re: IRAQ - What would happen if ...

[bogie]

re: IRAQ - What would happen if ...

There are many arm-chair politicians and strategists/analysts here, so I pose this question:

What would happen if the US would simply pull-up stakes and immediately leave Iraq?

This is what opposition to the military action is calling for, so what would be the scenario?

I see many postings/threads on this forum, and many others, that heavily criticise the U.S., but never have I seen a suggested, logistical, and realistic, solution.

Criticism, without being constructive, is nothing but denegration and hot-air. This is where "the rubber hits the pavement" - so, speak-up, and possibly be part of the solution.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

On the one hand, I agree with you that it is time for the ones opposed to the US presence in Iraq to come up with an alternative solution. On the other hand, though, you seem to imply that anyone criticising the US presence has to come up with a solution. That is not fair. Most who are opposing the US presence now, opposed the Iraq war the first place. Opposing US presence is a continuation of opposing the Iraq war in that case. Does this mean they have to come up with a solution? Maybe I'm taking this too fair, and am I understanding you wrongly. It's a good thing to discuss an alternative solution, without the presence of Western troops in Iraq. But this discussion should not have as purpose to make those who oppose the presence of Western troops and have no practical solution to shut up.

By the way, don't interpret this as a hostile post or whatever. I meant it more as "in general". I'm just a little bit annoyed after a lot of discussions with people who did think people had to shut up when they were against the presence in Iraq but could not offer any practical, alternative solution for the situation.

 

[Jillyvn]

The solution will not be easy. Firstly, the US has to agree to a collaborative peace keeping effort. A cease fire needs to be negotiated with the opposing forces in the country, and then the UN needs to come in full force to begin the rebuilding. A genuine effort must be made to establish a government that reflects the population of the the country. A strong police force must be in place to quell dissidents. I don't think it will happen unless Kerry gets in though

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

What would happen if the US did pull out? It would surely not be much worse than what is happening right now.

I think the US should cede to the UN, giving them absolute and full control over the situation.

 

[Andem]

Well, to continue on Rick's first couple of sentences, the US should have never entered Iraq in the first place. But if they were to pull out, I think we'd see more fighting and most likely a civil war. A civil war has nothing to do with the outside would and I believe it's upto Iraqis to decide their OWN future.

With that said, what else is there to do? The American forces should pull out and leave the country to the will of the people who reside there. I think elections are a step in the right direction, but I don't believe in fixed elections or a system purposely setup to help support the gain of a foreign country (hense, the upcoming elections would [either way] effectively turn Iraq into another US puppet.)

 

[bogie]

On the one hand, I agree with you that it is time for the ones opposed to the US presence in Iraq to come up with an alternative solution. On the other hand, though, you seem to imply that anyone criticising the US presence has to come up with a solution. That is not fair........

Great! Now we have dialogue without my having to write a short novel to pitch all the points of discussion, and the pros and cons.

Glad you posted these thoughts!

What I was wanting to see are constructive ideas on how this could be accomplished. The past is, just that, the past. No one can undo the "Invasion of Iraq", or the "Shock and Awe". It happened, point in the annals of history.

Did my post appear to be a harsh critique of some posters (not just this forum)? Yes, it was meant to be - but - the main purpose is true dialogue. Just like a Think Tank, forums, such as this one, are a great source of knowledge, intelligence, and taking up genuine challenges. This is indeed one of those challenges.

Some people oppose government actions no matter what they do. I find that repulsive and only antagonistic. Personally, I ignore, as much as possible, such comments that are obviously created by rage and only directed towards "revolution through dissent".

As our countries are involved in the original "problem", then "we, the people" should also be involved in the "solution". A solution through pragmatism, not revolution. We are in a democracy, and our system does work, albeit not as quickly as many would like. Our "freedoms" prevent that from happening.

The solution will not be easy. Firstly, the US has to agree to a collaborative peace keeping effort. A cease fire needs to be negotiated with the opposing forces in the country, and then the UN needs to come in full force to begin the rebuilding. A genuine effort must be made to establish a government that reflects the population of the the country. A strong police force must be in place to quell dissidents. I don't think it will happen unless Kerry gets in though

"Not easy" is an understatement! My thoughts are that, first, the U.S. is not involved, at all, period. They are now the gasoline on the fire, the catalyst. Secondly, The UN does not have a great record of doing things right - look at Bosnia. But, we have to work with what we have at hand. No Hollywood scripts, but reality and human frailty. US troops replaced with UN troops (without US at all).

