So what would happen if the U.S. withdrew completely from Iraq today?

[begin_within]

[goodhue]

1. celebrations in the street

eom

[jayfish]

2. The Same Thing That Is Happening Today...

just without the US casualties. A low-intensity civil war.

Jay

[dave123williams]

3. Nope; think free-for-all...it would be a pretty good shooting war, I think

[jayfish]

11. Waddaya Think It Is Now?

Small caliber weapons and RPG's. Maybe some mortars here and there. I call that low-intensity.

Jay

[Spacejet]

72. Bull shit

Most Iraqi's don't want to go around killing other Iraqis. (I know, hard to believe huh?)

[havocmom]

5. Actually, as all our people could not be pulled out in one day, look for

more casualties while troop numbers drop. Unless done very well and unless we are very lucky, the last guys out will be taking some serious risk.

After that, yeah, civil strife probably less violent than in many other places (not that it will be good).

edited to add: Look for a lot of locals to have accidents too. There will be spooks out 'cleaning up loose ends' and assuring that US politicians/top military brass don't have to worry about any Iraqis writing Kiss & Tell Books. That is probably SOP.

[jayfish]

12. A Little Deeper...

then I wanted to get, but it sounds about right.

Jay

[havocmom]

17. When one is considering actions involving troops' lives,

it can never get deep enough. Not thinking deep enough is what the malAdministration is guilty of and it cost thousands of lives/broken lives. They WILL protect their own asses. One hopes they will protect the troops' flanks as well.

[jayfish]

21. Agreed,

it was just deeper than I had time to get into. Sorry for any slight.

Jay

[wtmusic]

4. Status quo, with one major difference:

The war would be over in a year, as opposed to ten or twenty

[Padraig18]

6. Outright civil war, I suspect.

As bad as it is, it COULD be worse--- MUCH worse.

[goodhue]

18. Civil war: a new excuse for continued occupation?

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/020505Davies/020505davies.html

Commentary

Civil war: a new excuse for continued occupation?

By Nicolas J. S. Davies
Online Journal Contributing Writer

February 5, 2005—More and more Americans regret that we ever started the war in Iraq. Many of the government and media executives who sold us this war in the first place are now admitting that it was a serious mistake and some, like Richard Perle, have brazenly acknowledged that it is an outright violation of international law. (The Guardian, 11/20/03) What few of them will concede is that we now have any choice but to "stay the course" or to "win," whatever that may mean and whatever horrors it may involve. They insist that the alternative is unthinkable, and assert that Iraq minus U.S. occupation would quickly descend into "civil war."

Like "Weapons of Mass Destruction," "Liberation," and "Spreading Democracy" before it, preventing this hypothetical conflict is the new imperative for carrying on with the real one. Is there any rational basis for this, or are we once again confronting "inherent, even unavoidable institutional myopia" that makes "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy that is possible in official circles," as Gabriel Kolko put it so eloquently in Century of War?

* * *

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/020505Davies/020505davies.html

[KG]

60. news flash - an outright civil war already being waged.

[MadHound]

7. Probably much like Vietnam after we withdrew

There would be a short, sharp civil war, with a modicum of casualties, followed by peace and rebuilding. All done within a year.

And yes, this is a much better option than us continuing an illegal, immoral occupation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. The Iraqis would have their country back.

And, probably sort out their problems without our "help".

[jody]

9. IMO the more important question is what will happen if we don't withdraw?

More US death, more innocents killed by US forces, more massive destruction by US forces, increased hatred of the US by Muslims, and loss of prestige among second and third world countries.

[Coastie for Truth]

10. Just like after every war the US is involved in

massive wave of Iraqi immigration. Which might not be so bad - Iraqi/Palestinian cars (as in Fords) are good cars, and Ford's Iraqi/Palestinian engineers got an American Hybrid EV on the road before either GM or Chrysler --- and they haven't ruined U of M, MSU, Oakland U, Wayne, U of D, or Lawrence Tech.

Plus - we might get some upscale Middle Eastern restaurants.

As to what would happen in Iraq -- look at Yugoslavia or the the Asian Republics of the former USSR --- short period of real civil war followed by war lords playing "King of the Mountain" - eventually Iraq will break up along ethnic lines (but remember Post WW1 "Iraq" was a creation on a map of the WW1 victors anyway).

