# The Middle East Prediction Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 13, 2003, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024 "2003-03-13T03:34:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/41 "2003-04-17T13:55:22Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by **bordelond** :_ > > The RG were essentially at gunpoint – coalition forces were massed at the Iraqi border at the time of RG negotiations. Obviously, the U.S. couldn’t have used direct militarily threats as leverage against France and Russia. But the US, along with the UK, Russia, France, Germany, et. al. could’ve cooperatively used the leverage of troops massed at the border to effect changes within Iraq. This could’ve been done even without direct coordination beyond US/UK, IMO, as long as the UN and the skeptical members of the Security Council weren’t deliberately marginalized. [aside] **bordelond** , I don’t want to argue the “diplomacy” point fervently here, for fear of disrupting a rather interesting thread into a pro-anti discussion ( **Sam** specifically wanted to avoid that), so I’ll concede that having coalition troops _in country_ quite clearly put the Republican Guard in an untenable bargaining position they otherwise wouldn’t have been in. [/aside] ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/42 "2003-04-17T13:55:56Z")
Seems a bit early to revisit this, IMO. It’s a virtual certainty we won’t have accurate numbers for quite sometime. And just as an FYI, one should really point out that American casualties now stand at least at 600 (some 100+ dead and 500 wounded). The “Liberator” part is questionable too. Certainly there were a few scenes of celebration, and certainly there are those Iraqis who have some love for America, but some events of the past week have been less than positive… [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/clerics\_04-10-03.html](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/clerics_04-10-03.html) [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/najaf\_04-14-03.html](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/najaf_04-14-03.html) [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle\_east/jan-june03/reshape\_4-15.html](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/reshape_4-15.html) [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/mosul\_04-16-03.html](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/mosul_04-16-03.html) I would tend to characterize the Iraqi reaction thus far as mixed, with potentially dangerous overtones. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/43 "2003-04-17T15:03:44Z")
**mrblue92** makes a good point, which I should have mentioned earlier. I said ‘casualties’ in my estimate post, when I should have said ‘deaths’. I also was thinking almost entirely of death from Iraqi action, and not including accidents in the combat zone. I did include friendly fire in my estimate. However - > [@](#): > > But the US, along with the UK, Russia, France, Germany, et. al. could’ve cooperatively used the leverage of troops massed at the border to effect changes within Iraq. This could’ve been done even without direct coordination beyond US/UK, IMO, as long as the UN and the skeptical members of the Security Council weren’t deliberately marginalized. I can’t see how this would work. I doubt that Russia, France, and Germany would have taken a different stance as regards Iraq when US/UK troops were at the border than they did during discussions in the UNSC. It sounded to me like they didn’t want to use the threat of imminent invasion to enforce the cease-fire and 1441 at all. I thought they wanted to continue the inspections for several more months. If the inspectors found WMD, they could then say “There - problem solved”. If not, they could then say “See - problem solved”. Either way, they could then end the inspections and the sanctions, and then (from their point of view) welcome Iraq back to the community of nations or (from Saddam’s) let Iraq get back to the business of trying to acquire and develop WMD and rebuild his military. Unless there was some way that Bush could have persuaded them to join his coalition, which I would like to hear about. If this will turn this thread into pro- vs. anti-war bickering, please disregard. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/44 "2003-04-17T15:15:35Z")
> [@](#): > > I can’t see how this would work. I doubt that Russia, France, and Germany would have taken a different stance as regards Iraq when US/UK troops were at the border than they did during discussions in the UNSC. It sounded to me like they didn’t want to use the threat of imminent invasion to enforce the cease-fire and 1441 at all. France proposed a resolution giving an explicit deadline for military action. Seems to me as if they were willing to use that threat of action, and were reluctant to put the threat into action while it was still useful as a threat. > [@](#): > > Unless there was some way that Bush could have persuaded them to join his coalition, which I would like to hear about. Um… considered their compromise proposal, or _any_ of the compromises proposed by other UNSC members? UNSCR 1441 set the stage for this kind of cooperation; it wouldn’t have required Byzantine diplomatic brilliance. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/45 "2003-04-17T20:15:49Z")
