bushCartel myth: Iraq will descend into civil war if we withdraw

[LynnTheDem]

Question:

We have conflicting reports in the US about the Shia and Sunni putting aside their historical differences to team up against the Americans. Do you see this happening, and what do you believe the eventual outcome will be.

US policy makers claim that an American withdrawal would only result in a widescale civil war between these two factions and the Kurds in the north. Do you believe this will be the case? Are the Iraqis in a situation now where they are dammed any way they turn?

Answer:

I do see this happening. During the siege of Najaf, collections for aid at Sunni mosques were organized, as well as resistance fighters from Fallujah who provided guns and supplies to the Mehdi Army there. During the siege of Fallujah last April, Shia weighed heavily in donating aid, and participated in a non-violent action that pushed supplies into Fallujah through a US military cordon.

The Shia/Sunni rift is largely a CIA generated myth. There are countless tribes and marriages alike that are both Shia/Sunni. There are mosques here where they pray together.

There is the possibility of war if the Kurds go independent, but the more likely possibility of that war would be Turkey invading Kurdistan before any Shia/Sunni action would occur regarding this.

Remember the Arab proverb; "Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me, my brother and cousin against the stranger."

The Iraqis are in a situation where they are damned as long as the US continues to occupy and subvert their country, as they have been doing.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20669/

The resistance has also undermined attempts by the US to sow divisions between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Sheikh Sa'ad al-Ani of the Sufi Islamic Union of Iraq says that people from across the country helped the Fallujah resistance fighters during the April siege:

"People came from Baghdad, Najaf, and Basra to help Fallujah, and to bring us food and oxygen supplies. They came from every province of Iraq to show solidarity with us."

Sheikh Khalil Ibrahim also dismissed claims that the country would descend into civil war if the US coalition were to withdraw:

"I am a Sunni Muslim, but the Beni Tamim is a mixture of Shia and Sunni. Do you think that as soon as the Americans leave we will start killing each other? That a father will kill his son?

"This lie about a civil war has only one purpose-to extend the occupation. We say: 'Get out! Get out of our country. America and your allies, get out of our country. If you are afraid of civil war breaking out, turn the matter over to the United Nations so that it can bring peacekeeping troops to Iraq.'

http://www.iso.org.au/socialistworker/540/p8a.html

What If US Troops Leave?

If the US were to withdraw its troops from Iraq, some say the country would descend into chaos and blood-thirsty civil war. The Iraqis we spoke with say this is not the case, that in fact Iraqis have lots of reasons to avoid such scenarios, that in fact this fear is being used as justification for the continued US occupation.

Iraqis pointed out to us that after the horrors of the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War and, now, the war to remove Saddam Hussein that they are tired of war. They want to get on with their lives and improve their devastated country. The last thing they want, we were told, is the bloodshed of another war. They want to govern themselves, even if it might be with a less than perfect government. As one Sunni religious leader involved in efforts to strengthen Sunni-Shiite relations told us when asked if there was a possibility of chaos if the US troops withdraw, "It's a gamble, but it's our gamble. It's our country and we have to be responsible for our own future."

http://www.iraqwaterproject.com/familiesreport.htm

Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey have all had crisis wars within the last two decades, and so a massive "war of the people" in any of those countries is not possible, even if America withdraws. Of course, less violent "political wars" could still be initiated by these countries, and probably would be.

But a Vietnam-like scenario resulting in millions of deaths isn't a likely outcome to an American withdrawal from Iraq.

England's 1948 withdrawal from Iraq

If we take a look at what happened with Britain's 1948 withdrawal from Iraq, we see the following:

-There was no massive civil war in Iraq, following the British withdrawal. In this sense, the comparison with America's withdrawal from Vietnam is wrong.

-Iraq was going through a bitter struggle between leaders of older and younger generations. This always happens during any generational awakening period, and it's been happening today with, for example, the power struggle between Shi'ite leaders Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Moqtada al-Sadr.

