U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq does not lead to stability

Post Reply New Topic

OK, I realize the following map is not the most elaborate or well-made, but I need it to try to argue what I intend to argue.



Many people appear to be of the opinion that if the United States, United Kingdom simply "got out" out Iraq the situation would improve. However I believe that a premature withdraw from Iraq would have a disastrous outcome not just for the Iraq, the Middle East, but potential for the entire world.

First off, even if one opposes the war (or war generally) leaving Iraq immediately will not end it. In fact, it will likely intensify it by many times. If Iraq security forces are not able to confront and destroy the insurgent and terrorist groups* then of course the war will continue. The fighting will draw in further forces. Iran is currently funding both sides in the conflict as a way to hurt Western moral and drive the Americans out. Saudi Arabia has stated they will send in forces to protect the Sunnis should the United States leave. Iran already has forces "secretly" in the country, and will doubtlessly increase that amount as a counter to any forces sent in by other Middle Eastern governments. It is likely that Jordan and Kuwait will also counter Shi'a Iran. Syria is currently allied to Iran (they switched from allying with Saddam's Hussein's Iraq to the Ayatollah's Iran; they back the big boy on the block) so what they do is difficult to tell precisely. They appear to have regional interests in mind rather then religious ones (the Bathist party still rule in Damascus), and they will likely wish to get a return of control over their former puppet Lebanon.

Turkey could also get involved. They have already been making noise about moving into Kurdistan due to terrorist attacks conducted by the PKK, which claims part of southern Turkey as a homeland for the Kurds. The PKK gets a portion of it's funds as support from Kurds in Iraq. Should the United States withdraw it's large army presence entirely from the country suddenly the Turks could feel that they don't have to worry, as the Japanese militants once said, about the "paper tiger" Americans.

Finally, Iran is currently in the process of an active nuclear program. While officially denying it is for the purpose of developing a bomb, the way President Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah Khamenei when speaking in Farsi rather then English is hardly convincing. Both Saudi Arabia and Jordan have spoken of starting their own atomic programs due to worries about the Iranians. It has been an open fact that Israel has had the bomb since the 1950s, but with the exception of Saddam Hussein's (thankfully) bombed out effort in the early '80s no power attempted to match them. The reason for this is obvious: Israel has no reason to use it's arsenal for any reason except as a deterant in the event of a first strike (that could very well wipe them off the map). The United States., under the Bush administration has pledged to retaliate in the event of such a strike. Iran's President's apocalyptic talk raise great worries. There is hope that the mullah's are convinced that his strategies are falling and are pushing the present "moderates" as a counter. However withdrawing an army of the most greatest superpower in the world would sent a message of incredible weakness to a country whose leaders chant, "Death to America" and declare it their mission to wipe Israel off the map.

*I did say insurgent and terrorist group. Normally I would group them together because of their tactics. However in this case I wanted to provide an excuse for this note. Recently in Iraq, coalition forces found that al-Qaida forces in that country were plotting to attack the United States itself. An early withdraw from Iraq could potentially leave these elements in place.

What is your solution for the future of how we deal with Iraq? How do you know that this situation isn't an inevitability?

1. I am not a military expert and I do not run administration affairs. However withdrawing is not an acceptable solution as it almost certainly would lead to chaos (including an increased likely hood to terrorist attacks and the United States and essentially everybody else). Some things I would encourage would be: increasing the size of the military (I mean this not just in the case of the United States, but Canada and Europe as well) so that we are capable to deal with possible alternative problems in the future (like Iran suddenly announcing they have the bomb or sudden action by North Korea against South Korea or China against Taiwan). Additionally, while the surge MIGHT be the right strategy it must be combined with a crackdown on the militias (ie: al-Sadr). This raises the possible of short term strife, but the current mess in Bagdad must be brought under control if Iraq is to function. The administration seems to be headed in this direction, and I recommend they continue.

This may mean bringing pressure on the Iraqi government that seems unfair considering the fact they are a sovereign country, but they have to be reminded that if we pull out they could very well collapse, or be toppled.

2. Those who propose withdraw must be expected to have proposals of how to deal with the aftermath. Just complaining about how bloody Iraq is and how bad George Bush is does not make the situation less complicated on the future any less potentially blooded. These are SERIOUS matters. If we pull out, we very well may not only a real civil war (one that involves the whole country not a few cities), but a proxy regional war on our hands (including one racing to acquire nuclear weapons).

An example of one thing "withdrawal now" people should ask themselves: Do you want to simply withdrawal from Kurdistan? Are we simply going to abandon the most advanced and westernized area of the country? Why not leave some troops there as a way of pressuring the Turks not to get involved? Also we should be doing more to stop the PKK from getting support from inside Iraq itself.

"George Bush Vietnam" Ted Kennedy aka a murderer. Is George 'Dumbya' Bush speech tonight?

Guys, your plans are too complicated. You know there's always nukes....

The State of the Union is at 9:00PM, Eastern Standard Time. I believe it is likely the President will spend a majority of the speech on domestic policy issues. I do believe that President Bush must spend more time giving public speeches addressing Iraq policy. He has had poor public relations strategies since the beginning of the war, even acknowledging a largely hostile press.

Last edited by jimservo on 23 Jan 2007, 7:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

this is very true, apparently both iran and north korea have some in the works, and of course there are a few unacounted for from the legacy of soviet russia. so there is hope for us yet...

From ynet.com:

(source link)

We need it understood that this man's policies do not and will not work. Sanctions are hurting Iran, but if we withdraw it will be understood that the United States is WEAK. This is not only about whether you like George Bush, or you like the United States, or you think it is too powerful, or you want peace. There is a lot more going on then that.