[LdyGuique]

13. I posted this as a sep topic -- US arming Sunni militias --

To head off this threat of a Shi'ite clergy-driven religious movement, the US has, according to Asia Times Online investigations, resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population to "nip the evil in the bud".

[IrateCitizen]

14. Civil War would be highly unlikely, IMHO

Western sources are overstating sectarian rivalries within Iraq, mostly in order to make the case for keeping US troops there. The reality on the ground, at least according to unembedded journalist Dahr Jamail in the most recent issue of The Nation, is that these concerns are greatly inflated. You can read the article at the following link: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050307&s=jamail

Jamail has been on the ground in Iraq for quite some time since the invasion, so he would know as well as anybody. Basically, it's radical elements in Iraq advocating sectarian violence, where the great majority of Sunnis and Shias have no desire to go to war, because they realize they're all Muslims.

Probably the only problematic group would be the Kurds. Especially with their claim to the oil-rich region of Kirkuk. But the Kurds would also have the Turks to contend with to the North, so I doubt they'd really want to have enemies to the South as well.

Those with the greatest interest in promoting the idea of a factional Iraq are those who want the occupation to continue. The reality on the ground seems to be much, much different.

[peace4all]

38. Those with the greatest interest in promoting the idea of a factional Iraq

are those who want the occupation to continue"

I think this is true

[ladjf]

15. We would start saving almost a billion bucks a day and no

further American troops would die. The Iraqiis would eventually sort out their political problems in one way or the other.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftHander]

19. Peace might breakout....

[Festivito]

20. Civil breakdown followed by theocratic control of elections.

Just my guess.

Crime and corruption are inbred. People will vote for whom they trust. The clergy will seem most detached from crime, past regime, U.S., and politics in general. They get elected. Elections may or may not continue. Or, perhaps continued in looks, just to keep the US from returning.

US will continue some control over oil. Will feed corruption to keep control. And, will desire to keep the corrupt bought zealots in power. Fixed elections will be spun as proof of PNAC's vision.

[applegrove]

22. You can't leave. You have to build up a secular army. Or you are crazy

[porphyrian]

23. We'd still be stuck with this piece of shit administration. - n/t

[chlamor]

24. $300 Billion of Destruction Would Depart-Leave now America

There would be an immediate and dramatic reduction in violence. Water facilities would be up and running within three months. Food and medicine donations would pour in from around the world. Iraqi agriculture would quickly reestablish itself sans Monsanto. Massive reparations would not be forthcoming from the criminals/murderers who invaded. War crime trials in the Hague for all involved in the last 14 years of genocide would not occur due do domestic and international cowardice. International observers would bear witness to destruction that seemed unimaginable. A small child would be born in a place called home.

Leave now America.

[Lone Pawn]

48. LOL. Aren't you optimistic.

[hack89]

25. The Sunnis would be crushed by the Kurds and Shia..

who would then either carve up the country or start a civil war

[WilliamPitt]

26. Let's see

The new 'government' would collapse overnight without protection from US troops. The Iraqi 'police force' and 'National Guard' would scatter to the four winds. The ranks of Sunni militias would swell, and be matched by the swelling ranks of Shia militias. The Kurds, fearful of losing their toe-hold in the north, would likewise ramp up.

A three-pronged civil war would break out. This could very well compel Iran to get fully involved on behalf of the Shia, and would likely get Turkey involved because a) They don't like the Kurds on their border, and b) They have long coveted the oil fields near Mosul.

Iraq would become the new international base of operations for terrorosim.

The already-underwhelming Iraqi oil industry would collapse, probably causing an oil shock that would tag the world economy right in the ass.

Eventually, the Shia would prevail in a civil war due to their larger numbers and the inevitable assistance from Iran. An extremist fundamentailst Shia government would be established, and we'll all be singing 'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss' regarding human rights violations.

Flip the script, however, and one can easily describe the long laundry list of problems that are on the table if US troops stay in Iraq.

Yep. Quite a bear trap we're caught in here. Thanks, George.

