Will we (a) still be in Iraq on 1/1/09, (b) have left on our own, (c) gotten evicted?

[XT]

@RTFirefly

But you raise an interesting issue. That would be an eviction of sorts, assuming we’d go if we were told to go. (Once upon a time, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said we would leave if asked.) The question is, would Bush do so now?

The gods alone know what Bush would or would not do. My guess is he WOULD…but that he’d drag his feet over it and probably do a lot of back room pressuring of the Iraqi government to take it back and ask us to stay. However, fortunately Bush et al won’t be with us too much longer…and my guess is, IF the Iraqi government asks us to leave around the next Presidential Elections, most if not all of the candidate will be falling all over themselves to assure the voters that we’ll be out of there faster than shit through a goose…all at the Iraqi governments request of course. Hell, it would be the perfect thing to get us off the hook if it played out that way and I’d say that every candidate (or the next president if it comes after the elections) will run with it.

-XT

[elucidator]

@xtisme

… fortunately Bush et al won’t be with us too much longer…

I rise to quibble. Two more years is too much longer. Way too much longer. Not that we can do much about it, but it is what it is. And it bites.

[XT]

@elucidator

I rise to quibble. Two more years is too much longer. Way too much longer. Not that we can do much about it, but it is what it is. And it bites.

While I agree that 2 years if far too long, I also agree that there isn’t much we can do about it. What can’t be changed must be endured unfortunately. It most certainly DOES bite…but think how sweet it will be when he’s finally gone! Also, I think he’s sort of had his fangs pulled at this point. Realistically, I don’t see him actually getting much done (or doing much harm) in his remaining time in office at this point.

-XT

[Little_Nemo]

If we lose the Green Zone, and we lose control of the supply lines to Kuwait, then it boils down to logistics: how large a force can we resupply by air? I don’t know the answer, but I’m sure it’s a heck of a lot smaller than the force we’ve got in there now.

In theory, yes. But the problem with that theory is that there’s no force in Iraq that could kick American forces out of the Green Zone or cut off their supply lines unless America itself set a limit on how much force it would commit.

[toadspittle]

(a), despite rampant unpopularity with the venture at home and increased US troop deaths in Iraq. Of course, if we or Israel make a strike on Iran in the next year, then we could see Iraq as our staging ground for further airstrikes/raids on Iran.

[RTFirefly]

@toadspittle

(a), despite rampant unpopularity with the venture at home and increased US troop deaths in Iraq. Of course, if we or Israel make a strike on Iran in the next year, then we could see Iraq as our staging ground for further airstrikes/raids on Iran.

If we were to attack Iran while still in Iraq, we’d be washed away in the flood.

We’ve depended for this long on the tolerance of the Shi’ite population in Iraq, which we’ve gotten because we’ve implicitly taken their side against the Sunni minority. If we attack Iran, though, it’s all over, unless we’re willing to engage in mass slaughter of Iraqis just to maintain a presence there.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

But you raise an interesting issue. That would be an eviction of sorts, assuming we’d go if we were told to go. (Once upon a time, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said we would leave if asked.) The question is, would Bush do so now?

I think there’s a real possibility that the Iraqi legislature will ask us to leave sometime in the next two years. But even if they do, I suspect they will ask combat troops to leave and give an OK for us to keep a reserve of training corps in Iraq.

I also think it would be next to impossible for Bush to keep combat troops in Iraq with an explicit request from the Iraqi legislature to bug out. I’ll be very surprised if we’re out of Iraq completely in less than 5 years from now, even if Hillary beats McCain in '08.

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

I think there’s a real possibility that the Iraqi legislature will ask us to leave sometime in the next two years. But even if they do, I suspect they will ask combat troops to leave and give an OK for us to keep a reserve of training corps in Iraq.

We’d consider it mandatory (and quite reasonably so, IMHO) to keep combat troops there to protect the trainers.

I also think it would be next to impossible for Bush to keep combat troops in Iraq with an explicit request from the Iraqi legislature to bug out. I’ll be very surprised if we’re out of Iraq completely in less than 5 years from now

I’d be stunned if we’re still there in any way, shape, or form. The arc of increased violence over the past 44 months is just astounding.

even if Hillary beats McCain in '08.

If Hillary wants to run against McCain, she’d better move fast - Obama’s stealing her oxygen.

[elucidator]

At least he didn’t steal her car! I mean, c’mon!

[marshmallow]

I predict we will have near or around our current troop levels in 2009. Why? Because Bush has said in no uncertain terms that the Iraqi debacle will be an issue for future presidents to solve. I’m going to take him at his word.

The Iraqis will not be able to force the Americans out. They can kill and maim a whole bunch of U.S. soldiers though and make staying there a living hell. They’ve been doing that for awhile.

I predict we won’t start seriously leaving Iraq until 2010-11 at the minimum.

[toadspittle]

@RTFirefly

If we were to attack Iran while still in Iraq, we’d be washed away in the flood.

We’ve depended for this long on the tolerance of the Shi’ite population in Iraq, which we’ve gotten because we’ve implicitly taken their side against the Sunni minority. If we attack Iran, though, it’s all over, unless we’re willing to engage in mass slaughter of Iraqis just to maintain a presence there.

