Should we withdraw from the mid east today?

Post Reply New Topic

What would happen if the west simply withdrew from the middle east today? Projections and speculations at the ready

Please excuse my untutored and admittedly haphazard geopolotical ideas


I suspect we would have an initial power struggle with rival extremist factions. One would emerge from the ensuing storm and would impose sharia law over the eastern region. On the other hand several of more or less equal resources could end up locked in conflict with guerilla splinter groups waging war against all of them I suspect however that weve created a catch 22 situation with the arrival of ISIS. Before ISIS I think that it would have been possible to withdraw with an initial struggle and then relative calm. Note relative. However ISIS seem more virulent and there could possibly be some risk of them attempting to expand throughout the eastern regions creating an ACTUAL axis of evil. By continuing to intervene militarily however we only deepen anti western sentiments. There is a clear progression here and within the next quarter century we could well end up facing down a far more organised and deadly foe.

Alternatively military intervention could be the only thing keeping Jihadist ideology splintered and unfocused. Withdrawal could well simply produce a more cold clinical version of Jihadism.

My last point is that to me if terrorism were a true global threat we would be seeing far more terrorist attacks. An act of terror need only amount to the type of beheadings we had in London a while back. The near absence of attacks since 9/11 and 7/7 suggests that the ideology is more about getting American troops out of what they consider sacred land. A true globalist ideology would involve the use of cyber terrorism and a variety of targeted incidents.

Ultimately if its a matter of the east tearing itself apart its their problem unfortunately.Sorry if that's callous. If we can be reasonably certain that withdrawal will not result in rise of an Islamic power it is up to the Middle East to sort out its own affairs. Africa could benefit from the kind of interventions we impose on the East but we've already plundered Africa of all its resources so there's no quid pro quo there. Military intervention unfortunately just doesn't work, a far more intelligent operation would have focused on a more long term solution of governmental reform guided by incentivisation.

Depends on what you mean by "withdrawing",and upon what you mean by "the Middle East".

We support Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year. And give aid to Egypt as well.

Dont know if you mean cutting that off as well.

But okay- what if we just told Iraq "you're on your own. Defend yourselves against ISIS- no 1600 troops, and no American airstrikes, either.".

Interesting quesiton.

ISIS might take over more of Iraq. So instead of getting aid from the USA Iraq would invite Iran into Iraq to help fight ISIS.

Next door in Syria we would stop supplying rebels against Assad, but Putin would still support Assad. So Assad would win the Syrian civil war.

Then Assad would consolidate his hold on his own Syria- and destroy ISIS within Syria, and bar ISIS forces in Iraq from retreating back into Syria. This would make Syria the western anvil upon which Iran's eastern hammer would crush ISIS in Iraq.

Long story story: Iran would end up dominating the Middle east by imposing satrapy upon a whole stretch of land from Iran westward to the Mediterranean via its allies: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad Regime in Syria, and a pro Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq. Kinda like the Soviet Bloc in Eastern Europe in the cold war days.

Israel would start soiling its pants. And so would the King of Jordan. And so would Saudi Arabia. All three would be pleading to get the USA back into the Middle East. Basically the same situation we would have if ISIS conquered Iraq. Except it would be Teheran, instead of ISIS, that our friends would be soiling their pants about.

How the Kurds of northern Iraq would fare in all this is hard to say. We would presumably stop aiding them too (even though they are staunch allies). They would probably have to fight both ISIS, AND fight Iran (and its Shiite Iraqi allies).

The next chapter after that? Depends upon whether we continued to stay out of the Middle East, or got back in to please our one time allies.

About the same outcome if we stay or go.

The majority supported Saddam and Assad because they did not care about your religion, they cared about the State.

A Minority had no plan but, my Religion says I was chosen by my god to rule by fear.

Iran has both, Religion over all, but run by a State.

Just because Assad is a member of a minority religion, he supports all the other minorities. Together they are the majority.

Funding a terrorist takeover did not work with the local forces for hire, so others were imported, from Libya, with a cover story that they were not just hired killers spreading terror, they were spreading religious truth.

Best ever armed and funded, ISIS is still under 30,000, where the minority Kurds can field 180,000 fighters. Twenty million voted to reelect Assad, and Saddam was not overthrown by locals, as the majority supported him. Every group, every minority, held a place in Saddam's government.

No one in the area likes Saudi based Wahabbi religious fanatic killers for the King. It is the non elected making war on the democratic governments, because god said so.