The third element is the toughest. "Cease fire", but with "who"? Do we really know "who" the "enemy" is? This is the wild card. BEFORE the US involvement, IRAQ was in disarray. The US did not start this unrest in the Middle East, they have contributed over the years, but are only part of that history. It has been history since before the U.S. was ever "found" in 1492!

No matter who is "in charge", after the US leaves (installed by the US or not), the opposers, terrorists, or whatever you want to call them, will still be trying to defeat the ruling government.

At what point does the U.N. then withdraw and say "OK guys and gals, it's all yours, please, no shooting until we leave!"?

No matter what is done, not everyone in Iraq, or the Middle East, will be happy about the outcome.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

It seems we share the same thoughts then bogie.

I think there is a an opportunity here for the Arab League. It seems that a major point of the resistance in Iraq can not deal with the fact Western troops are the ones present in Iraq. Maybe Arab troops can diminish tensions. Than I guess there's also a big role here for the Iraqi diaspora, to fully participate in rebuilding Iraq. Just sending money is not the way to act. And than a big role should be there for Iraq's religious leaders. They seem to have quite some influence. It's time for them to use them (more).

 

[vista]

Essentially, the question is moot.

The US will never leave. Iraq is large military base that will control the Middle East. (well at least the US is trying)

This military base just happens to sit on 66% of the world's oil. Besides the draft is underway.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: re: IRAQ - What woul

I purposely didn't read the other responses before giving my own answer. I'm very critical of the US for their illegal invasion of Iraq, after all, and should stand on that.

The US cannot be allowed to simply "pull up stakes and leave." They made this bed, and they need to pay for their sins, along with the rest of their coalition. They do need to leave Iraq though...completely...and the UN be allowed to take over ...completely.

The first thing you need to understand is that leaving does not, in any way, negate responsibility. The US is on the hook for what they've done and they pay ANY bill incurred as a result. No quibbling, no arguing...just write the cheque.

That being understood, the UN needs to send in a peace-keeping force. No quibbling there either...try to kill anybody and understand that the boys with the blue hats have guns too...and the support of the world and the money of the US behind them.

No US companies allowed. No companies that belong to the coalition, either.

Once that is made clear...and adhered to...then the problems will subside. They will still exist, that's why we need the guys with the blue hats, but not as brutally as they do now.

Free elections. No former CIA operatives chosen as interim leaders, nobody trying to keep Muslim leaders from running. Just ballots and campaign promises. Let the Iraqis choose.

If the US was to leave without the UN instituting these things, we'd be looking at Vietnam (best case) or Cambodia (worst???? case).

There never was an easy solution, but it all became infinitely more complicated when the invasion began. Now the best we can hope for is that a solution can be found without too much brutality.

 

[bogie]

Re: IRAQ - What would happen if ...

Right on, Reverend!

There has to be a change in leadership in the U.S., though. We know Bush's stand on the issue, we know the "ROI" expected on the Iraq "project", and what to expect if GW gets back in.

Big deal, we pay more for oil ... "suck it up" and pay the consequences. How many have to die to keep our tanks full on low cost fuel? "x" Barrels of oil = "y" Human Capital - weird equation! And this is called progress - a very sad state of affairs.

The "free" world stays free on the backs of the "non-free" world.

Of course we also have the "unknown" part of the equation - the so-called UN. Martin gave a good speach at the UN today, on UN involvement in global affairs, but we no longer have the clout we used to have. From #1 global peacekeeper to #32 .... we have some catching-up to do.

 

[moghrabi]

The third element is the toughest. "Cease fire", but with "who"? Do we really know "who" the "enemy" is? This is the wild card. BEFORE the US involvement, IRAQ was in disarray. The US did not start this unrest in the Middle East, they have contributed over the years, but are only part of that history. It has been history since before the U.S. was ever "found" in 1492!

I respectfully disagree with you, Bogie.

Iraq was not in disarray before the US involvement. We are talking about Iraq and not the Middle East as your post suggested. As a matter of fact, I would think by now that the Iraqi people might (just might) like Saddam or the like of him to come back instead of having the US there. He was a cruel dictator and a a killer, but he had them under control. He provided free health and education. They had the best education in the ME before 1990. He provided them with security that they lack right now. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying that i want Saddam to come back. It is an expression about the hate the Iraqis have for the US. Abu Graib's prison abuse is not a small thing in the Arab world.