People bring this sort of thing up all the time as reason why we would NEVER attack Iran. Hogwash, I sez. Washed away in the flood? We’re already treading water and in up to our necks. This whole adventure never had any hope of success, and that never stopped our leaders from trying it. They didn’t learn from Vietnam–or from the Brits at the turn of the last century–so why should they learn from this fresh mistake not to start a war we can’t hope to win?

[RTFirefly]

@toadspittle

People bring this sort of thing up all the time as reason why we would NEVER attack Iran. Hogwash, I sez. Washed away in the flood? We’re already treading water and in up to our necks.

Exactly. And this is without the Shi’ites having risen against us. Who comprise 3/4 of the population of the Arab part of Iraq.

This whole adventure never had any hope of success, and that never stopped our leaders from trying it. They didn’t learn from Vietnam–or from the Brits at the turn of the last century–so why should they learn from this fresh mistake not to start a war we can’t hope to win?

Learn?? Not expecting that at all. Certainly not from Bush. And Cheney is likely to want to hang onto his damned ‘lily pads’ - i.e. the permanent bases - long after every other toehold we have in Iraq has been swept away.

He may be able to get away with that part because the PBs have been constructed to be essentially independent of Iraq - in Iraq, but not of it, like independent principalities within the borders of a larger nation. Not dependent on land-based supply lines, but resuppliable by cargo plane convoys.

But if we lose Greenzonia, there will be no reason for the Iraqi government to want to keep us around, and they’ll soon order us out, if only to score points with their people. And at that point, Cheney will be stared down, and that’ll be the end of it.

[Ins_Outs_What-have-yous]

I select option a) with the caveat that there will be fewer US troops but more private contractors protecting the interests of the US in Iraq.

There may only be about 60k US troops currently in Iraq, but there are an estimated 100,000+ private contractors in Iraq working for the US Dept. of Defense.

[RTFirefly]

Here’s the fault line that threatens to pull the ground out from under our feet:

In Basra, we met with British commanders who talked about the declining “consent line” – that is, when the British first arrived, their presence was welcomed by the population, but as time has gone on, their presence is less and less tolerated.

This is from Sen. Collins (R-ME), via Greg Sargent of The American Prospect.

This isn’t exactly a surprise - the reports that the natives in Shi’ite Iraq are getting increasingly restive have been increasingly frequent during the past year or so.

The idea that it’s already nearly as bad as it can get is absurd. It can get worse - lots worse. And almost surely will, given the cluelessness of our Administration. All reports say that they want to crack down on Muqtada al-Sadr. We’re about to find out how it can be worse. But we wouldn’t really find out how bad it could be unless we attacked Iran too - then our new buddy Hakim not only wouldn’t be able to save us from his own followers, but he wouldn’t want to either.

Each of these very vicious men commands a following of millions of Shi’ite Iraqis who for the moment at least tolerate us, but increasingly, just barely. And the people who run our country are looking for ways to make them mad.

[Little_Nemo]

One possibility is that at some point the Kurds will declare themselves an actual independant nation rather than a de facto one as is currently the case. Kurdistan is a fairly stable region and the Kurds are not opposing the Americans (mostly because they’re the weakest power in the region and need outside allies).

So the United States might recognize the creation of Kurdistan and withdraw from the rest of Iraq into the new country. With American support, the Kurds might claim ownership of Iraq’s northern oil fields as well. This would give America a secure base in the region without local opposition and leave the Shia and the Sunnis to settle their differences on their own.

The downside of this scenario is that Kurdistan is landlocked which would make it very difficult to support American troops there. With Iraq, Iran, and Syria closed to American logistic lines, the only access to Kurdistan would be via air (across unfriendly countries) or through Turkey.

[jayjay]

@Little Nemo

With Iraq, Iran, and Syria closed to American logistic lines, the only access to Kurdistan would be via air (across unfriendly countries) or through Turkey.

Which will NOT be happy with US military support for an independent Kurdistan on its borders…

[Ryan_Liam]

This is how it will end in Iraq, my assumption.

US won’t be forced out militarily, it will be asked to leave by the Shia and Kurdish government, and this will happen at a moment when US casualties become unacceptable, so it becomes some sort of half victory, we leave, but the government we helped foster is still standing, which is a marked difference from Vietnam (Obviously). Maliki won’t ask the US to leave, because he’ll be in his job for one term.

But what will be interesting is what will be left behind.

Now, back to some analogies on Vietnam, when the US withdrew ground troops, it didn’t remove air support. Now, air support is an ample way in helping a government struggling with insurgents by giving it the ability to have a tactical advantage over them which they don’t have. The US will do this, because one, it’ll shore up the government they helped set up to create, two, because it’s cheaper in lives and manpower to support and three, they don’t have to take responsibility for what happens on the ground, they can leave that to the Iraqi Government.

So what we’ll see is a marked reduction in the number of ground troops, and the increase of advisors and military contracts and supplies to the Iraqi security forces. So the US will withdraw, but never completely, and I don’t think Iraqi politicians want to see them gone completely either, since it benefits them both in terms of money and ability for them to retain their positions of influence.

