States. Could it be that our respect for world law means nothing? and that we decide
who is and who isn’t “within” the boundaries of lawfullness?
You can’t realistically reward one law breaker and punish another based on the same violation of both.
Now, with that said, I don’t believe that we should have an Iran with nuclear capability, but I also don’t think we should have an Israel with them either, yet they do. Israel is a few hundred miles away from Iran. They pose a grave risk to Iran considering they own nuclear weapons. So? who are we to tell Iran to trust us? that they are safe? and that Israel “promises” not to use their weapons on Iran?
Again, by our contradictory foreign policy and our less than even application of standards to which all nations are supposed to adhere we have created a system of suspicion. Nations in direct violation of international law are unlawfully possessing nuclear weapons and the United States rewards them. Iran an actual signatory of the NPT is now on the United States shit list, yet they are more within the law than Israel or India are. So? why should Iran trust anything the United States says?
Personally, I’d like to see all nuclear weapons abolished, but that is never going to happen. The cat is out of the bag. Who took the cat out of the bag first? we did. Who used the cat for the first time on a human population? we did. Who still possess this cat? we do. Isn’t this all a little bit hypocritical? I mean, we possess them, our friends possess them but our enemies can’t? That is the definition of hypocrisy.
“It sounds like you support the removal of Saddam’s marginalizing and persecutory regime, while replacing it with a representative democracy that doesn’t treat its people like a mere side show. Are you some sort of neo-con or something? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
If America’s mission were to go about overthrowing the worlds tyrants we wouldn’t have to go too far. We have, after all been a wonderful patron to some of the worlds greatest tyrants. It’s interesting that this fact is lost on so many.
And concerning the dangers posed by Iran, it is true. The only problem is that now our military is nearly broken. We have 160,000 soldiers right next door and strategically have our hands tied behind our backs. If addressing Iran was of paramount importance perhaps we should have held off playing in the sandbox called Iraq. I suspect the invasion of Iraq was already decided before 9/11 and the opportunity too tempting for the neocons to resist.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
What an absolutely foolish strawman to create. How can anyone respond to this? All I can say is read my comments on Sean’s Post
No, If you are a fascist theocracy that openly states you are determined to wipe a nation of the map in “one single storm;” that you would sacrifice 2/3 of your own people to destroy said nation; that you openly support international terrorist groups with the ability and intent to use whatever means necessary to cause mass casualties, then you DO NOT deserve to possess nuclear weapons.
If you are a democratic state with a constitution that guarantees universal human rights and individual liberty for all citizens; that has the largest single ethinc minority citizenry of any nation in the world; that has no desire to destroy any other nation for religious reasons; that persecutes terrorists; that only wants to survive against an enemy which for 60 years has persisted with the goal to ethnically cleanse the region of your citizens – then you DO deserve to possess nuclear weapons as a deterrent to those who want to kill you simply because some medeival war manual claims it is their divine duty to do so.
If Israel or India has to violate the feckless NPT agreement because the IAEA has no teeth to enforce it against tyrants, dictatorships and terrorist regimes, then so be it. Their mere existence is at stake (I knew you don’t support the existence of Israel, but India too?).
Do you realize how idiotic that sounds? Have you every made a moral choice about anything in your life? Why do you even consider anyone an “enemy” in the first place? Liberal democracy is morally equivalent to an expansionist Sharia caliphate? Killing the killers of innocent people is morally equivalent to killing innocent people? Shouldn’t Mother Theresa go to jail, since Chalres Manson did? They are both humans, so they must be the same.
I get the impression that justice is not what you are interested in, rather, it seems that you seek consistancy. President Bush said himself: ““Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability…. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe…No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient.”
Is it OK for america to change? or does inconsistancy mean hypocrisy and therefore thats bad? Should we continue to prop up fascist dictators rather than punish them or pressure them to change their ways, simply becuase it is a more consistant policy through time?
I smell bullshit. There is no way you would advocate military action against Iran for any reason. Why do you have to play this game too?
Besides, we used nuclear weapons against Japan 50 years ago, why can’t Iran use nuclear weapons against Israel today? Its the same thing, right? Anything else would be hypocrisy.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Jimmy, we will have to agree to disagree then. I certainly don’t wish to see India or Israel or any other nation destroyed or wiped off the face of the earth. I’m fully aware of the statements that Iran’s president made about wiping Isarel off the map. It’s fanatical and unacceptable. However, I am not going to pretend that most Iranians are like this, when in fact, they are not.
My overriding point was that war is not the answer. Everyone has a right to protect themselves from undue harm. I don’t agree with Iran’s extremist stance but I also don’t agree with Israel’s “milking the holocaust.” Israel deserves to be a nation, but they do not deserve to take away Palestinian land and make settlements on it either.
Extremism in any form is wrong. I as an American that loves my country believe we are doing wrong by being in Iraq. We should have continued to legitimately chased down and fight al Qaeda, not invade a country under bullshit pretexts. I don’t care if al Qaeda is in Iraq, Iraq is not our country to use as a battle ground because it is convenient for us.
If Bush was smart he would have used the international consensus that the attacks on America on 9/11 were wrong and used international cooperation to find, persecute and bring international terrorists to justice. Instead he embarked on an extreme invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation without the consensus of the world.
I don’t advocate that America take attacks lying down, it’s convenient for people to accuse Americans against the war in Iraq of being defeatist or weak on terrorism. I couldn’t agree any less.
No American wants to see more attacks on our country, we just differ 1,000 degrees as to how to best protect our country. I don’t believe we’ve accomplished anything meaningful or lasting in Iraq,
actually, just the opposite.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
IF You look at this another way, Consider the Siege of Vienna about 500-700 years ago. These people of the Mid East, no matter what we do the ISLAMIC TRIBES AND GROUPS OF FRIENDS who WERE TOTALLY embarassed about getting their *****’s kicked out of that area, and the different rulers, kings, potentates or whatever you want to call them, have vowed that some day they will defeat all of the countries bordering on The Atlantic Ocean as they were insulted by the whipping they got. Additional point to think about, is the MASON, look at the symbols on their hats or swords etc. and that is their link to the Arabic Nations and are most likely surreptiously providing information to Iraq, Iran, and all of the rest of them
July 20th, 2007 at 11:06 am
I have a feeling that our friend CHARLIE BONGLE is a Ron Paul supporter.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
I tend to agree with Gary Anderson’s analysis, and almost with Justin’s.
But in the interest of not having a lot more innocent people killed, why not use the analysis and the military and the money to set up these divisions in advance, to minimalize conflict?
If the war and the results are predictable, why not just establish the results by fiat and skip the war?
July 20th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
u can start something n ever know how it ends
July 20th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
‘If we pulled out from Iraq’ is a very difficult sentence to complete. But of course that is why there’s all those analysis types to tell us how that sentence can be completed.
I support the idea of the US withdrawing their combat forces from Iraq. A lot of time has passed and only stories of violence and deaths has escalated with it. If combat forces are taken out, I hope that the US will support Iraq in other ways, to rebuild, to get to a point where violence isn’t a part of life (but seeing what has happened in our own country like in NO, I wonder if we even have the ability).
If we pull out, we pull out the military forces, but we cannot severe ties with Iraq.
July 20th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Jeremy, you are welcome in my house any time!