Thanks for pulling the summary together, **Sam**. I am glad to admit that my estimates of casualties, on both sides, were way too high. However, as I made clear, I expected Saddam to utilize his stockpile of WoMD, both on US forces, as well as on his own people. Thankfully, I was wrong. Wonder where I got the idea that Saddam might be more dangerous? ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/46 "2003-04-17T21:14:20Z")
I, too, would like to join the Cindy Crawford mailing list. Huh? Oh, wrong thread. I, too, would like to thank **Sam** for his tally. Quite useful. Overall, given that my estimates were all pretty low in terms of casualties and duration of serious combat, I’m glad that they appear to have been pretty accurate. Honestly, though, I’m not terribly surprised. What I’m really eager to see is how this turns out in the long run - that’s where the importance lies. The scenes of jubilation we’ve seen thus far give us reason to hope, and it reinforces my belief that if we can hurry our asses up, form and stablize the government, and get out of there, the good we’ve done will hold up. If we lollygag our way through this, though, it doesn’t matter how thrilled the Iraqis were at first, they’re going to grow to hate us. (Then again, isn’t that always the final step in any US-imposed government reformation? First liberation, then democracy, then prosperity, then they hate us. See also: Germany. See also: Japan.) One final comment: > [@](#): > > Wonder where I got the idea that Saddam might be more dangerous? Consider that it’s entirely possible that Saddam, left unchecked, was just as dangerous as was put forth by the administration. The claim was never that Saddam could kick our ass is a ground war, but that he could use WMDs against us. And it’s still entirely plausible that Saddam may have intended to gas us when we came in, but our pre-war preparations and negotiations resulted in the defection of everyone in position to launch these weapons. Just something to keep in mind. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/47 "2003-04-17T21:28:50Z")
I’m so glad I was so very wrong in my predictions. Let’s hope I continue to be incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/48 "2003-04-17T21:33:20Z")
> [@](#): > > **_ElJeffe_ wrote:** > And it’s still entirely plausible that Saddam may have intended to gas us when we came in, but our pre-war preparations and negotiations resulted in the defection of everyone in position to launch these weapons. Wouldn’t those who defected be able to confirm this to be the case? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2003, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/49 "2003-10-29T19:57:48Z")
All of this before Mission Accomplished May Day even. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/50 "2003-10-29T21:50:41Z")
I missed this thread (‘Middle East’ evokes Israel/Palestine to me, not Iraq) but I predicted a two-week war [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3120409#post3120409), with the need to leave behind a substantial occupation force. I was in the general ballpark with respect to the war’s duration, and right on target with the need to leave behind a serious occupation force. Didn’t make any casualty predictions, though. ---
**Author:** ![\_possum\_stalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/b77776/32.png) [@\_possum\_stalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_possum_stalker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2003, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/51 "2003-10-29T23:27:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\* > > **Will the Americans be seen as liberators or oppressers by the Iraqi people?** > > Liberators. Perhaps not at first, but as the reality sinks in that Saddam is gone and the Americans won’t let one of his cronies take his place, the people of Iraq will come to really thank the United States for freeing them. > … > **How long will the U.S. military occupation last?** > A full Japanese-style controlling occupation will last for a year or maybe two. Maybe much less, but not more. > … > A year from now, the start of real change in the middle east will be happening. The dissident movement in Iran will gain strength. Hizbollah will either be under attack in Lebanon, or gone. Libya will renounce terrorism. The U.S. government will begin to pressure Saudi Arabia, sparking real change there. > > I think this kind of recording of what our thoughts and fears are before an event of this magnitude could be historically useful. If the SDMB is still around in 20 years, it will be very interesting to go back and read this stuff. \*\* “Within a year of the invasion, halvah will rain down from the sky throughout the Middle East.” **Simon** , thanks for trawling this back up to the surface… it’s already interesting just a few months later. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/52 "2003-10-30T02:14:30Z")
Sure, let’s look at those predictions again: > [@](#): > > **How many American casualties will there be in an Iraq war?** > Less than 500. Still under 500 today, and I was speaking of the war proper, not the total number of deaths during the entire duration of occupation. > [@](#): > > **How many Iraqi combatants will be killed?** > Somewhere between 5,000 and 50,000, probably on the low side of that. This was also pretty accurate. We don’t know the exact number of casualties, but it’s certainly within this range. > [@](#): > > **How many civilian casualties will there be in Iraq?