Poll, What Happens When We Leave Iraq?

What will happen to Iraq when we leave?

  • Immediate collapse of the present regime...chaos

    Votes: 30 43.5%

  • Revert to complete control of ruling religious sect

    Votes: 16 23.2%

  • Regime we installed will stay in control

    Votes: 2 2.9%

  • Too hard to predict

    Votes: 21 30.4%
  • Total voters
    69
Hard to say, because Iraq isn't a war; it's just one battle in a much bigger war. We can walk away from Iraq (I guess) but we can't walk away from the whole Middle East. We'll probably stay in Iraq for decades while we struggle with Iran, Syria, et al. Iran will probably get nukes and then push on with its plan to conquer all the oil producing states of the Middle East. We'll resist them and there'll be various shenanigans with the Saudis and others who don't want to get taken over by Iran.


Short answer: We'll maintain a presence over there for a long time.
 
I chose "too hard to predict," but I suspect that the country will end up being divided into regions along religious/sectarian lines. In the long run, it may even split into three separate nations: Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd.

Hard to say, because Iraq isn't a war; it's just one battle in a much bigger war. We can walk away from Iraq (I guess) but we can't walk away from the whole Middle East. We'll probably stay in Iraq for decades while we struggle with Iran, Syria, et al. Iran will probably get nukes and then push on with its plan to conquer all the oil producing states of the Middle East. We'll resist them and there'll be various shenanigans with the Saudis and others who don't want to get taken over by Iran.
Click to expand...
Actually, walking away from the Middle East is exactly what the US should do. We should have no dealings with them at all except buying their oil at a fair price -- and, perhaps, being an even-handed broker for peace in the Israeli-Arab conflict (rather than always taking Israel's side). Hopefully someday we'll no longer depend on that oil.

I doubt that there's any evidence whatsoever that Iran is planning to take over the Middle East. As anxious as Bush et al. are to attack Iran, and as much as they're looking for an excuse to do so, I haven't even heard them make that claim.

Of course we should keep an eye on Iran and on all countries, but we shouldn't meddle in their squabbles and make more people hate us and want to attack us in the process. If some Middle Eastern nation launches a military attack on us, then of course we should retaliate; but apart from that, we should leave that hornets' nest alone.

Iran probably does want nukes, and I honestly can't blame them. Israel has nukes already, and the only way a small nation can secure itself against a US invasion is by having nukes. Besides, what right does the US government have to say which nations are allowed to have nukes and which aren't?

Short answer: We'll maintain a presence over there for a long time.
Click to expand...
That's what the Israel-firsters want, but I hope they don't get it. The reason they pushed for an invasion of Iraq was to redraw the Middle East and "re-educate" Muslims in a manner favorable to Israel, but at US expense in blood and tax dollars. Here's one Israeli think tank on the issue (from 2002):

To democratize Islam it will be necessary for the United States to conquer Iraq and other Islamic regimes and maintain an occupation force for two or three decades, as was done in post-war Japan and Germany.

A generation of Muslim children will have to be re-educated. Anti-Jewish and anti-Christian verses in the Qur'an should be neutralized by contrary verses and commentaries. The principle of Jihad must be eliminated from the four schools of Islamic law. Islamic regimes must abide by the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality.
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp141-xs.html

The PNAC and other neocon outfits revealed similar plans in their pre-war writings. All of it is a matter of public record and is available to anyone who wants to search for it.

The neocons truly pose a menace not only to world peace but to the security of America, in spite of their pseudo-patriotic jingoism. We should be focusing on sealing our borders and more tightly controlling immigration (especially from potentially hostile countries) rather than continually stirring up the hornets' nest and leaving ourselves open to being stung.
 
Fine young Americans stopping die or being maimed over the failed strategy of a failed president and to keep two sets of fanatics from killing each other over idiotic religious differences.

After that, who knows. However, the current war does nothing to protect us, except in the mind of those who must support a failed leader in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Oh, Osama won't be captured in Iraq.
 
I doubt we'll leave in my lifetime. If we did, I would expect Iranian and Iraqi Shiites would do what they had to do to make sure the Sunnis did not regain control of the oil. Jordanian and Saudi Sunnis wouldn't be happy about that, and would fight it. I doubt the new Iranian-puppet version of Iraq would be friendly toward the US.

I opposed the war, because I figured we would have an expensive mess on our hands trying to manage the tribal loyalties of "Iraqis" who have more loyalty to thier sect than to the "nation" of Iraq.

Now that we are there, it looks like I was right, and we might well have been better off letting Saddam keep that oil under Sunni control. But we didn't. Now, we can control it (at great expense and causing much resentment around the world), or the Shiites will control it. Neither would be good, and that's why I'm not so sure withdrawal from Iraq is a good idea. We grabbed a tiger by the tail. Hanging on isn't a good option, but neither is letting go.
 
I chose "too hard to predict," but I suspect that the country will end up being divided into regions along religious/sectarian lines. In the long run, it may even split into three separate nations: Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily a bad thing. The Kurds have oilfields, and they LIKE us and don't try to blow up our people.

The Sunnis and Shi'a are likely to keep fighting till their cities look like Mogadishu, but that's their prerogative.