-Thus, there was a great deal of political instability following 1948, but civil order was maintained for the most part. Once again, this is similar to Iraq today.

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?d=ww2010.i.iraq041016

[MrModerate]

1. Based on my experiences in Iraq last year . . .

And my reading of the situation through the press ever since I left, I do think civil war is likely.

I say this primarily because the war and subsequent occupation have so destabilized Iraqi civil society; exacerbated disorder; poured so many weapons into the system; given criminals and free-lance islamofascists free reign; broken down the bonds that held Iraq together under Hussein; and magnified the historical forces (primarily ethnic, religious and economic, a deadly trio) pulling the country apart, that a consensus government has little chance of forming. Whether it'll be a 3-way split along Kurdish/Sunni/Shiite lines (or a complete free-for-all among 10s of competing groups), I'm not sure, although it does seem to be trending toward the 3-way.

America cannot keep up this deadly occupation indefinitely, and the insurgents and their recruits know this. All they need to do is keep on keepin' on, and the brutality and foolishness of the occupation will continue breeding new footsoldiers for them.

When we finally get tired of feeding our soldiers into the maw two or three at a time and head home, the bloodbath will rage.

And wait until Turkey invades to crush the infant, independent Kurdistan carved out of Turkish, Iranian, and Iraqi territory. Can you say World War IV?

[erpowers]

2. Are You a Soldier

I am wondering if you are a soldier in that you said you were in Iraq last year. When I looked at your profile it said your country is Romainia. It seems that you have pictures from Iraq. So are you a soldier?

[MrModerate]

3. Nope, although I have nothing but respect . . .

For those who served and are serving there. I was there as a civilian, working on infrastructure reconstruction. It was pretty depressing (much of what we rebuilt was stolen or destroyed even while we were working on it, and the security situation kept us away from work a lot, while sucking up much of the reconstruction money to pay for security personnel).

Sad. The folks I worked with mostly had a "we broke in, now we've got to fix it" point of view (not many rah-rah Imperialists), and it was frustrating in the extreme to not make the kind of progress we knew we could if the security situation hadn't been so dire.

However, I have to point out that the security situation for civilian contractors didn't come within a light year of what the soldiers faced every day.

And of course now (I left in October last year) it's ten times worse.

[LynnTheDem]

4. Based on my soldier husband's last 18 mths in Iraq

Civil war is VERY UNLIKELY in Iraq.

Shias are married to Sunni; Sunni are married to Shia,. They have NEVER fought a civil war against each other, and it's not likely they will now.

They BOTH hate us, though. That is definite.

A civil war between Turkey & the Kurds is far more likely than any war between Shia & Sunni.

[MrModerate]

5. Civil war in this situation . . .

Is very hard to contain. It could start in Kurdistan and end up all the way to Tehran and Istanbul.

However, I haven't been in-country for more than a year. Maybe my viewpoint was colored by my experience and your husband's assessment is closer to the truth.

I think we'll find out in under a year, though . . .

[LynnTheDem]

8. In a year???

The military has already sent out their 2006 troop rotations list. Rumsfailed says he hopes troops out by 2007 or 2008.

[MrModerate]

44. Yes, in that we'll find out whether the civil war . . .

is going to cause the place to come entirely unstitched.

[Nordic]

22. so why the hell don't we facilitate a split of the country?

I mean if the Iraqis don't want a unified Iraq, why should we force it on them?

Why don't we actually find out what they want and help them achieve it so we CAN get out?

Oh right. Bush needs his eternal war on terror. I forgot.

This is WAY too obvious a solution for the GOP.

:eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

31. They don't want a split country; they want us OUT.

OUT of THEIR country. That is what they want.

[Mike L]

37. If we leave now, there will be civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis.

The Kurds will also break away from Iraq and declare Kurdistan independent. However, this will happen eventually anyway. I previously thought we needed to stay until some sort of security is established. Now I see there will be no security with us there. We are simply breeding more al-Qaeda type terrorists. We need to get out after the January elections and let the Iraqis get it over with.