** > 2000. Far fewer than would have died in the next year by Saddam’s hand if he were still in power. Also pretty close, but a little low. I’ve seen estimates as high as 9,000 and as low as 3,000. It’s hard to say. But since Saddam was killing over 30,000 people a year, the answer is in the ballpark. > [@](#): > > **Will the Americans be seen as liberators or oppressers by the Iraqi people?** > > Liberators. Perhaps not at first, but as the reality sinks in that Saddam is gone and the Americans won’t let one of his cronies take his place, the people of Iraq will come to really thank the United States for freeing them. I think this is dead on. The coalition WAS seen as a liberating force, and they are still very popular in most areas. There is a lot of anger at how things are going now, and of course a lot of people who had lucrative jobs in the old government are pissed. That’s to be expected. But it seems clear to me that the people of Iraq feel like they’ve been liberated, and not occupied by an oppressor. That doesn’t mean they want the U.S. to stay forever, of course. > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > > I believe it will be free, and relatively peaceful. While I expect the occasional acts of violence and maybe terror, I believe there will be real progress towards a stable, prosperous country. Also pretty close. Free and relatively peaceful, with (currently) more than ‘occasional’ acts of violence and terror. And we’re only halfway through the first year. Let’s revisit this in six months and see how much closer it is - but so far, I’m thinking this is pretty accurate. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting this much organized resistance - I thought the terror would come from foreign terrorists, because I didn’t anticipate the instant and rather complete withdrawal into the population of the Fedayeen and other military forces. I thought there would be more of a formal surrender and coalition control of the military weaponry. I think the coalition really screwed up here - especially leaving the ammo dumps unprotected after the war. > [@](#): > > **How long will the U.S. military occupation last?** > A full Japanese-style controlling occupation will last for a year or maybe two. Maybe much less, but not more. > > There will still be an American military presence there in ten years, much like there is still an American military presence in Japan, Germany, and South Korea today. Looks to be about right. I was perhaps a little optimistic. The current timetable for turning control over to the Iraqis is about a year and a half from now, but I could see it being more like three years. That would be the end of the ‘Japanese style occupation’. After that, I expect significant forces in Iraq for at least another 10 years. On the order of 50,000 troops, or about 1/3 of what’s there now. Just like Korea and Europe, as I said. > [@](#): > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > > A rise in short-term instability as various terror organizations react. Yep. > [@](#): > > A year from now, the start of real change in the middle east will be happening. The dissident movement in Iran will gain strength. Hizbollah will either be under attack in Lebanon, or gone. Libya will renounce terrorism. The U.S. government will begin to pressure Saudi Arabia, sparking real change there. Libya has since renounced terrorism. The dissident movement is still gaining strength in Iran. The screws are being put on Syria, and there is indeed more pressure on Saudi Arabia. But this could still go any direction. It’s still very early in the game. > [@](#): > > Ten years from now, the middle east will be very different. There will be a general agreement that terrorism is counter-productive to the goals of the Arab countries. The U.S. may have to take down another regime before it’s all over - Syria perhaps. But in the end, history will show that the fall of Iraq was the event that started the process of real change for the better in the middle east. The jury’s still out on this one. ---
**Author:** ![kwildcat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e5b9ba/32.png) [@kwildcat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kwildcat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/53 "2003-10-30T19:34:06Z")
Are you completely daft? Some of your self-laudatory declarations are so far removed from the facts on the ground as to be laughable. To wit: 1. Liberators - the Iraqi Governing Council itself, which is composed of U.S.-appointed stooges, has repeatedly referred to the presence of American troops as “occupation”, as recently and high-profile as their official speech several weeks ago at the United Nations. Oh, or are you talking about the parents who refuse to let their children go to school because of the lack of security - surely _they_ are the ones with whom the “liberators” are “popular”. Perhaps you have Iraq opinion polls that are more accurate than Mr. Zogby’s that you wish to share with us? 2. “Relatively peaceful”? By whose standards - residents of Tel Aviv? Only one (officially reported) bombing per day. If Toronto were that “relatively peaceful”, even the Canadians would revolt. As for stability and prosperity, 75% unemployment and the recent assasination of a government official (deputy mayor of Baghdad) would seem to belie your conclusion. 