The "What would happen if the US withdrew from Iraq" poll
- Thread starter Elrohir
- Start date
as opposed to staying the course, surges, or complete power vacuum withdrawal?
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
A weak iraq is not good as it stands at the crossroads of the middle east,
It really doesn't matter if the U.S. stays or leaves. Iraq is on the brink of collapse anyway. As William Odum wrote in a Washington Post article:
The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to collaborate with us in Iraq and the region.
Second, we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East.
Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening "regime change," using the hysterical rhetoric of the "global war on terrorism" -- all undermine the stability we so desperately need in the Middle East.
Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. There must be a stable Middle East. We must redirect our military operations so they enhance rather than undermine stability. We can write off the war as a "tactical draw" and make "regional stability" our measure of "victory." That single step would dramatically realign the opposing forces in the region, where most states want stability. Even many in the angry mobs of young Arabs shouting profanities against the United States want predictable order, albeit on better social and economic terms than they now have.
The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to collaborate with us in Iraq and the region.
Second, we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East.
Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening "regime change," using the hysterical rhetoric of the "global war on terrorism" -- all undermine the stability we so desperately need in the Middle East.
Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. There must be a stable Middle East. We must redirect our military operations so they enhance rather than undermine stability. We can write off the war as a "tactical draw" and make "regional stability" our measure of "victory." That single step would dramatically realign the opposing forces in the region, where most states want stability. Even many in the angry mobs of young Arabs shouting profanities against the United States want predictable order, albeit on better social and economic terms than they now have.
Arcadian83
Prince
Agreed, the factions are too different to live under the same roof together. There was little benefit and disasterous consequences in trying for a unified Iraq instead of dividing into smallers states. The various factions see it as a 'winner take all' situation, and so they fight.
Maybe it is still possible to subdivide the country. That's what I'd like to see happen. It would just involve admitting that the unified government has failed, which we are likely too proud to do.
My opinion is largely uninformed as well.
So because they're bad, we should be worse? Because Al Qaeda killed 3000 of our citizens, and terrorists in Iraq have killed 2000 of our troops, we should kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians? Huh? Such an action would just feed the flames of hatred and would most likely increase terrorism, not lessen it.
So you don't think Iraq can ever be stabilized by a democratic government? Do Iraqi's not want freedom, then?
Perfection
The Great Head.
What abouts my option?
I just can't see the US, Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis being able to hammer anything out.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
The most prominate Muslim posters (mainly from the Ask a Muslim thread) expressed their opinions that the United States is trying to conqure and supress the Muslims and to create or expand "a crusader state" and extend their "imperialistic/colonial rule" in the Arab world.
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
It would be utter chaos and merely show our enemies that they need only wear us down for a couple of years before the support at home is broken. We've made a mess in Iraq, there is no question about that, but to simply pack up and live is irresponsible and downright cowardly.
Iraq cannot presently be converted to a stable democratic government with U.S. involvement. Unless you are willing to commit U.S. blood and treasure for at least a couple of decades, then there will be a very ugly period when we leave.
When is your tour of duty?
You break it, you fix it. Unfortunately, we cannot go back to last February, and after a year, I don't know if Iraq is fixable. I do know it's our responsibility to succeed.
Our invasion messed the country up. It might have gone to hell after Saddam, it may not have. That's not the point. We chose a course of action and now we must suck it up and take responsibility -- stop acting like children: there is no world parent to pay for this broken toy.
Our invasion messed the country up. It might have gone to hell after Saddam, it may not have. That's not the point. We chose a course of action and now we must suck it up and take responsibility -- stop acting like children: there is no world parent to pay for this broken toy.
Verbose
Deity
Sounds likely. It's the European back-lot anyway. It might force the EU to get its act together.
Otoh considering present US tastes for how to deal with problems, a lot of Americans prolly won't like what the EU might try anyway.
There's an outline of the shape of things to come here.
So your solution is genocide. Excellent idea!
I believe that the terrorist are not interested in keeping the entity known as iraq but to united a whole region under the islamic rule, either its Shia or the Sunnis. The whole place will breakdown possibly into a war zone from both sides.
nonconformist
Miserable
The answer is that there is no answer, Iraq is irreversibly screwed, and the deaths of civilians and Coalition troops (or rather US troops, the coalition is looking a bit thin nowadays, and it will look a lot thinner once we've pulled out) will continue to rise.
TheBoatman
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 298
I was against the invasion to Iraq because the results were predictable (and the American military command in fact predicted it while Bush listened to ideologists). On the other hand, the plan for more troops in iraq is the first sensible thing I heard from Bush. Because America has not been able made order there they should continue to clean it up. The situation is not so hopeless as it is depicted in media and it is better than it was in Vietnam.
tomsnowman123
Simple Liver
I vote for Iraq has already collapsed into total chaos so the U.S. mine as well leave.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
The territory of the former country would be the battleground for an epic battle between the Sunnis and Shia. Who knows, Bush might have inadvertently helped the US be a little safer after all. The Muslim world could be busy fighting itself there for the next 200 years.
So because they're paranoid, we should chance US foreign policy? I know that many Muslims think the US is launching some sort of Crusade against Islam - it's absurd, but it's what they think. But withdrawing from Iraq will kill tens of thousands, if not millions, and is much more costly than staying.
But do you think things will be better in the long term in Iraq if the US pulls out?
Similar threads
- Poll
