What if the Americans pull out of Iraq?

[Rick_Von_Maester]

I was having a talk with an Arab in my work place this morning, and we got into talking about the situation in Iraq. He talked about how the Americans are getting beaten up in Iraq, and how if this continues that sooner or later the Americans will leave Iraq. I asked him about Britain, and other coalition countries that are in Iraq. He waved me a dismissive hand and said, if Bush pulled his troops out of Iraq others will follow just as quickly.

So here is my question, if Bush (or who ever comes after him) decides to pull their troops out of Iraq, what would the rest of the coalition forces do?

[Jon]

I dont reckon they should be pulled out and replaced by UN troops (which would happen if they did). Why should other countries send in thier troops to suffer because American civilians want thier boys to be safe.

[Sisyphus]

It's not IF it's when. And the result of 'free and fair' elections will be a Shia-led fundamentalist Islamic state. Democracy doesn't work for everyone.

So if the Iraqis democratically vote for an Islamic state what do Bush and Blair do then?

[USARMY_]

Please explain how the "Americans" are being beaten up?

[Spannerman]

if the USA hadn't 'invaded' in the first place they or others would not have needed to withdraw, the whole thing is a shambles, the Yanks had a strategy for war but not one for peace

[Jon]

It's not IF it's when. And the result of 'free and fair' elections will be a Shia-led fundamentalist Islamic state. Democracy doesn't work for everyone.

So if the Iraqis democratically vote for an Islamic state what do Bush and Blair do then?

If they wont an Islamic state, then let them. Isnt that what deomcracy is for? To give them the choice and not make it our choice?

However, I think that the only possible solution is to break Iraq into 3 main sectors - one for Kurds, one for Sunnis and one for Shias. Either group wont want what the others want - but then again, except for the Kurds who want an independant Kurdistan, many Iraqis wont want to see Iraq broken up.

Its a very difficult decision - let the West sort it out for them - certainly not democratic and certainly not safe. We need to assist them, not order them.

[Spannerman]

'Let the West sort it out for them' John, what like we did after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? Carve it up, a bit for Kuwait, a bit for Saudi, a bit for Turkey, abit for Syria and Jordan and a bit for Iraq like we did in the 1920's, the Kurds and the Turks won't get on, The Sunni's won't get on with the Shia's, a diplomatic Political nightmare for the West to sort out, what a load of bolleaux!

[Frank S.]

I think most failings can be traced back to the CPA which still remains bunkered down in Baghdad's green zone.
Seems to me the administration picked the wrong people for its civilian reconstruction effort, Bremer being a counter-terrorism expert. As an aside, David Kay's PhD is in foreign relations, not in some scientific discipline maybe more adapted to weapons inspections.
The CPA has virtually no presence in Iraq's 18 provinces, and it is the military who has to shoulder administrative responsibilities for them, at times butting heads with the 'distant' CPA.
Before his death in the UN compound bombing, Sergio Viera de Melho had some success in establishing dialogue with Sistani and other Iraqi leaders, something Bremer failed at.
So did the UN have it right and should they take over? Not necessarily.
But the CPA, Bremer and the IGC have in effect replaced Saddam and are not dealing with Iraqis openly.
In point of fact most of the successes in Iraq can be attributed to the military, but similarly most of the failures get blamed on them, unfairly in my opinion.

[Andy O'Pray]

However, I think that the only possible solution is to break Iraq into 3 main sectors - one for Kurds, one for Sunnis and one for Shias. Either group wont want what the others want - but then again, except for the Kurds who want an independant Kurdistan, many Iraqis wont want to see Iraq broken up.

[/quote]

I believe that I have written this somewhere before. Prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire there was no such country as Iraq, it was three separate provinces. There was a country called Kurdistan. Through their infinate wisdom the British and French decided to re-arrange the Middle East in their own interests and install their puppet rulers.

Western democracy is completely foreign to Islamic countries, where their religion is very much a part of their daily lives and government. Regardless of what type of government the coalition tries to force upon Iraq, it will revert to what they want. The great danger is that a civil war will break out. The majority Shi'ites would be supported by Iran. The Turks are very nervous about an upsurge of Kurdish independance and would throw their weight into the conflict. The Sunni's, who have held power ,albeit they were in the minority, would be fighting for their very existance.

For those who want an entertaining history on the Middle East of the time, watch, or re-watch carefully "Lawrence of Arabia" as there was a lot of truth brought out in that film.

Aye - Andy.

[Frank S.]

I think a civil war is likely. It looks as though we are betting on the Kurds, who are seen as having attributes we like, toughness, leadership and especially appear friendly to the West, despite still having misgivings about how the first Gulf War ended.
It's unclear what we'll do about the Sunnis, but language is revealing as they are reffered to as a 'sect', whereas Kurds and Shia'as are 'peoples'.
Also unclear is what Turkey's reaction would be. Call upon its NATO partners, or pull out of it..?
What is the most expidient alternative for the US to extricate itself?

[USARMY_]

Come now, we all know what the solution is. To engage and kill the enemy, where ever they are and no matter how many they are. But this will never happen.