[IrateCitizen]

27. Don't know if that's necessarily the case, Will...

Did you read Dahr Jamail's recent column in The Nation? It addresses many of these issues. From the interviews he's done of Iraqis, he's painted a very different picture.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050307&s=jamail

[WilliamPitt]

28. I think

the average Iraqi, yes, wants peace and sees other Iraqis as Iraqis and Muslims first before the sectarian stuff gets involved. But we cannot forget that the Sunnis dominated that country violently for thirty years, and a decent portion of them do not relish the idea of being left to the tender mercies of the Shia majority they oppressed for so long. Conversely, a portion of Shia will want to tear off some skin to avenge their years under the boot.

The number of people acting violently in Iraq is comparatively small when held up to the whole population, but we've seen how much chaos that small number can create...and that's with 150,000 US troops on the ground. Remove that, and a lot of bad doors will burst open.

[IrateCitizen]

29. Then what do you make of this, from the above-linked article?

Dr. Wamid Omar Nadhmi, a senior political scientist at Baghdad University and a Sunni, believes any talk of division is an overreaction to past grievances.

"When we've had a society with no free flow of ideas, you get obsessions from certain groups and individuals," he explains on his porch overlooking the Tigris River in Baghdad. But Nadhmi believes that these are peripheral ideas that lack broad popular support. "Don't underestimate Iraqi patriotism, and don't overestimate sectarian divisions, because in the final analysis, Shia and Sunni are Muslims," he says, while Apache helicopters rumble low over the brown, muddy waters that separate his home from the concrete blocks demarcating the Green Zone.

Expressing a commonly held view in Baghdad, Professor Nadhmi says, "This civil war is only in the brain of the American decision-maker, and perhaps he himself is aware that there is no civil strife between Shia and Sunni, but to use it as a pretext."

After watching the black silhouettes of the helicopters grow smaller against the setting sun, he adds, "The Americans are actually saying, 'Let us stay in your country. Let us kill you, Iraqis, because we don't like you to kill each other.'"

Are you basing your opinion on primarily Western news reports, or is their a broader international outlook that leads you to believe this? Remember, the vast majority of violence in the country right now is primarily due to widespread resistance to the US occupation. Furthermore, I don't think that the Iraqi government would necessarily disintegrate post-election -- outside of people like the Iraqi Finance Minister who is essentially a US puppet being "eliminated".

[The Magistrate]

30. My View Is The Same As Mr. Pitt's, Sir

And it is based on a long view of the region's history. Iraq is not a natural nation, where even different elements are long accustomed to viewing one another as fellows together. It has generally been a border march between Turkish and Persian contenders, who exploited the disparate elements for advantage against the other. Its current boundaries are based on an Ottoman district, altered by the English, and in both cases, these were designed to ensure that if any element rose against the imperium, there would be local rivals eager to be loyal and suppress it, from their own animus against the rebels. The place has never been ruled from a center without systematic repression.

In short, it is pretty much a Middle Eastern Yugoslavia, and after the death of Tito, any number of comments about how the old rivalries had dispersed, and how the ordinary citizens were peaceful, were made by sincere and well-meaning people. They were not borne out by events. It is not necessary that even a majority of the ordinary citizens desire a civil war for one to break out. It requires only determined bands of fanatics, willing to do themselves what is necessary to establish a state of fear, and the consequent hostility that widespread fear always produces. There is a more than sufficient supply of those at present.

None of this is an argument for continued U.S. occupation. It is true enough that elimination of Hussein's government loosed these possibilities, but the continuation of U.S. occupation will not quell them. U.S. forces in occupation become merely one faction, which some factions seek to use to achieve their ends against the others.

[WilliamPitt]

31. What he said

[chlamor]

34. The British

Lord Curzon and Co. had no right to invade. The U.S. has no right to be there. It's a simple matter of leaving a home where you are not welcome. What happens when you depart? Noone knows for sure, but in this case it could not be worse for the people in that land. I think the West and their never ending sense of self importance indulges in the notion that the 'tribes' will slaughter each other if we don't stay (and continue to slaughter).

[Lone Pawn]

47. Hey, remember when we left Africa all at once without

setting up stable governments, assuming that the 'tribes' would figure things out okay? Yeah. That was a fucking lovely idea, wasn't it. Or to what do you ascribe the genocide that's been endemic to the entire continent since decolonialization?