The only connection we should keep with Iraq is a small force on the Kurdistan/Turkey border to serve as a trip-wire to keep Turkey from invading Kurdistan. We should also sign an agreement with Iraq to defend it against invasion from outside forces for a certain number of years. Keeping some of our air power at a base inside Kuwait would allow us enough firepower to smash Iranian troops should they cross the Iraqi border.

[Pepperbelly]

50. what would you call what they are having right now? nt

[okieinpain]

6. that's about the only thing I believe coming from the cia. if we

pull out the whole country will implode. it will be just like the balkins, people who have lived next door to each other for years, will suddenly be come worst enemies.

we're stuck there for years, folks years.

[LynnTheDem]

9. The Iraqis didn't want us to sanction them to death for 12 years.

They didn't want us bombing them daily for 12 years.

They didn't want us invading them.

They didn't want us occupying them.

Can we JUST FOR ONCE do what the Iraqis WANT us to do and GET OUT of THEIR country???

Doing something they actually WANT us to do, JUST FOR ONCE, would make such a nice change, don't you think?

[okieinpain]

13. sorry, we broke it. yes some of them want us out, but you better believe

their are others that want us to stay real bad. I'm just waiting to see what happens with the elections. there is no way in hell that bush and company want one of the mullah's in charge, so I just can't wait to see how they are going to pull this shit off.

but back to the main topic, if we pull out the shia/sunnies will be at each others throat's before the last plane could take off. what needs to happen is the UN needs to be brought into the area, and the amount of US presence needs to be drastically reduced. there needs to be elections, and one of the mullahs will be elected, but they should create some type of council where all of the parties have a equal vote. but we are going to have to fund that shit for sometime to come. sorry.

[LynnTheDem]

30. "Some"??? The VAST MAJORITY want us out.

Your "some" is like bush's idea of "some" protesting the invasion of Iraq...some = majority.

There won't be any civil war between the Shia and the Sunni. We will have to pull out sooner or later. The only difference between the two is how much more hatred we generate and how many more people are killed.

Majority of Iraqis Want US Troops Out

Today 80% of the Iraqis want the occupiers out and distrust the motives of the Americans. ...

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002034.html

MSNBC - Grim Numbers

... A US-sponsored poll shows Iraqis have lost confidence in the occupying ...
that the majority of Iraqis want Coalition troops out of the country ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek


What Iraqis Want

Two of three Iraqis overall--and seven in ten Sunnis--want US and British forces out of Iraq...

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17867/article_detail.asp

More Iraq Hawk Myths Bite the Dust

The poll results also belie the notion that a majority of Iraqis want U.S. and British troops to stay on for an extended period. Instead, 57 percent want those troops to leave "immediately." Again, the contrast between the opinion of Kurds and Arabs is striking. Only 3 percent of Kurds want the forces to depart immediately. In the Shiite areas, the sentiment is 61 percent and in the Sunni areas it is 65 percent. (And in Baghdad it is a stunning 75 percent).

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-18-04.html

[Mike L]

38. The UN couldn't change anything.

The Baathists, terrorists and nationalists would continue fighting the UN peacekeepers (the majority of which would be US soldiers anyway).

[blindpig]

7. agreed

it is the hated imperialist occupation which fuels the violence. To be sure there will be some ugly jockying if we pull out but not civil war, as pointed out the people are too worn out for that. I believe that a modest UN force, primarily Moslem and maybe 50,000 strong might do the trick. bu$hco has taken advantage of our humanitarian ethos to smoke us on this one.

[GOPBasher]

10. I actually DO think Iraq will have a civil war if we get out now.

Of course, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but I really do think that the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will fight each other if we leave now.

[LynnTheDem]

32. Iraq is TRIBAL; Sunni and Shia are MARRIED to each other.

TRIBES may fight against TRIBES; but they aren't going to fight Sunni against Shia; they never have.

As the IRAQI said; do we think fathers will kill their sons?

Bottom line; THEIR COUNTRY. THEY want us OUT of THEIR country. NOW.