3. Libya has renounced terrorism? I must have missed that press release. Last I checked they were making financial settlements with victims of Libyan terrorism in exchange for favorable trade policy changes with the EU (a.k.a. “bribery”). Iranian dissidents? What Iranian dissidents? Do you mean the student revolt that was suppressed by vigilantes, with the tacit approval of the Committee on Vice and Morals? Yup, there’s no stoppin’ those kids now. Hizbollah? HOORAY - You’re RIGHT! Israel has unilaterally (or is it pre-emptively?) violated the sovereignty of Lebanon to attack Hizbollah! Very sorry - I would do well to give credit where credit is due: You seem to have predicted with some degree of accuracy the fact that the U.S. will commit lives and resources to this endeavour for years to come. Oh, and you’re also _very_ good at counting dead people. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/54 "2003-10-31T02:03:17Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Liberators - the Iraqi Governing Council itself, which is composed of U.S.-appointed stooges, has repeatedly referred to the presence of American troops as “occupation”, as recently and high-profile as their official speech several weeks ago at the United Nations. It IS an occupation. The U.S. is an occupying force. That does not negate the fact that the people saw the war as a war of Liberation. Do you think the average Iraqi would like Saddam back? > [@](#): > > Oh, or are you talking about the parents who refuse to let their children go to school because of the lack of security Strawman. A person can feel glad to be liberated by Saddam, while still being worried about security or even furious at the poor security planning. No one is claiming that Iraq is Montana. It’s a tough place right now. But it’s getting better, and Iraqis overwhelmingly feel the invasion was a good thing. > [@](#): > > - surely they are the ones with whom the “liberators” are “popular”. Perhaps you have Iraq opinion polls that are more accurate than Mr. Zogby’s that you wish to share with us? You mean the same Zogby poll that showed 2/3 of the people of Baghdad wanted the U.S. to stay for a year or longer? The same one that showed that 75% of the people want Saddam’s regime members punished for crimes against humanity? The same one that showed that 70% of Iraqis felt they would be bettter off in 5 years? And let me point out that the Zogby poll, and the Gallup poll that preceded it, were both only carried out in Baghdad, which probably has the lowest support for the invasion in Iraq. What do you think the support levels are in Mosul, or Kirkuk? Baghdad was the prime recipient of Saddam’s government - most of the jobs went there, food and electricity were diverted there, and the bulk of government spending went there. How about we poll the Marsh Arabs, who’s marshes are now being refilled? Or the Kurds? How high do you think support for the invasion is there? > [@](#): > > 1. “Relatively peaceful”? By whose standards - Oh, how about the standards of a country in which 30,000 people were murdered by the regime annually? A country which had its leader use chemical warfare against his own people? A country that had been through two wars in the previous 15 years, losing hundreds of thousands of people? How about in the eyes of the people who walked around after their liberation forlornly looking down wells where their loved ones were thrown? How about the ones who finally got to dig up the mass graves and re-bury their wives, husbands, and children according to Muslim custom? Security is bad in Baghdad, but improving. Other parts of the country are very peaceful. The northern and southern parts of Iraq are doing fine. I’m not saying things are great. I’m saying that even with the lack of security now, fewer people will be killed this year than would have been killed by Saddam, by several orders of magnitude. You can’t judge Iraq by the standards of Toronto. Although I hope that someday soon you can. > [@](#): > > 1. Libya has renounced terrorism? I must have missed that press release. Last I checked they were making financial settlements with victims of Libyan terrorism in exchange for favorable trade policy changes with the EU (a.k.a. “bribery”). Along with renouncing terrorism. > [@](#): > > Iranian dissidents? What Iranian dissidents? Do you mean the student revolt that was suppressed by vigilantes, with the tacit approval of the Committee on Vice and Morals? Yup, there’s no stoppin’ those kids now. I didn’t say they had won. I said that there was a dissident movement. > [@](#): > > Hizbollah? HOORAY - You’re RIGHT! Israel has unilaterally (or is it pre-emptively?) violated the sovereignty of Lebanon to attack Hizbollah! You mean the soveregnity of Lebanon, which had its sovereignity violated by Syria? > [@](#): > > Very sorry - I would do well to give credit where credit is due: You seem to have predicted with some degree of accuracy the fact that the U.S. will commit lives and resources to this endeavour for years to come. > > Oh, and you’re also very good at counting dead people. You know, I wasn’t looking for some back patting here, and would never have posted my other message if someone else hadn’t first selectively quoted from it in order to ‘discredit’ my predictions. So I decided to re-post it myself with my own comments. I was wrong about some things, and right about some things. So were lots of other people. Par for the course. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/55 "2004-03-23T03:16:59Z")