But the past is the past. It is history. I don't think the Arab league will be even allowed by the US to play a role. And even if allowed, what can they do. They are a bunch of US puppets like the CIA prime minister they have now.

The UN (blue hats) are the only ones that may be able to control the situation as long as no coalition forces (not only US) are present. You have to understand the Arab mind. And that is there is blood now between Iraqis and Coalition forces. The Iraqis will never agree before settling the score as you can see now by the kidnappings and so on. We might have forces on the ground but we are going to see international terror climb as a result of this unwise and unjust war.

 

[bogie]

I respectfully disagree with you, Bogie.

Thank you! Such is a good dialogue.

Iraq was not in disarray before the US involvement. We are talking about Iraq and not the Middle East as your post suggested. As a matter of fact, I would think by now that the Iraqi people might (just might) like Saddam or the like of him to come back instead of having the US there. He was a cruel dictator and a killer, but he had them under control. He provided free health and education. They had the best education in the ME before 1990.

A good comparison. Many of the Russian people also felt the same way after they realized that "capitalism, and freedom" was not meaning instant wealth and prosperity. But it, like family abuse, is tolerated, as they are still alive and fed.[/quote]

He provided them with security that they lack right now.

This part I cannot agree on. What security? A very false one, indeed. Hidden and unknown compared to the open presence of US troops. Sporadic, and not consistent as the US daily fighting. 6 of one and a half dozen of another. The only difference being is that they were persecuted, tortured, and killed, under Saddam, but they did not experience the mass destruction of property as it is now.

Please do not misunderstand what I am saying that I want Saddam to come back. It is an expression about the hate the Iraqis have for the US. Abu Graib's prison abuse is not a small thing in the Arab world.

Again, the people become the pawns in political and military "games". US arrogance that their way is the best way to live, and not fully understanding the complexity of another culture. The old "bull in the china cabinet" syndrome.

But the past is the past. It is history. I don't think the Arab league will be even allowed by the US to play a role. And even if allowed, what can they do. They are a bunch of US puppets like the CIA prime minister they have now.

"Trust has left the building", and now no one knows who can be believed and entrusted with their future. But, that also includes those who are leading the so-called freedom fighters - they cannot be trusted either. Too many factions fighting for the opportunity to own and control the people and assetts of Iraq.

The UN (blue hats) are the only ones that may be able to control the situation as long as no coalition forces (not only US) are present.

Agreed - but trying to get the UN to recognize that, and then to organize such an effort - with US consent - is almost a fairy tale.

You have to understand the Arab mind. And that is there is blood now between Iraqis and Coalition forces. The Iraqis will never agree before settling the score as you can see now by the kidnappings and so on. We might have forces on the ground but we are going to see international terror climb as a result of this unwise and unjust war.

It will take time, as these wounds will not heal overnight. We are talking generations now, not just a few years.

Truly a sad part of history. Help was needed in Iraq, but John Wayne and The Terminator should have stayed home and assisted at arm's length to those who were already in the culture of the Middle East - and not in the typical, meddling, CIA style.

The Berlin Wall came down without "Shock and Awe", and Saddam would have eventually been deposed, in time.

 

[hollaback]

RE: re: IRAQ - What woul

Well i never agreed with war on Iraq. But I think that it is not as simple as America up and leaving and the whole thing will get solved. America pulled the trigger, and they have to take responsibility for whatever it hits. If they just left, and gave complete control to the UN (whcih we all know will probably not happen unless Bush is out of power) the Iraqi's and terrorists may take this as a victory...a sign of weakness if you will, and we might get another 9/11. I'm not saying that America should be left in control of this thing, because that would not work at all, but there are a lot of things going on that we dont know about, things that are big, and with one wrong move...BOOM!
So before anyone leaves agreements between the Coalition and Iraq have to be made before the UN can take over this thing. However, when they do lines must be drawn, and an actual plan must be made. Certain alllies will have more to pay in relief than others, and certain companies with any connection to those certain allies will not get contracts either. The UN will need to show the Iraqi's what true freedom is, because right now anything American is not that popular with the people. The UN will have to fix the infrustructure, and ensure the free elections will occur. But we cannot change this country overnight. This is going to take generations before Iraq is brought to its height of porsperity. We need to fix this problem hands on...and perhaps, by some miracle, something good will actually come out af all this