If the U.S. and British troops withdrew from Iraq tomorrow, what would happen there? Would the interim government manage to hang on to power as the most broadly acceptable alternative? At least, until the scheduled national elections next year? Or would there be a civil war? If so, what kind of civil war? What would be the factions and issues? How would it shake out? Who would win? Would the Kurds declare independence? Would the Sunni Triangle break away from the Shi’ite South? What do you think?
Hard to say really, but I think the entire thing would go up in flames within a month. The government would try and fight it out of course, but I think you’d have a general rebellion, with various factions of Shi’ite fighting for control (can you say Al Sader and his merry men??), factions of Sunni fighting it out…and the Kurds saying bye bye…have a nice life. That would (perhaps) bring the Turks into it. That could bring about a multi-corner fire fight that would engulf Iraq…and perhaps spread to a regional thing as well.
The Iraqi government simply doesn’t have the resources or the RELIABLE manpower to do it alone. Without the US driving this thing I thing I can’t see the Europeans bestirring themselves to fight ‘Americas war’…or any one else.
In other words, complete chaos, fire and brimstone raining from the skys, dogs and cats living together, etc etc etc. Not a pleasant prospect. And the aftermath of such a thing would make Saddam’s excesses during the early 90’s seem playful in comparison.
Tam would be the best to answer this question though…hope he pops in.
-XT
I believe that it’s virtually inevitable that we will see the rise of a hardline anti-America leaderr in Iraq. All of the necessary elements are there: poverty, an identifiable enemy, chaos, and an intense longing for stability.
If we pulled out immediately, it’d simply happen sooner rather than later. It’s my belief that as soon as Iraq is allowed to self-govern or is left to their own devices, we’ll see the beginning of a dictator’s rise to power. And, unfortunately, that means we’ll probably have to go back in there within the next decade or two.
Well, if the Americans simply hit the road, in ten years Iraq will play Afghanistan (anti-American sentiment leads to violent terrorism) and Iran/Syria will play Iraq (the uninvolved nation that gets taken out for the hell of it).
In addition to the above.
Iran would play a much larger role in the country. There is already disquiet about Iran and its clergy lurking at the peripheries of Iraq. Both physically and figuratively.
The competing forces appear to be:
Sunni:
Shia;
Iranian allied to one of the above:
Secularism
Nationalism
Kurdish separatism
Oil interests.
Turkey has made it clear it will not accept an incipient Kurdish state on its Eastern border.
Iranian powers have a religious and political interest in extending their influence into Iraq.
On the other hand there are clear factions within Iraq that prefer a secular state. These are in the minority, so the chances of a stand-alone secular pan-Iraqi democracy are slim.
However there is Iraqi nationalism, so one cannot say for sure that the country would be balkanised - i.e. break down into separate ethnic/religious states.
And of course Oil. Oil is the income. It is the power. Who controls that will be the real government of Iraq, however else it may appear. The oil resources are concentrated in the North, so that is the place to look out for,
Well, I think that we should have left after we captured Saddam and given him a nice quick trial. We should not have concerned ourselves with the future of Iraq - that is for the Iraqis, not us - save to warn off surrounding countries from interfering. Whatever sort of state or states the Iraqis want, that should be their choice. We have failed to learn from Yugoslavia. We should have allowed the Kurds to form their own nation. Iraq, Jordan, and Syria are all artifical constructs to a greater or lesser extent, remnants of British control. If the area were to descend to chaos then peacekeepers could go in, but, like Yugoslavia, I think we’d be seeing Iraq seperating into seperate states - the Kurds, the ‘Marsh Arabs’ around Basra, and other areas based upon religious and tribal lines.
I wonder how Poland would have felt about this tack in the early '30’s.
Didn’t the all-powerful UN have a sanction or two against Iraq that was repeatedly broken right up to the invasion?
Now that I think of it, didn’t Iraq have a conditional cease-fire agreement, through the UN, with America? A cease-fire agreement that Hussein violated about a dozen times?
Keep in mind, a cease-fire during war means that the losing country must abide by all rules or the truce is null and void.
This isn’t a “new” war. It’s the finish of a war Hussein began when he invaded Kuwait in an attempt to occupy it. Here’s a lighter for smoking that which I just put in your pipe.
But your comment goes only to reasons for considering our invasion of Iraq legitimate, duffer. And that’s in the past. Recent past, but still past. You didn’t answer the OP: Given the situation we have in Iraq now – Hussein’s regime gone, replaced by a Coalition-appointed interim government shored up by Coalition troops and facing a fierce multifactional insurgency that is united only in its hatred of the occupiers – what will happen if the Coalition troops are removed from that equation?
Allawi would have to work even faster to incorporate the faction militias into his army. That’d degrade his power base even faster than it’s decaying now. So full scale civil war would break out earlier without US troops in place. There might be less disruption and bloodshed under that scenario than if the US spends several years trying to prop up a failed regime.
Yes, well the US went ahead despite the attitude of the UN, didn’t it? And there’s nothing like an object lesson to instill discipline, right?
How about France and Russia exploiting the ‘Oil for Food’ program for their own ends?
Yeah, I guess the moral justifications for invasion never end.
In the interest of fighting ignorance, I should point out that AFAIK those allegations still haven’t been proven. Not that it’d stop the anti-UN conservatives from repeating the claim…
The presence of the words “Telegraph” and (twice) “opinion” do little to aid your cause there, Ryan.
There appear to be three disparate militant groups in Iraq right now. The largest is the Islamist faction largely in control of the cities of Kerbala, Najaf, Ramadi and Falluja. The second is a nationalist element fighting ‘occupation’ which is more widespread but at a lower level of violence - the kind of thing that goes on in Basra, say. The third is an ex-Baathist regime element based in parts of Baghdad, Samarra and Tal Afar in the North.
All of these places are pretty much no-go areas for US troops. In the Islamist areas, mujahideen councils have already been set up.
It seems these groups will press for control of Iraq by force whether foreign troops are present or not. Given time, even Saddam’s brutal but stable regime might seem like the ‘good old days’.
What about the ethnic groups in the North – the Kurds, Turkmens, Assyrians and Arabs? What are the respective attitudes of those groups towards the occupation and the interim government?