The US is supporting two absolute religious states, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and making war on the non religious states.

The few hundred million between Tehran and Beruit have voted for democratic self rule.

The US did manage to overthrow the elected Iranian goverment, impose a Shah on them, but they revolted and kicked out both the US and the Shah.

Saudi Arabia considers its King to be the head of Islam, the King said so, so he rules all Islamic countries. Islam does not agree, so he ordered their heads to be cut off.

Recently MERS was spreading, more cases in two months than in the prior two years, till the King declared it gone, and there have been no new cases since. Religious pilgrams are big bucks, and we will see how this cure by royal decree works out.

The result of our withdrawal or defeat, a common market with regional trade, petrodollars, and the oldest cities on earth rising just as China has risen, taking their place again in the long term history of civilization.

Having seen the glory of ISIS, everyone in the area would vote to bring back Saddam, Assad, and a plural non-religious democratic state.

America is bombing an American created force that is using American weapons, to kill American allies, the Kurds.

Strangely, Russia, Syria, have not strongly objected to this air invasion and acts of war.

Assad is advancing on all fronts. It was Russia not the US who supplied air power and defense to Iraq.

Kiev has declared all Russian speakers terrorists, and has killed 3,000 in the south and east. They are no longer a government, they are war criminals facing Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity charges.
There is video of the heads of government calling for the extermination of Russian speakers.

Sanctions on Russia cost Europe it's largest customer, who was buying goods with oil and gas. They still have to buy oil and gas, but are going to be paying in gold.

America does not have a plan, a vision of the future.

The Shia and Sunnis have been at conflict for 1600 years since Muhammad died, it is foolish and quite arrogant to think that the US and its western allies could ever put a stop to it. The Iranians don't pose any threat to the US nor are significant sponsors of terrorism, the US should try to forge normal friendly relations with the Iranians and should become neutral and uninvolved instead of always taking the Sunni side. It's hard to say what things without US involvement since the US has its fingers all over this conflict, I don't believe the revolts in Libya or Syria would of taken off without sponsorship from the US.

From this point on I doubt you'd see Assad ever take back 100% control of Syria, it has become a proxy battle on multiple fronts between the US and Russia but more importantly the Sunnis and Shia. The Arabs will keep funding the islamists against Assad because he is the only Arab leader aligned with the Iran and the Shia, the Turks are Sunni too also have their own agenda when it comes to the Kurds which they support in Iraq but oppose in Turkey. The Turks seem to be playing the game when it comes to ISIS, they've facilitated much of its growth in Syria by allowed fighters and weapons to cross their southern border. There is also the belief that they have directly assisted them as well so it seems like the Turks are unreliable allies when it comes to opposing ISIS, they're more concerned about toppling Assad and carving out a state for the Kurds in northern Syria and Iraq but but Turkey. The Turks seem much more willing to work with ISIS and tolerate their existence as long at they do not pose a threat to their strategic interests which they currently are in Iraqi Kurdistan but given their willingness to work with them I don't know whether or not they would step in and intervene on their own.

I do not believe that ISIS would ever take control of southern Iraq with its predominantly Shia population and strong backing on Iran, the Shia mobilization would make the Gulf countries nervous and they would continue their support of ISIS as they wage war against Shia Iraq, Iran, and Syria. These Gulf countries play with fire given their own status as police states and the ideological sympathies of their population, they're walking a tightrope here since can't cease support since then ISIS might turn their attention to them. They can try to fund so called "moderates" but ISIS will fight them and win and take their weapons just as they did to the Iraqi military, it doesn't matter either they get directly supplied or indirectly. I think the fear that these countries have of their population will cause them to continue supporting war against the Shia because if they didn't they could face potential insurrection of their own so it is best in their mind to keep them busy elsewhere pursuing their interests. The Iranians at this point will be even more motivated to acquire nuclear weapons which would cause similar aspirations to develop from the Saudis and other Gulf countries.

From this point on, I don't know. It is hard to fathom since the US likely isn't going to withdraw from the scene until they're forced to because they're broke and or internal turmoil. War and suffering is unavoidable, people will die and there really is nothing we can do to change that. We can become involved, kill more people, cause more suffering, lose treasure and many of our own lives but that won't solve or end this problem. We'll have to fight it till the end of time and its impossible. We'd unquestionably be better off withdrawing and focusing on our internal issues and becoming financially solvent. Turkey, the Arabs, and Israel would all scream for us to do their dirty work but they have powerful militaries capable and are plenty capable of defending themselves.