I'm curious to see how things turn out in June? when The Coalition turns over the country back to the Iraqis.

[Frank S.]

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=22214

Kurds, about 15-20 percent of the Iraqi population of some 24 million, are the majority in the north. They allied themselves with the US.-led invasion coalition last year. They have been administering the area under protection of an air umbrella provided by U.S. and British forces since the 1991 Gulf war.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has praised theirs as "model" administration.

Before the United States pulls out, they want their gains formalised in a new Iraq. "Our gains are irreversible," Iraqi Kurdish leader Necirvan Barzani told the Turkish Daily News. "We cannot return to a situation where we were several years ago."

Kurd leaders have proposed an Arab-Kurd federation, with Shia Arabs ruling the south and Kurds the north.

"Kurds have the right to self-determination," UK-based Kurdish leader Siamand Banna said Monday. He said the federation proposed by the Kurds would be "within a unified Iraq" and that the oil wealth of Kirkuk in the north would be shared with Arabs in the south.

There is opposition to such plans both within and outside Iraq.

Non-Kurdish people in the north oppose the Kurd proposal. These include Sunni Arabs pushed up north during Saddam Hussein's "Arabisation" drive and Turkmens, a minority of Turkish stock. For Kirkuk city the Kurds are proposing a special administration with representation from all minorities.

If the United States carries the trump card, it has not made its position clear yet. During Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's visit to Washington last week, President George W. Bush and Powell said only that the unity of Iraq would be maintained, without elaborating.

Erdogan says the Kurdish proposal is "unhealthy" and is likely to destabilise the region. Turkey, Iran and Syria have their own Kurdish minorities and fear that an independent Kurdistan or an autonomous one within a loose Iraq federation may spark similar demands by Kurds elsewhere.

But Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz told Turkish television that any federation in Iraq would be based on geography, not ethnicity.

The remark by Wolfowitz is being interpreted as a sign that the U.S. Administration sees Turkey again as a strategic Middle East partner more vital than its debt to Iraqi Kurds for their unflinching pro-U.S. stand.

Turkey had refused to join the invasion of Iraq, denying coalition forces a northern front against the forces of Saddam Hussein, and placing a 50-year U.S.-Turkish partnership in jeopardy. The coalition forces linked up with Iraqi Kurds in taking over the north.

Wolfowitz now says of U.S.-Turkish relations: "Our strategic partnership has changed, military relations of course do exist but the new strategic partnership is not based on a military field but rather on democracy and politics."

Turkish commentator Mehmet Ali Birand says Bush has a "greater Middle East project" and "at the heart of this project lies an objective to achieve transition to democracy in Middle Eastern countries. And precisely from this perspective, Turkey is now the new favourite of the Bush administration."

[Whitey]

If we leave Iraq we go bankrupt worse than we are. If we leave we leave a potential disaster ground for the Izzies.
Are we losing, guess it is all on your perspective, question is what are we winning?

[BenChug]

Just prior to the war Turkey was threatening to invade Iraq, this would prevent the Iraqi Kurds from forming 'Kurdistan,' which the Kurds from southern Turkey would no doubt try and join despite the on going civil war in Turkey. Would Turkey attack any 'Kurdistan' I find it unlikely although the conflict while most likely diplomatic could have enough bone in it to cause alot of problems for NATO.

My 2 pennies I'm off to hockey.

[Whitey]

US Army
What exactly do in the Army? You like Military.com (Group hug)?
I didn't like it, its just a front for the KOBE organization. Dissenter watch central. I like it here because folks can be rational and not let patriotism(state worship) cloud facts.

Frank and Wholley are Americuns so they can or you for that matter can call me on what you think is BS. Another cool site you'd probably like is The Grunt, it is a badge chasing ticket punching paradise.

The military is behind me now, I got no urge to cover for its screw ups, never did. We aren't going to win(what ever that is) in Iraq. Most people don't even understand or know our goals other than free the Iraqi people. Thing is you can't hand freedom to people who don't know what freedom is. We tried that in Vietnam, Haiti Afgahnistan and look at those places now, even in the Stans the bad men are making a come back.
America needs to return to being a Free Republic, much like Rome needed to do the same. Empires never last, and when you lose them you lose everything. I guess America has a short memory, forgot what war was like, and in this war there are no fronts, vague objectives and obscure leaders on the home and vistitor team.
Do we anniahlate a people to "Win"? Do we feed men at a rate of 1 a day to the cause, what exactly is the cause? WMD?, Freedom? Oil? I've heard so much stuff I don't know anymore. One thing is for sure, until the congressmen send their kids, mine won't go.
Hessians of the New World Order\Aka Globalization. I've been a Petty Officer and a Sgt. Looking back what was the point? The oligarchy got richer and I got a sunburn and arthritis, and the world is in worse shape today than when I found it.
I say we leave the world be, I believe in the war however in Afgahnistan and against OBL but wtf was Iraq?
Saddam would have been a better bedfellow than these merlin the religious generals we are coercing now. Oh well its the big PX right, go buy some shit and make yourself feel better and a _ew richer. I guess I'd better quit before I get a lecture on the Holocaust ® from some anti-semite watchdawg!