[ShaneGR]

46. No offense, but that's bullshit

"they aren't going to fight Sunnia against Shia; they never have."

Uh, no. They've been at each others throats for centuries. Yes, there are some marriages, but history is littered with broken marriages.

[LynnTheDem]

48. So my education was sure wrong.

Could you find links for me to correct my ME education, please? Thx.

[GOPBasher]

11. I actually DO think Iraq will have a civil war if we get out now.

Of course, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but I really do think that the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will fight each other if we leave now.

[sendero]

26. I agree with you...

... the only reason these factions havent' been duking it out for the last 20 years is that Saddam kept it down.

Fact is, IMHO it doesn't matter if we leave now, or 10 years from now - when we do there will be a power struggle because no government set up in our midst will be considered legitimate.

[GOPBasher]

12. I actually think that's true.

Of course, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but I really do think that the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will fight each other if we leave now.

[hatrack]

14. Iraq may descend into a country selling oil in euros only

That's the only outcome they're concerned about.

[dpibel]

15. Amazing, isn't it?

You can present all the informed opinion you want that Iraq won't explode if the benevolent forces of the USofA withdraw, but folks just know that it will. What's their source? Well...gosh...the mainstream media tell us that. What more could you want? Or maybe it's just a gut feeling.

You know how it is with those foreigners: they just don't have the good sense that Americans do. They like blood and killing, unlike the peaceful Americans, who demonstrate their distate for that kind of stuff by engaging in a great deal of bloodshed and killing.

For those concerned about this mighty civil war: (1) how much worse could things get? and (2) if you're so convinced that the factions in Iraq harbor nothing but bloodlust for one another, just what makes you think that they won't harbor that hatred for as long as it takes to get the US out? Once that's done, perhaps by those crafty people pretending to settle down after the US mercifully flattens a few more of their cities, they'll just go after it, bad as ever. The only difference is that the US may manage to kill another 100 thousand or two in the interim.

Let's face it, folks: the US isn't making things better in Iraq. We broke it, now we're breaking it worse. The US invaded Iraq under false pretenses. Maybe it's just me, but that's not a good start for a case that this invasion was done for good purposes. Why should anyone believe that, having started a war of aggression, the US has changed course, and is now there on a humanitarian mission. That's really just a little too curvy for my simple mind.

[dogman]

20. Well there is history.

You also have differences in the Shia from Iran and other countries. You are correct that the US needs to be removed from the equation. That however requires leadership which we don't have. that brings us back to the question of what are the true goals. This administraion has used valid CIA data that was massaged to fit its goals before. We have to get iraqs neighbors involved in the solution. As long as the US targets them they are going to make resolution difficult to keep us tied up in Iraq.

[dpibel]

23. History of what? n/t

[dogman]

41. Tribal wars, clan killings, cultural differences.

Iraq was a creation of the British. There was violence and political unrest until Saddam's iron fisted rule. Even then there has been purges and massacres. Wars and revenge killing in that culture last forever. If these wars start up and the neighboring countries involve themselves, which is likely, we have the ingredients for instability long term and alliances that could evolve into world war just as the Balkans' unrest led to WWI.

[Cocoa]

16. the U.S. will undermine any non-puppet regime

even if it means provoking a civil war, or creating a failed state, the U.S. will do its darndest to prevent any Iraqi state from achieving stability, if it's not a client state of the U.S.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. You mean like the USA did?

Not to mention the numerous "insurgencies" that occurred after the revolution.

Of course, rather than "helping", we could let the Iraqis sort out their own affairs. Now that we've "helped" them into chaos and prospective civil war.

Burning the village to save it.

[Nordic]

18. stupid. We should split the country up now, peacefully.

and then leave.

We should do what happened in Yugoslaviia.

We should go in there, assess the situation, find out what the people want, and give it to them.

If they want three different countries, give it to them.

Anything else is a complete waste.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. What the "people" want, is to get our sorry asses out of their country.

Then they can decide what to do with their country.