[chlamor]

61. Legacy of colonialism

:think:

[Blue Wally]

64. Tell me how then

Finland was colonized for over a thousand years, first by the Swedes then by the Russians. Norway was colonized for five hundred years, first by the Danes, then by the Swedes. Latvia was colonized for four hundred years, was free for a bit, then colonized again. All of these nations quickly created somewhat stable governments upon achieving independence. Most African nations were colonized for less than one hundred years.

[Karenina]

68. Guess dem Africans

and others of varying hues, just ain't up to the task, eh? :shrug:

[Blue Wally]

69. Koreans didn't do too badly

At least South Korea. They really didn't have much to work with either. Singapore has to be the star for a non-white society quickly recovering from the evils and travails of colonialism. Malaysis has also done well. Despite a great convulsion, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos are digging out. The Phillipines and Indonesia may make it. The only true basket case would be Burma.

India and Bangladesh are moving ahead despite severe population handicaps. Pakistan, Iran, and the Arab world are facing a severe religious/social crisis but there is hope. Ditto the various ex-Soviet "stans".

African nations haven't produced much of a track record yet.

[Blue Wally]

63. Overpopulation

So long as there was enough to go around, there was no friction. If the African nations could go to Zero Population Growth, they wouldn't strain their resources so badly. In Jared Diamond's (Guns, Germs, and Steel) latest book "Catastrophe" he points out that genocide and disease are two of nature's ways of correcting for populations which have outrun their resources.

[rhite5]

66. Wrong. Africa has valuable resources, some still untapped.

Corporations (International) are finessing for control of those resources.. They benefit from the upheavals going on. And they get plenty of help from the CIA to keep things in upheaval.

Also AIDS is decimating Africa.

[Blue Wally]

67. Yes

But they aren't the kind of resources which feed the people. The resources are also quite localized. Nigeria has oil, Zimbabwe has chrome, South Africa has gold, diamonds, and coal. Katanga province of the Congo is also a small concentrated source of resources. Many countries in Africa are totally without resources other than quickly deteriorating agriculture. Grisly as it is, AIDS may be nature's way of correcting for the over pressure on the food chain.

[Blue Wally]

62. Read some history

Iraq was a part of the Ottoman Empire, which chose to go to war with the British and French as a part of the Central Powers (Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary) primarily over the Brits taking over two battleships building in Britain for thew Turkish Navy. Being in a declared war with Turkey, Britain quite rightly invaded Turkey, one of arms of the invasion going through what is now Iraq.

At the end of the War, Britain and France carved up the Central powers' empires between them. Just as they shared out the German's African colonies between themselves, they also shared out the Ottoman Empire's Arabian colonies. The Kurds in Paris in 1919 made a reasonable pitch for a Kurdish state under French "mandate". The Brits coveted the oil in the Kurdish areas and demanded that the major part of Kurdistan be included in Mesopotamia/Iraq. Woodrow Wilson, piqued at French instransigence in some other matters sided with the Brits and the Kurds were screwed.

[chlamor]

71. "Shared out colonies?"

A very loaded phrase. On another matter concerning Africa the Congo has the world's largest reserve of arguably the most valuable mineral in the world at the moment-Coltan. Coltan is invaluable to the high tech industry used in cell phones, satellites, high-tech armaments etc. The coltan trade is fueling the civil war and as expected you would find western interests reaping big profits. The yoke of colonization is still upon the people in Africa, let us not forget the external debt levied by the US controlled IMF-World Bank which holds these nations in hoc.How nations who have been victims of colossal banditry purportedly owe the thieves one can only imagine, though you don't have to imagine it.

A bit of history:

In 1917, British forces invaded Mesopotamia and occupied Iraq, making it a British Mandate. Rebel­lions against the British in Iraq were put down by systematic aerial bombardment, the first time in his­tory such tactics were used. lt would not be the last. The borders that define Iraq today, along with the borders of most other Middle Eastern nations, were drawn arbitrarily by the British and the French in the early part of the century. These men who carved up the territory knew nothing of and cared little for the tribal connections that are the cultural essence of the Middle East.
In 1921, the British Colonial Office drew a new line in the Sand, carving a border across southern Iraq to create the nation of Kuwait. This was done to de­prive Iraq of access to the Persian Gulf. Seventy years later, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he claimed the little nation state was always part of Iraq. When considering the British penchant for drawing and redrawing maps in the region, there appears to have been merit to his claim, if not to the actions it precipitated.