Iran is funding both sides of the fighting in Iraq. Both Sunni and Shi'a. Right now they are not so much in it for religious reasons as simply to get us to withdraw.

Unfortunately, I remain pessimistic. Maybe not as pessimistic as a month ago (before the "surge") but still pessimistic.

Last edited by jimservo on 23 Jan 2007, 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think we could do well to take some of the military out if we could convince international peacekeeping forces to take on the roll, and perhaps hire private military corporations (mercenaries) to train Iraqi security forces. MPRI would be a great pmc, it's an american pmc composed of former green berretts (meaning theyr trained to train our smaller allies in self defense). I do think we need a good conversion strategy, and perhaps a good bargaining chip for the UN.

International peacekeeping forces under the UN traditionally move in once most fighting has stopped. It has not here. They have mammoth combat restrictions, and their loyalties are tested. The history of U.N. peace keepers in this type of role is extremely poor.

What are the countries that would volunteer troops? They have not volunteered them under the auspices of the "Coalition." France, the most powerful military force in Western Europe has long ago ruled out sending peace keeping troops into Iraq under a UN flag. Sending Arab troops (under the auspices of the UN?! The UN already has enough human rights abuses in it's history) risked further provoking a regional conflict.



There are not enough military contractors to take over a security role in Iraq. Iraq needs the training of a large army, as well as a force of more then a hundred of thousand in the short term. Otherwise the potential exists for forces from outside the country to simply sweep in (in addition to the chaos that would erupt on the streets).

Drudge is reporting that Iran is getting help from North Korea (talking about past foreign policy blunders!) is preparing for a future nuclear test.

(source link)

italy, spain, russia, and china, and Israel, UK, America, and possibly south africa, they'd all be likely to send troops. If theyr american-made soldiers working in the UN peacekeeping operations, theyr not on our national budget. I do agree though, UN peacekeepers are horrendous for civil rights abuses around the world. However, if they screw up, it'll hurt the UN, and seeing as the UN needs to be disposed of due to their abuse of power, they'll end up taking the blow we would have taken. I know that might sound alittle selfish, and I really do not mean for it to. But we have our own arses to save, we can't afford to keep pooring more money into this pointless war when we have things like illegal immigration, katrina relief efforts, national deficits to pay off, just clearly too many internal issues of our own to deal with it.
But then again, I do not know how we'd convince the UN to take over. I don't think the Iraqi's would mind too much, the extremists out there hate the US just as bad, or for that matter any western nation..... Of coarse then again, they might see it as a culture occupation leading to a major world war between the muslim world and the west......
I dunno dude we're screwed one way or the other (everybody applaud bush for f---ing us in the @$$)..... We need a really ingenius strategy to pull out with, but I have no idea what that strategy would look like.

Italy, and Spain would never send troops because their present governments were elected partially on the grounds they opposed the war. They pulled troops out of Iraq. Neither Russia nor China have shown any interest in a secure Iraq (they have both sold arms to Iran). Additionally, they are both authoritarian states with who would hardly would like to promote a free, and open society in the Middle East. It could undermine their own authority in the long run. Israel would not be acceptable because of hatred of Jews. The United Kingdom is in the process of pulling troops out. This is a policy likely to be continued when Tony Blair steps down. South Africa has government whose foreign policy tends to be anti-American, and promotes the cause of African authoritarian states. It would not send a force of troops into Iraq.



What is an "American-made" soldier? Are you referring to the American national budget? If you are, then you should know the United States pays for approximately 1/3 of the United Nations operating costs.



I am not sure the complete elimination of the United Nations is practical, although it is in need of major reforms. The abuses, and ineptness are due to a combination of the UN corrupt bureaucracy, the domination of tyrannical regimes in the institution, the insistence on "neutrality" even when it is obvious who the aggressive party is, the then violation of this insistence by being blatantly biased in favor of one party (such as the UN Human Rights Committee's obsession with Israel), and the rather poor human rights records of the countries themselves that tend to take part in these peacekeeping missions. It should be noted that when the US was involved in peacekeeping in the Balkans, for example, no massive sex slave operations took place.



I must respectfully disagree with you that the war is pointless. Saddam Hussein would almost certainly be engaged in a nuclear arms race at this moment with Iran if the invasion had not taken place. Of course the other Arab powers would then be forced to initiate there own nuclear arms programs...

The war is under way now so we have to deal with it now. Terrorist camps in Iraq could be used to more easily establish networks to launch direct attacks against the US and in my personal opinion at least, that is unacceptable.



It would require a Security Council Resolution. There are 12 members. The five permanent members have vetoes. They are: The United States, The United Kingdom, France (they we might be able to work with maybe), The People's Republic of China (d'oh), and Russia (d'oh). The other "major" members who oppose the resolution that we propose will try to buy off the non-veto members to ensure we don't get a majority (France does this all the time, we do it too).



The Iraqis in Iraq consist of different groups. The Majority are Shi'a, the minority are Sunni (Saddam Hussein was Sunni). The Kurds are also a ethnic minority. The Iranians and al-Qaida are initiating unrest between zealots on both sides (Sunni and Shi'a) unrest to force us out. Once we leave, civil war and possibly a wider regional war will follow. How this will benefit the United States or anyone no one has really explained to me.



I don't deny this is a possibility. We pull out, we are going to get hit again by a terrorist attack. We are going to get hit anyway. But there will be some list of demands (there always is). Whether we pull out just changes the odds of how much a terrorist attack are, and what the message will be. Then again I'm a pessimist.