Well, here we are at the 1 year mark. Two questions in the thread asked for one-year predictions. They were, “what will Iraq look like”, and "What will the Middle East look like? I’ve compiled the responses from all the people who took part. I’ll organize them by ‘for’ and against’, so people don’t have to go back and dig through the whole thread. Starting with **For the war** : **Sam Stone** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > I believe it will be free, and relatively peaceful. While I expect the occasional acts of violence and maybe terror, I believe there will be real progress towards a stable, prosperous country. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East ater one year?** > A year from now, the start of real change in the middle east will be happening. The dissident movement in Iran will gain strength. Hizbollah will either be under attack in Lebanon, or gone. Libya will renounce terrorism. The U.S. government will begin to pressure Saudi Arabia, sparking real change there. **emacknight:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > It will look like Israel. Post Saddam Iraq will receive billions of aid for rebuilding and the country will blossom. The Iraqi people are strong, smart and desperate to work, I have all the respect in the world for them. Given the chance, Iraq will be the next super power, imagine if Germany or Japan and the oil resources Iraq does. But it will receive terrorist strikes on a weekly basis. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > My hope is that a strong vibrant Iraq will inspire the countries around them to over throw their oppressors and move towards democracy and capitalism. Eventually leading to a union of Middle Eastern countries. Terrorists will dig in to North African and South East Asian countries and only get stronger but now they will hate Israel, the US, AND Iraq. **Boo Boo Foo:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > Best case? Oodles of foreign investment and freedom of speech and a secular government based on the Westminster system. Lots of brand new social infrastructure like schools, universities, and hospitals. (I can’t stress that stuff too highly). > > Worst case? So many “residual” Arab freedom fighters are lurking the joint in pure “spoiler roles” that the US and Coalition forces might not ever get the chance to be in the field doing honourable things. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > A rise in short-term instability as various terror organizations react. (I’d agree with you there Sam…) **December:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > This very much depends on the quality of the outside leadership. Also, the meddling of the world community could be a problem. It will be better than it is under Saddam, but I’m not optimistic about a working democracy in the short term. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > Reduction in terrorism, both short term and long term. **Saen:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > I believe that a US installed government would still be very shakey and need to be heavily mmilitarily supported. The Kurds will covet such a position as well as other, not necessarily pro-US political factions that will not have a chance without an attempted coup. The people, on the other hand, will be tremendously better off. Unlike Afghanistan, the US rebuiliding efforts will have something to work with. Their level of education is already superior in the region. Their infrastructure, while neglected and damaged, is suitable to quickly repair and upgrade. And their natural resources are their ticket to a prosperous first generation future. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > I see a complete US military presence in Iraq to be the key stability factor in the US for years to come. Like the beginning of the Cold War era in east Europe, the tension in the area will be significant for a while. But the pro-west factions in the region will have the confidence to rise up and become a major player. Democracy will demonstrably be an overrididng influence in winning even more support for the for the pro west faction. They will become a significant influence on the upcomming generations. The fundamentalists will have an equal contender. And eventually they will become just a cherished culteral by-product until their influence is relegated to American Christian stature. > > But that will depend on the military presnce and example of Iraq and possibly Iran’s internal coup. Iraq will not be amajor player in the mid-east except for underground extremists and terrorists. We will either invade or support a coup in Iran almost immediately. the latter is most likely. And within 5 years the rest of the region and world can focus almost entirely on the Israel/Palistinian conflict. I see that settled within the decade. **Shodan:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > Starting to rebuild, and fighting between the various ethnic groups will start to break out. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > The US will be blamed for all the problems of the region, a slew of anti-US and anti-Israel resolutions will be introduced in the UN, the Palestinians will increase acts of terror against Israel, the Saudis will continue their policy of paying off terrorists, Egypt will demand an increase in aid to deal with refugees, and Iran will try to position themselves as the heads of Islamic fundamentalism. > In other words, no change. **X-Slayer(ALE):** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > See present day Afghanistan. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > Several oil fields will be on fire and it will take about another year or so to put them out and have production back online. Sanctions will be lifted by then and Iraqi oil will be open to the world market at the middle or end of 2005. > > Terrorism will still be perpetrated by cell groups all over the middle east. Impossible to accurately predict where and when they will strike next. Al Qaeda will have more Iraqi members now. The new number one terrorist and/or religious figurehead will be Iraqi. OBL will be dead or captured before Bush enters 2004 elections. > > In 2004, the Bush administration will parade all the WMD, nuclear parts, chemical weapons, biological labs and stockpiles and terrorists captured in the war as the key cornerstone for his re-election campaign. If the economy still sucks, he may have a very close election again (like that stopped him the last time) He will not lose if he times the ending of the war correctly. He may even call for the US to resign from the UN and form a new International Organization and with proof of Saddams treachary, he can swing that. > > After Bush is re-elected, Iran or North Korea will be the next targets. Iran may grudgingly submit to nuclear inspections with 400,000 US troops already in their back yard and having defeated an enemy that fought them to a stalemate decades ago. There will be a war in Korea if North Korea shoots first. **El Jeffe:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > The military government will be chugging away at creating the foundations for an Iraqi government. People will be receiving food, medicine and clothing. There will be hunger in some areas as infrastructure is restores, and those opposed to war will complain. Loudly. The number of civilian deaths in the first year will be far less than the number that would have died under Saddam’s rule. This fact will be conveniently ignored by opponents of the war. > > There will be occasional terrorist attacks committed against US troops, mostly by al Qaeda. Additional US casualties as a result will number in the dozens. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > In the short term, there will be a moderate increase in terrorist activities, accompanied by loud cries of “I told you so!” In the long term, civil unrest will increase in Iran. The current dictatorship will fall within 3 years. Within 5 years, Iraq will look much like Turkey does today. Within 7 years, Iran will look the same. At that time, Saudi Arabia will look much like Iran does today, with regards to civil unrest. > > Terrorism will fall sharply during this period. States that currently sponsor terrorism in the region will fall all over themselves to help us in our War on Terror. Al Qaeda will be effectively disbanded within a decade. > > For the next few years, Israel will see little change in terrorism patterns. After 5 years, terrorist attacks on them will begin to abate. In 10 years, terrorism in Israel will decline to the point where serious talks can be made regarding a Palestinian homeland. Israel will be reluctant, but will be threatened by the UN (whom they will ignore), and nudged by the US (whom they will not). In 15 years, terrorism in Israel and New Palestine will be an occasional occurence, but far from the horrifying ordeal it is today. > > Bush will receive credit for none of this. **Florentine Pogen:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > I’m going to say drastically improved. I don’t think it will last, though (It’ll be better than Afghanistan). > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > Muslim countries would probably be happier in the long run without Iraq. But authoritarian regimes will be pissing their pants. This could increase terrorist attacks temporarily. I see little change directly from this war- it could be signs of things to come though. **Jojo:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > The economy will be improving rapidly and there will be a large number of newspapers and radio stations. All of the newspapers will be critical of the US (but this is good, this is how it should be). > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > Could go either way: > > - it could lead to the spread of democracy as the other nations in the area watch the Iraqi economy go through the roof. It could also lead to the resolution of the Israel conflict within 10-20 years > > - or, it could make the other countries in the area become more intransigent if they feel they need to resist American hegemony in the region (witness Iran trying to accelerate it’s nuclear program) > > Since I’m an eternal optimist, I’m gonna go with the first option. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/56 "2004-03-23T03:18:49Z")
And now, **Posters against the war:** **Kasuo:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > Similar to Afghanistan. The U.S. will have to back-up any pro-Western leader/figurehead while he is targeted for reprisal by any dissident groups or remaining forces of the old regime, including the Kurds. There will be major border conflicts along the Turkish-Iraqi border as the Kurds will attempt to establish their own sovereign nation. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year?** > Multiple terrorist attacks around the world, especially in Israel, the U.K. and U.S. Iran might have a popular uprising; Israel may be poised to take out Hamas and other terrorist groups operating out of the West Bank. As a possible risidual, the E.U. will become more anti-American and our relations with the E.U. will suffer for it. **even sven:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > South America- somewhat democratic looking, but still a mess. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > People will be resentful. There will be an anti-American revolution in Saudi Arabia. We will see even more fundamentalism take hold and spread into South Asia and North Africa through grassroots anti-Western movements. Eventually the whole structure will fall apart, like colonialism did, and everyone will be stuck figuring out what to do with the pieces. I picture the Middle East in ten years looking a lot like a somewhat richer and more privatized Africa. **Wooly:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > A country under US martial law. Sporadic sniper attacks, but in the short term Iraq will be relatively quiet. After all they have had plenty of practice living under a military government. Lots of intense and increasing internecine jockeying for position from internal religious, ethnic, political and probably border incursions from Iran as the US determines how to define the exit point. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > Will be a significant lull after the storm until the bulk of the US forces return. > > After one year the various factions will start lobbying for the real prize of power in Iraq after the US exit point. > > Maintream Iraq will begin to prosper and the “old Europe” powers will see a revival of their economies through increased trade links to the Middle East. As the Iraqis regain their economic strength they will demand more than equivalent gains in political strength. > > Fundamentalist groups will look at the different appraoches taken by the US on Iraq and PRNK and decide it’s much better to have WoMD than be seeking to obtain WoMD and will target Pakistan as the easiest avenue to obtain WoMD production and delivery systems. **Xenophon:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > Similar to Afghanistan in terms of factionation, but much, much more highly managed in terms of infrastructure and government. There will, however, be a large number of semi-permanent refugee camps, divided along ethnic and religious lines, which will be breeding grounds for terrorism and rebellion. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > Immediately, a large groundswell of anti-Westernism aimed specifically against US and Israel. Probable Islamic unrest/uprisings in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. Probable escalation of the current Palestinian intifada. > One year later… impossible to say. Depends on the degree to which US hegemony in the Gulf has been exerted outside of Iraq. It may take several years, no matter what direction the US takes, before relative stability returns to the region. **MSU 1978** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > One propped up despot after another. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > One year- still more unstable. Still more terrorism. > Ten years- all moderate Arab regimes will fall to the fundamentalist Islam. **AZCowboy:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > A cluster-fuck. The US will be trying its best to provide peace-keeping activities, but various factions, all with very different interests, will resist unifying under a coalition democratic government. The closest description will be civil war, but not with organized troops. Guerrilla-style (or terrorist style, take your pick) tactics will be common, and it will be exceptionally difficult to figure out who the good guys are, because all them will come in shades of gray. The US public will grow weary of continuing to sacrifice US soldiers to build democracy in Iraq when there will be little support for such a structure. Fundamentalist muslims will be one of the most powerful competing parties to democracy, the US will be threatened by that eventuality. Interference by the US in the “democratic” process will be frowned upon by the international community. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > Destabilization, and a prima facia resistence to US policy, regardless of the intent or objective, particularly with regards to Israel. The fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia will be agitated, threatening the stability of the government there. The same flames will grow in Iran, but will be balanced by reformist elements, with the end result approaching if not realizing civil war. Turkey will be destabilized, due to the desire of Turkish Kurds to form Kurdistan with their Iraqi brethren, and thousands of Turkist Kurds will be killed in violent resistance. Fundamentalist factions in Yemen, Somalia, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan will all be stregthened, making it near impossible to advance the US’ foreign policy objectives in those areas. **Menocchio:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > A low key and largely secret civil war. The Shia and the Kurds will both rise up. Baathist hardliners will hold out long after Saddam has died/surrendered/fled the country and gone underground (all likely, IMHO). Sunni fundamentalist will also be active in the region. And a few assholes will carve out their own fiefdoms just because they can. A US supported puppet will rule little outside of the oil and Baghdad itself. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > Resentment and an escalation of hostilities in all sectors. Israel/Palestine and the US/Iraq will become equivalent terms in terroristic rhetoric. There’s a good chance this will spur uprising the Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Iran will be very, very nervous and prepare for hostilities against the US (although they may never attack unless they think we’ll strike). **Sofa King:** > [@](#): > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > Iraq will be carved into three, perhaps five or more pieces: a Kurdish northeast, a Shiite southeast, an American-controlled center and northwest, and quite possibly large swaths of territory bordering Syria and Iran being lopped off by ininvited military excursions into those areas, particularly the oilfields along the southern Iranian border. American attempts to control the central and southern areas as one semi-autonomous entity will fail utterly. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > Immediate reaction will be subdued. One year later, weapons of mass destruction will be used in northern Israel by Syrian and Iranian backed terrorists based in Lebanon. Ten years later, most middle eastern nations will be governed by left-leaning military dictatorships. Insurgent forces will proliferate throughout the region, and American interests worldwide will be under constant threat of attack. One of the most active of those forces will be that of the Kurds, who will be fighting for independence rather than the limited autonomy granted by the United States. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/57 "2004-03-23T06:22:58Z")
May I ask the point of revival of this thread, **Sam**? (Unless you are composing the post right now…) Except to notice that some of the posters were quite prescient and others were predictably dead wrong. The most accurate were the ones whose predictions fell somewhere in the middle, apparently. There are certainly bright spots in Iraq, but there are also really bad spots that don’t seem to have gotten much better over the last six months. I am very pleased that the war was short and that casualties were relatively small. A year ago, I was sitting at a hostel in Phuket, in the middle of one of the best vacations of my life, watching BBC World Service, and telling my wife “I can’t believe we are going to war over chemical weapons.” It was even worse than I had imagined. Saddam was a truly bad guy and I am glad that he is gone and that the Iraqi people can move on. I am glad that a democracy seems to be coming together over there and I hope that our (and the Iraqi) investment in Iraq will reap tangible benefits soon. But in many respects this war IMHO has let us turn our back on terror, with only lip service given to addressing the niduses of the fanaticism that we know can hurt us. We have squandered so much life, money, and goodwill on what now seems like extracurricular activities in Iraq. If the terror situation has improved over the past year, it is only despite of Iraq. Iran has gotten worse. There has been a lot of talk but little movement on Saudi Arabia. Israel/Palestine is as bad as ever. We have given Pakistan close non-NATO ally status even though they recently sold nuclear technology to our worst enemies. Worse than this, our administration still seems fixated on the states, not the supranational organizations. Despite what they should have learned in Iraq – there were very few or no governmental ties to al Qaeda and our intelligence that said that they were a threat was dead wrong – most of the approach to terror focuses on rebuilding Iraq and Aghanistan. My wife is due today. I wonder what national tragedies my first child will deal with over the next five years, and I have horrible suspicions that they are being planned and carried out right now, when our national attention is diverted to the mess of our own choosing which is Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/58 "2004-03-23T06:38:38Z")
Actually, I did it because I said I would. I did the same thing after the war ended. It was kind of the whole point to this thread when I started it. I purposely did not comment on any of predictions. I just wanted to tabulate them in case people wanted to discuss this. I actually didn’t want to do it, and procrastinated for a couple of days. It took quite some time to go through the thread and cut and paste and mark all that up. I also don’t think there is much to conclude from it. I see both sides have some people who made very good predictions, and a few who really blew it. I myself predicted that Libya would roll over within the year, but then on the other hand I also predicted that the U.S. would be pressuring Hamas, which was way off the mark. I just thought it would be an interesting experiment to capture a lot of people’s thinking before the war, and compare what they thought would happen with reality some time thereafter. I thought there might be some insight into the motivations that lead to war that would be useful to examine later. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/59 "2004-03-23T06:44:51Z")
OK, very good then. Carry on about your business… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![sinical\_brit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/48db29/32.png) [@sinical\_brit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinical_brit)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024/60 "2004-03-23T14:38:37Z")
Right - its been mentioned twice now : " Oh, how about the standards of a country in which 30,000 people were murdered by the regime annually" I thought Saddam did most of his killing in Iran/Iraq war and just after the US let him off the hook in '91? Cite please? Cosmic sig edwino !! sin [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-middle-east-prediction-thread/161024.md?page=2)