What exactly will happen when we leave Iraq, and why is it not as bad as staying?

The Iraqi bloggers I read suggest bringing in the UN.

If that happens, every country involved will find it has its own Vietnam on its hands.

Maybe they’ll learn a lesson from it. Eventually.

In the short term, they will find that involvment destabilizes their own governments at home. There is a substantial Shi’a minority in SA, particularly in the eastern provinces; they ain’t gonna like it if their government intervenes in Iraq to help the Sunni fight the Shi’ites. Iran has sizeable and restive ethnic minorities, including Kurds in the northwest, Arabs in the southwest and Balochis in the east; all of them have nationalist movements. The Turks will find their own Kurds even more troublesome if they send troops into Iraqi Kurdistan. And so on.

Are they wise enough to foresee this, I wonder?

Yeah, that will do the trick I’m sure…

You don’t think they (Turkey, Iran and SA) are ALREADY putting their toes in the pond then? Interesting…


Not SA, not yet. We already know about the Turkish incursions and Iran’s support of (some of) the insurgents.

You are thinking strictly in terms of official support by a government. Take a step back and think about which country contributed a good chunk of the fighters in the war between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union (or for that matter where ObL comes from).


More foreign insurgents in Iraq come from SA than anywhere else, but that doesn’t mean that SA, as a country, is putting its toe in the pond.

True enough. Afaik SA is not officially supporting any groups or efforts in Iraq…but that doesn’t mean that private groups or individuals from SA aren’t doing so. Which is kind of what I was getting at. Sorry it was confusion there.

The point was that, even if we discount SA for now from the list (officially), the others ARE dipping toes…so I don’t think wisdom is going to suddenly break out if we bolt from Iraq. Do you?


Doubtful. They haven’t been wise up to now. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to learn from others’ mistakes.

According to members of your own government, they are.
You’ve gotta be kidding me, BG. You really think the Saudis, who are only in power because the most extreme elements of the Sunni sect allow them to be, are going to sit idly by? They may be your country’s ultimate stooge, but they’ve got others to please as well.

According to this, the Bush Admin is considering a secret military action in Turkey to suppress the Kurdish rebels.

That might be viewed as a well-considered ounce of prevention. But how, I wonder, will it affect our standing with the Iraqi Kurds, who have been practically our only allies in Iraq up to now?

In related news, the Iraqi oil workers have been on strike since June and the Oil Ministry has just directed all its agencies not to deal with unions.

Cheney admits he was wrong about “last throes” in Iraq

So if the administration was wrong about the insurgency, why should we believe them now when they talk about the new domino theory in the Middle East? Maybe that is all a crock as well? They have no credibility on what is going to happen in Iraq.

No, it’s quite accurate. There is an element of the far Left that would prefer a bloodbath in Iraq that can be blamed on Bush (if we do what he does not recommend, and cut and run) over a reasonably stable Iraq that might redound to his credit.

There were enough folks posting that they hoped the US was defeated and suffered heavy casualties to make it clear that some people are hoping for the worst.

But we were talking about what might happen if we did not do what Bush recommends. And I am saying that a bad outcome if we cut and run will be blamed on Bush too.

No matter what happens, the Usual Suspects will condemn Bush for it. If we do what he recommends, then Bush sux; if we don’t, then etc.

Actually, I see more of that on the Left with Iraq today. Nobody on that side wants to talk about the hundreds of thousands of people murdered by the Saddam regime; they want to pretend that everything was just fine when Saddam was in power. Whenever they hear about torture in Iraq, they want to talk about Abu Ghairab - not real torture. “The sanctions were working just fine”, they claim, and wanted to lift them.

Things will get worse in Iraq if we pull out immediately. They might get worse if we pull out later. But they might not be as bad as they would be if we cut and run. And the fear of the last is what motivates at least part of the far Left.


And maybe if we hold our mouth just right and put all our chips on red, we can win back the rent money.

Except for me, who ? I’ve said repeatedly that I’d like to see the entire American & coalition force annihilated to the last soldier, and gotten yelled at about it. I certainly don’t recall any chorus of approval.

Nonsense. I don’t know anyone who says that things were good under Saddam. There were simply better than what we’ve created.

Not a chance. America was and is one of the causes of the ruin of Iraq. It is simply impossible for there to be anything but constant disaster in Iraq while we are there, because we are one of the disasters.

Saying that Iraq may be better off with us staying is like saying that you don’t want to haul a homicidal maniac off his victim, because he might be doing some good. The first step in healing the aftermath of an attack is to stop the attack. Which means the only way Iraq has any chance of getting better is to get rid of it’s attackers; us.

Why not? No matter what happens, Bush will be to blame for it. This is his dumbass war.

As they, and everyone, should. It was his idea; the results are his legacy.

We’ll never know, will we? This is not the kind of situation where it is possible to run a controlled experiment.

I know very little about foreign affairs, but wouldn’t dividing the country into three or however many new countries ease the trouble a tad?

And we have the right to do this to them how exactly?

And the Turks won’t sit by and watch an oil-rich Kurdistan form anyway.