1932

Iraq a sovereign state

In 1932, Iraq was a recognized sovereign state and joined the League of Nations. The king remained a British creation, however. It was here the chaos that has dominated modern Iraq truly began.
American policy in the Middle East, a policy that has existed to this day, a policy that has played an enor­mous part in the recent history of the region, can be summed up succinctly in the words of famed US. State Department official George Kennan, when in 1948 he said,

"The US. has about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and re­sentment. Our real task in the coming period is to de­vise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day­dreaming, and our attention will have to be concen­trated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living stan­dards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

The years between 1963 and 1968 were chaotic for Iraq. Another CIA-aided coup overthrew Quassim, and the Ba'athist party briefly took control of the na­tion. In 1968, Saddam Hussein helped lead another re­volt, which made General Ahmed Hassan Bakr leader of Iraq. The Ba'ath Party was in control for good, and Hussein was named vice president. From this posi­tion of power, Hussein developed a vast network of secret police, designed to root out and destroy dissi­dents.

General Bakr nationalized Iraqi oil in 1972. Presi­dent Richard Nixon immediately began to plot the re­versal of this declaration, as America had done when Iran nationalized its oil in 1951.

In the aftermath of this upheaval, American Na­tional Security Advisor Zbignew Brzezinski publicly encouraged Iraq to attack Iran and take back the Shatt-al-Arab waterway. With the Ayatollah in control of Iran, Soviet influence in that nation increased dra­matically. The "Carter Doctrine" was established in I980, stating that America would intervene militarily in the region to assure its access to the oil. In that same year, Saddam Hussein's armies invaded Iran, in­stigating a ruinous war that lasted for eight long years. The invasion was prompted as much by Amer­ican urging as it was by Hussein's dislike for Islamic fundamentalism and his desire to control Iranian oil.

[Locut0s]

32. The insurgents would set up a theocracy, which is the same..

thing that's going to happen anyways so...

[Lone Pawn]

33. Collapse.

Qihu'nanxia--Chinese proverb meaning "Once on a tiger, it is difficult to get off."

Our forces are quite literally the only thing keeping the Sunnis remotely penned in--you see, the Sunnis are just as afraid of the incoming Shi'a theocracy as they are of abusive US power. We leave, the insurgents keep fighting, but this time it's against the Shi'a. Now, the Shi'a have relied on US forces to keep the Sunnis more or less on the defensive, so with the exception of the Mahdi, the Shi'a really don't have a defense yet--the army may be better equipped, but the Sunnis are quite capable of simply shattering Shi'a morale with acts of viciousness, as they have repeatedly proven. The Kurds will likely keep to themselves, then volunteer to one side with hopes of getting a free Kurdistan--which would immediately cause the Turks to give substantial aid to the "other" side. Right now it looks like the Kurds are friendlier with the Shi'a--although the Kurds are Sunni themselves, they've had a bad run with Sunni governments around them. At the same time, you're an idiot if you think that Iran won't sponsor hardline Shi'a jihadis, and you're equally blind if you think Saudi Arabia won't channel money into Sunni coffers--a Shi'a Crescent from Syria to Iran would truly destabilize the region. And so you have a pan-Islamic war of proxy in Iraq. All thanks to Mr. Bush's hasty invasion and your proposed hasty disengagement.

My take on it, at least.

[chlamor]

35. 14 Years of US Assault on Iraqi People is Enough

[Lone Pawn]

36. Yes, we fucked up Iraq. I don't understand how that means

anything I said was incorrect.

[chlamor]

37. Noone Knows

for sure what will happen if the US troops were to leave. I think we have to defer to what the Iraqi people want, which even the Pentagons poll stated 90% wanted troops out. I think, as was referred to in an earlier post, that the case for internal violence is overstated as it serves the purposes of the West. It would be naive to suggest that their would be no violence but by definition of removing massive amounts of weaponry (US military) out means less killing and especially if we look at long term effects with the use of Dep. Uranium, cluster bombs, chemical-napalm type weapons etc. we would see diminished destruction.
I suppose it is a moot point as the US will be remaining in completed bases near pipelines and economic conditions will be so harsh that a mad scrabble for the bones will ensue. It is a deplorable situation that can only be resolved by US departure, International aid agencies and Iraqi sovereignty as I see it.