The thing is, Iraq was artificially created by outside order. Basically "Okay, we know you tribes despise each other, but you're a country now. Play nice!" And only an iron-fisted dictator kept it that way.

What's wrong with it breaking into three nations? I don't see drawbacks, except that a bunch of relics of Western civilization ought to be moved out of Baghdad till people there start being civilized again.
 
Thanks for the responses so far.

I guess I should have had an option for our troops stay, but this poll was predicated on the belief we would leave. I guess "Regime we installed will stay in control" is close to that choice. So pick that option if you think we will not really leave.
 
Theres an old proverb, and I may not have the words exaclty as they are supposed to be, but it I know it goes something like this:

"You cannot liberate someone, you can only show them the path to liberation. One has to liberate oneself."

That is the inherant flaw in nation building. The folks we are supposedly liberating have to appreciate it and want democracy. They have to have the belief that everyone in their nation should have equal rights, and justice. I am of the opinion that the majority of Iraqis really dont want this due to the deep seated hatred each faction has for the others. I believe as soon as we pull out of Iraq, sectarian violence will erupt and the nation will spiral into total chaos. But what are we supposed to do, stay there holding them apart from each other for years and years? I say pull out. We gave them the opportunity to build a democracy, and showed them the path. They didnt want to liberate themselves. Thats just my opinion anyway.
 
I chose "too hard to predict," but I suspect that the country will end up being divided into regions along religious/sectarian lines. In the long run, it may even split into three separate nations: Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd.
Click to expand...

I did pick immediate collapse, but I do agree with your long term view. I feel it will be a divided nation by religion.

I have been reading from lots of different sources that the Iraq security forces are heavily infiltrated by Al Qaeda factions. I don't think they stand a chance of lasting five minutes after our forces leave. This really disgusts me because our troops are dying and the Iraq's don't even have any real desire for a Democratic government.

That is the inherant flaw in nation building. The folks we are supposedly liberating have to appreciate it and want democracy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what he said.
 
Mr. SteelCore, your deep thoughts almost made me cry from happiness.

Let me ask you a number of questions. Bring a ray of light on my ignorance.

"...walking away from the Middle East is exactly what the US should do. We should have no dealings with them at all except buying their oil at a fair price ..."
What about American military presence in Saudi Arabia and in the Gulf? What do you think will happen there? Do you think that the passion for green money will drive the militants which will seise power there to sell you oil for "fair price"? Or, maybe, they do not give a f* for dollars?

US should be "even-handed broker for peace in the Israeli-Arab conflict (rather than always taking Israel's side)". That means two sides can be brought to some divorce court in New-Jersey and asked to be nice. As far as I know, Israel agreed for Palestinian state existence long time ago, while Palestinians (especially Hamas) want all the land for them, up to the sea shore. So which side should US back, especially now, when Hamas movement made a coup? Both? :)

From your words I understand that it was Israel that lead American troops to invade Iraq. Why not to take one step further? It was Israel that provoked Saddam to invade Kuwait, and it is Israel which is Sunnis,Shiites and El-Quaida at the same time.

Regarding the link to "Israeli think tank", let me ask you: is Joe McKinley, which is the waiter in McDonalds on Middle-Hole street is "American thinking tank"? It's not important that nobody knows him, his ideas about the world are fantastic!
 
High Planes Drifter said:
I am of the opinion that the majority of Iraqis really dont want this due to the deep seated hatred each faction has for the others.
Click to expand...
From the survey data I have, that's a highly inaccurate picture. Now I was going to overwhelm you with large amounts of survey data, but basically, the picture is this: A very small minority supports the attacks on civilians (we're talking 1% here, and only 5-10% support violence for political ends), most people don't want segregation of the sects (and the Kurds are the primary supporters of that), and a very large minority resent US forces enough to condone attacks on them.

A complete withdrawal would be inviting an Iraqi version of what we're seeing in Gaza though: Islamists wresting control of government infrastructure from secularists. We need a major dialing-down of American military presence, and the Iraqi army needs to pick up the pace and take responsibility for their country. They've been just a few months away from taking control of security for how many years now?
 
Look at the Gaza strip today. Guess what - does this give you a hint?

There is not a culture in the Middle East that can support our view of democracy. Hello, Dick Cheney, Hello - can we get a refund for you from China and the Saudis?
 
Who knows? Why do we as America, care. Leave them the heck alone to their own business of arguing, fighting and killing each other and solve their own problems however they want to. KEEP US OUT OF IT that's what gets us in trouble in the first place.

I actually find myself agreeing with Glenn Meyer on this one.
Senator John C. Calhoun warned the same thing about getting involved in Mexican affairs during and after the Mexican War and in sending U.S. troops to the Yucatan in the mid-19th century.

Ever notice every time we support someone (the Taliban, Saddam, etc.) they suddenly become evil incarnate 10 years later? We support whoever suites us when it is in our economic and political interests to do so. As another George Dubya once told us, Keep out of entangled alliances. That Dubya would be for Washington btw.
 
Who said anything about leaving? Why do you think we're building permenant bases there? We have to shoulder Israel's burden.:barf:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top