The numerous theories of how the US would be cut off and supposedly stranded in Baghdad is implausable basically because if it were that easy, then Sadr who launched two uprisings, would of done it first, not to mention the numerous other insurgent organisations who can’t even pull it off. Also, just to mention, Hakim might be pro-Iranian, but he’s not stupid to cross the US. He’s also a considerable rival to Moqtada Al Sadr. Not to mention his organisation is much larger than his.

I see US withdrawal from frontline combat in about 3 years, if the current positions hold, however if not, I only see a marked reduction in US action and redeployment of forces to backing up the Iraqi security forces for the foreseeable future under the guise of advisors and financial support.

[Little_Nemo]

Which will NOT be happy with US military support for an independent Kurdistan on its borders…

That’s true. I would imagine part of this scenario will be that Kurdistan would have to publically renounce any support of “foreign” Kurds and claims to other territory as part of the price for Turkish support.

[jayjay]

@Little Nemo

That’s true. I would imagine part of this scenario will be that Kurdistan would have to publically renounce any support of “foreign” Kurds and claims to other territory as part of the price for Turkish support.

I think the problem with that is that an independent Kurdistan, by its very existence, is going to be a major symbol of freedom from oppression for Turkey’s Kurds, no matter what the “official” stance of said Kurdistan is concerning Turkey’s Kurds. Simply renouncing any claims to official status or diplomatic support for foreign Kurds isn’t going to placate Turkey, I don’t think.

[RTFirefly]

@Ryan_Liam

US won’t be forced out militarily, it will be asked to leave by the Shia and Kurdish government, and this will happen at a moment when US casualties become unacceptable, so it becomes some sort of half victory, we leave, but the government we helped foster is still standing, which is a marked difference from Vietnam (Obviously).

Wrong. This wouldn’t be a marked difference - it would be no difference at all. The government of Vietnam was a going concern for over two years after we ended our combat role in Vietnam in early 1973.

Now, back to some analogies on Vietnam, when the US withdrew ground troops, it didn’t remove air support. Now, air support is an ample way in helping a government struggling with insurgents by giving it the ability to have a tactical advantage over them which they don’t have. The US will do this, because one, it’ll shore up the government they helped set up to create, two, because it’s cheaper in lives and manpower to support and three, they don’t have to take responsibility for what happens on the ground, they can leave that to the Iraqi Government.

Air power is notoriously ineffective at combatting insurgencies, as we have already found out in Iraq and Afghanistan. You bomb an insurgent’s house, and relatives, women and children get killed and maimed by the bombs. The locals see the ‘collateral damage’ you’re willing to inflict just to get a few insurgents, and they learn to hate you. You lose. If it’s known that you’re acting in support of a government, it loses.

So what we’ll see is a marked reduction in the number of ground troops, and the increase of advisors and military contracts and supplies to the Iraqi security forces. So the US will withdraw, but never completely, and I don’t think Iraqi politicians want to see them gone completely either, since it benefits them both in terms of money and ability for them to retain their positions of influence.

This creates a force protection nightmare. Advisors and contractors will need to be protected, and not by Iraqis, whom they won’t trust. The more we disperse them for effectiveness in their missions, the worse that problem gets; the more we keep them in just a few places, the less they can accomplish. Either way, we’d have to keep a lot of combat forces around just to protect the advisors, but more so if they’re actually embedded with Iraqi forces in a number of different places.

The numerous theories of how the US would be cut off and supposedly stranded in Baghdad is implausable basically because if it were that easy, then Sadr who launched two uprisings, would of done it first, not to mention the numerous other insurgent organisations who can’t even pull it off.

See what the British commanders told Sen. Collins (post 34). Sadr’s uprisings were in the spring and summer of 2004, when the Shi’ite population as a whole was still much more favorably disposed towards us.

If all we have to worry about is the active membership of the Badr Corps or the Mahdi Army, we can keep our supply lines intact. But if one of those organizations is simply the spearhead for a sizable popular uprising against us, it’s all over. That’s a very real possibility now, much more so than in 2004.

Also, just to mention, Hakim might be pro-Iranian, but he’s not stupid to cross the US. He’s also a considerable rival to Moqtada Al Sadr. Not to mention his organisation is much larger than his.

Right now, Hakim’s not going to cross us; we’re apparently about to back him against al-Sadr. Supporting one thug against another. Look who we’re replacing Saddam with. Exactly why are we here again?

I see US withdrawal from frontline combat in about 3 years, if the current positions hold, however if not, I only see a marked reduction in US action and redeployment of forces to backing up the Iraqi security forces for the foreseeable future under the guise of advisors and financial support.

The occupation phase has been underway for 3 years and 9 months. The changes during that time have been huge; each year in Iraq has been different (and worse) from the year before. And you’re saying what things might look like in three years.

I would contend that any effort to see down the road had better be done with the expectation of that trend continuing: that our situation will continue to deteriorate rapidly and in unexpected ways. Predictions based on the expectation of anything remotely like stasis are probably useless.