[Lone Pawn]

40. The United States in no manner has to defer to what the Iraqi people want.

We have to defer to what the Iraqi government wants. Any government will want the US military to stay--think about it. If the insurgents only want the US to leave, why the fuck are they blowing up Shi'a civilians? By the way, "the case for internal violence being overstated" is quite frankly only the opinion of one man in Baghdad--no more valid than the opinion of one man in Washington, and quite conceivably less valid. Some men in Washington--especially the State department--predicted this situation far more accurately than any of our insider-view Iraqis could.

Removing US munitions would not affect the current situation one iota. The Iraqi army is theoretically capable of inflicting the same amount of destruction on an unarmed foe as ours does when it engages rebel Iraqis.

Anyway, I would like to know how pulling out would *not* lead to the situation I detailed in the post you responded to using emotional-appeal pictures.

[chlamor]

43. It's their house

time for the unwelcome guest to pack up and leave.

[Lone Pawn]

46. While a nice turn of phrase,

it really isn't accurate. If we were to leave, things would get worse in Iraq. Do you really want to plunge Iraq into civil war just because the Sunnis want us to leave so they can shoot the Shi'a and the Shi'a want us to leave so they can create their theocracy?

Slight exaggeration, true, but that's what both sides will aim for once we leave.

[BeFree]

39. Let's trade

We give Iraq Commander Bunnypants, plus all the congresscritters who voted for the invasion and occupation, and Iraq declares they have no WMD. That's a fair trade, eh?

For all the talk about what would happen in Iraq it must be said that the cradle of civilization reposes in that land, and if we leave them be they will find a way through the mess, or they won't.

The only reason we are there is because they have some oil. If we can't do business with them and fairly buy the oil, then we are the failures, not them.

It is our problem that we need their oil, let us fix our own damn problems and leave the poor innocent Iraqi's alone, instead of making them pay for our problems.

[Lone Pawn]

41. Are you mad?

if we leave them be they will find a way through the mess, or they won't.

Such casual fatalism. I thought we were supposed to be the ones who actually cared about the fate of Iraq.

Anyway, if we were to leave now, we wouldn't be able to buy the oil, but not because they wouldn't sell it. They'd love to sell it. It would be because every single pipeline would be turned into a blowtorch within a week of our leaving. The US military is incapable of defending the oil infrastructure adequately. The Iraqi military is even less capable.

[BeFree]

42. Mad as a hornet

That we invaded them and killed thousands of them for no good reason. Yes, I am mad. Who the fuck do you think you are that you should go to Iraq and tell them what to do?

Are you purely interested in the oil? Is that all that concerns you?

Look, before we invaded the pipelines were fine. They will be fine once we leave.

Funny how Saddam kept the oil flowing, but the big bad US is having problems, eh?

[Lone Pawn]

45. You're angry that we killed thousands,

and yet you imply that you don't care what happens afterward?

Look, I'm against this fucking war. We never should have let it happen. It was stupidly concieved, immorally introduced, and terribly run. But I also recognize that we've made things very bad in the region, and Iraq quite simply has been weakened to the point where it can no longer keep itself remotely secure.

And I brought up the oil because you did. You said "let us leave and buy oil." I said "we couldn't even do that because the oil will not be there."

On that note, Saddam kept the oil flowing by keeping the nation in martial law. The US is barely keeping the nation intact by imposing martial law. How on Earth do you think the Iraqi government will be able to hold Iraq together lacking the military strength to impose martial law?

[BeFree]

52. So your solution is:

We stay there forever. That's plain dumb.

You seem to think they can't govern themselves. I think they will figure it out without our martial law.

Who the hell are you to tell them what to do?

Besides, the oil has been there a long, long time, and it will be there for a long time to come. We are the problem because we need their oil NOW, and we have made them suffer for our problem. And you want it to continue? Who's mad? Not me.

[Lone Pawn]

54. No, my solution is

to stay there until their military has proven itself capable of holding local and national monopoly of power. We do this by slowly withdrawing over the next three years, subject to lengthening if things turn sour.