[Nordic]

24. My point exactly

We tell them "hey, we want to get the heck out of here, what do you need to make this place stable, and we'll go?"

That would make too much sense I guess, for Bushco. Or the Democratic Party, whose leaders say "we have to win in Iraq"

There's no winning in Iraq. There's no crying in baseball, and there's no "winning" in Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

33. To make the country stable, WE need to GET OUT of THEIR country

They want us OUT. That's why they're attacking us. And they will continue to attack until we get out.

It's very simple.

Just FOR ONCE let's do what the vast majority of Iraqis want; GET OUT of THEIR country.

[Nordic]

42. I'm not saying NOT get out

I'm saying we have an international group of leaders, preferably Arabic, who go in and broker the breakup of the country.

And we get out at the same time.

:eyes:

[Nederland]

21. The Arab proverb is a bad example

Remember the Arab proverb; "Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me, my brother and cousin against the stranger."

This proverb basically says that brothers and cousins will fight with each other unless there is an outsider present to fight with. It seems to me that this proverb therefore implies that there would be a civil war if the US left.

[Nordic]

25. Then our job should be to prevent the civil war

by anticipating it rather than fighting it.

We need to deal with the forces that are driving the country to civil war, and talk about what the country would look like AFTER a civil war, and then make that happen and thus skip the civil war part.

[Disturbed]

29. The Goal.

The goal of the U.S. Fascist Govt. and their backers the Multi-Corps and the Oil Corps. is to control the flow of oil and have another territory for labor, resources and consumers. The U.S. Military will stay there for many years. In no way will Iraq be allowed to be an actual Democracy. The Iraqi elections will usher in Allawi and his gang which will be declared the new Democratic Iraq. It will be declared that the Occupation is over. The Military will have 14 bases in Iraq to defend the Iraq Democracy.

[LynnTheDem]

34. No it doesn't mean that.

It means the same as our "blood is thicker than water".

Sunni & Shia share the same TRIBES; Sunni & Shia OFTEN MARRY each other.

There is NO "Sunni Triangle"; that is BUSHIT. Sunni AND Shia live together all throughout Iraq. Some areas have more Sunni; some areas have more Shia. But they go to the same mosques, they marry each other, they belong to the same tribes.

It has NEVER been "Sunni vs Shia"...except in bush's bullshit.

[Nederland]

43. Misunderstood

I'm not saying the premise of your post is incorrect, in fact I agree. All I'm saying is the proverb doesn't fit well into the rest.

[welshTerrier2]

27. power vacuum = civil war

civil war in Iraq became inevitable when the U.S. stuck its big fat ass into the country ... thus far, most of the "insurgency" has come from the sunnis ...

i'm convinced that bush made a deal with Sistani who has conveniently stayed on the sidelines since Saddam was toppled ... the U.S. never holds "free" elections; it annoints a new champion to do their bidding for them ...

right now, there does not need to be much interaction among the three main factions; there is essentially no government in Iraq ... but when there is, whether it's a U.S. puppet or not, all bets are off ...

the Iraqi people may be tired of war, but none of the main factions will agree to be ruled by the others ... civil war awaits Iraq and the blame rests squarely with bush ... whether the U.S. is coming or going is not the issue ...

[LynnTheDem]

36. Al Sadr...he isn't a Sunni

Baghdad; the majority of rebels are Shia.

Basra; the majority of rebels are Shia.

Najef; the majority of rebels are Shia.

Etc.

No, the "insurgency" isn't mainly Sunni. But bushCartel & the "liberal" media keep saying it is.

[ShaneGR]

47. Sort of....

You are correct about Al-Sadr's men being Shias. You are also correct that the majority of the Basra insurgents are Shias. Problem is, the vast majority (95%), are Shias in the first place! Basra is a bad example of a rising insurgency, Najaf is better used as an example.

You're overlooking the fact that the vast majority of US casualties have occured in roadside areas bordering or within the northern and western parts of Baghad, the highways leading out to the north and west, and the cities of Fallooja and Tikrit. There HAVE been many losses in Shia areas, but the death toll says otherwise.