You know who we are to tell them what to do? Our rifles are, like it or not, the only thing keeping a lid on the country. Our presence is the only thing keeping Iran as low-key as it is, and keeping the Saudis out altogether.

The war was never about the oil. The oil made it easier to sell to Bush. The WMD made it easy to sell to idiots, as did Saddam=Evil. The war is about long-term geopolitical gain. It failed. But to leave at this point would to make it a worse failure.

Look, I don't like the position we're in. I don't like playing policeman. But if we don't, more people will die. I don't want to continue. I just recognize we have to.

[BeFree]

57. Well, you are wrong.

You are saying they can't govern themselves unless they have a strong military. I say, we will never know unless we give them a chance. We pulled out of Nam and what happened? Peace. All the people who said it would domino were wrong, you may be wrong now, eh?

Ah, but Americans have always wanted to be the world's policemen, and you are buying into that desire. That's the difference between you and me, I want to leave the world alone and be left alone, and you want to police everyone else.

Give peace a chance. Let's fix our own damn problems. Your way leads to utter destruction, my way leads to a chance we may yet be able to evolve into even higher beings. I fear your side will win.

[Blue Wally]

65. Yes, peace

We pulled out of Nam and what happened? Peace. All the people who said it would domino were wrong, you may be wrong now, eh?


Yes, peace. The peace of the grave. Peace for us and hell for the Vietnamese. Tell it to the boat people. Tell it to my wife's family members who were murdered or starved to death in the 1975-1980 period. Petain and vichy France got peace as well even with Hitler.

[BeFree]

70. I feel for all those who suffered

But you must simply ask: What good did we do in Vietnam?

And how many more would have died if we were still there fighting?

There has never been, and will never be true justice when it's only enforcement comes at the end of a gun barrel.

Justice can be sustained when there is peace with equality. America's global justice, when military force is it's chief weapon, fails miserably and a semblance of justice returns only after our military influence is gone. Historically speaking.

[chlamor]

44. Amen

[simcha_6]

49. I thought it had to do with the Euro

[simcha_6]

50. Eventually a civil war

It would probably spread to Turkey and maybe even Shi'a areas in Saudi Arabia.

By the way, just curious. Anyone here for Kurdish independence?

[BeFree]

55. Maybe, maybe not

Besides, if that's what they want, who the hell are we to intrude?

Look, if it wasn't for the oil, we would hardly pay any attention to their war. But since we need their oil we invade. It was wrong. Are yall saying two wrongs will make it right?

I tell ya, I'm a pacifist, but if I lived over there I think I'd be fighting you until the day you left my home.

Through this whole thread there have been no alternative solutions proffered but the one that we stay. That's sheer lunacy.

Iraq: Love it or leave it. Let's leave it, and bring our attention home where we have a whole host of problems needing immediate attention.

[FreedomAngel82]

51. They would stop fighting?

I think so anyways. That's what they want. They want us to leave. But of course Bush is so freakin clueless and stubborn he can't see it.

[Lone Pawn]

53. The hardcore Shi'a want a theocracy.

The hardcore Sunnis want to get back in power.

They both want us to get out of the way.

[Cleita]

56. I wonder if they would be invaded by another country like

Iran or Syria? They would be wide open. With Saddam there at least they were safe from invasion except by us.

[rhite5]

58. The American Propaganda Machine has done a good job on a lot ot people at

DU it seems! I am surprised.

What we are hearing is the old Imperialism argument. "White Man's Burden" it's up to "advanced" Western civilization to keep the "savages" from killing each other.

The Brits said this to justify hanging on to India. Other Western European countries and the U.S. said this to justify messing up Africa while stealing valuable resources (including slaves). And of course America said this while it decimated the Native Americans.

If we can't quite sell the idea that a nation we want to control is populated by savages, we let the CIA infiltrate the countries and keep things stirred up.(Central and South America). For Africa we use both methods.

Besides we Americans are in NO position to tell or even teach any other country how to organize its affairs (government and industry). Our own systems are broken. We all know this, don't we?

<edited for omitted word>

[chlamor]

59. bingo

I'm stupified at how the 'Civil War' myth has taken hold in so many circles. Your post is spot on. What a spin. Thank you for your post.