The main problem is that Iraq is a straight-up killing zone. The majority of Iraqi civilian deaths are currently coming from, unfortunately, their fellow Iraqis. If you accept that the insurgents are made up mostly of Iraqis, this "theory", on my part, is fact.

[dpibel]

40. Here's an odd fact:

People agree to be ruled by other factions all the time. Even in countries as primitive and debased as the United States, there is not civil war as the putative majority governs. Sometimes the lack of civil war is achieved by ruthless suppression (cf., voting rights in the US), but mostly it's because it's in everyone's best interest not to kill great numbers of your countrypeople.

You will notice that there are countries, unlike the US, where government involves power sharing amongst multiple parties (roughly the equivalent of factions). This is carried on without internecine bloodshed.

In fact, I (just my opinion) think you should take notice of the fact that there is no history of civil war in Iraq. None.

Once the British removed their benevolent boot from the Middle Eastern neck, Iraq did not erupt in wild sectarian warfare, even though the Brits, in finest colonial tradition, had drawn the borders to produce that very effect. Instead, the Iraqis settled down to making a country which became, right up until DaddyBush needed a testicular implant in the form of a war, the most advanced, westernized country in the effing Middle East.

Allow me to interrupt here to send a secret, coded message to people who might want to leap in here like jackals on fire to point out that I have committed the heresy of lionizing The Most Evil Man Ever To Live On The Face Of The Earth (TM)(this is not directed at the poster to whom I am responding, but specifically to the people identified, supra:

BITE ME

To put a slightly more nuanced face on it: Saying that, under Saddam Hussein, Iraq had near universal education, universal healthcare, burkhaless educated professional women, and good stuff like that does not constitute making a hero of The Most Evil Man Ever To Live On The Face Of The Earth (TM). It constitutes telling the truth. These things are not even controversial. So just clue up. Oh, did I mention bite me? Just making sure.

Thank you. We now return you to our regularly scheduled rant, already in progress.

You are aware, are you not, that Saddam Hussein had a cabinet which contained Shias? Did you know Tariq Aziz, Hussein's foreign minister, IIRC, is a Christian? Now I'll grant you that when The Most Evil Man Ever To Live On The Face Of The Earth (TM) told his cabinet and the parliament (They had one of those, too!! With different factions in it!!!) what to do, they damned well did it. But even The Most Evil Man Ever To Live On The Face Of The Earth (TM), near-omnipotent though he was, did not attend to every detail of civil and military life in Iraq. So the parliament, and all that kinda stuff actually functioned, and they did it with different factions working together.

Was it some happy, perfect democracy? Feck no. But it wasn't civil war, either.

The point of all of this is:

If you have some source other than the random synaptical firings of the American mass media and the regime of the Fierce Warrior Chieftain, and other than your own convictions, which will help me understand your certainty that civil war is the inevitable outcome, please post me a link, or get it to me some other way. I guarantee you I will read it.

Until such time, I'm going to go with history and with, for instance, the fact pointed out elsewhere on this thread that Sunnis and Shias intermarry and things like that which don't show hopeless enmity, and continue to believe that the certainty of civil war is a horseshit story, just like the rest of the crap the Fierce Warrior Chieftain, et al. spew, and that one of the reasons it works so well is that it allows people who otherwise think the invasion of Iraq was a ghastly thing, and that the occupation of Iraq is proceeding to hell in a fast handbasket, to maintain that the US must stay there, to protect those poor people from their mutual savage bloodlust.

[welshTerrier2]

51. well, let's start with the article ...

while you're free to suggest your historical analysis will hold for the future, there are plenty of people who believe Iraq is heading for civil war ... btw, my belief that civil war is inevitable is not an argument for continued U.S. occupation ... quite the opposite is true ... my belief is that installation of a U.S. puppet regime will only delay the inevitable but make its consequences even worse ...

you asked for the basis of my opinion ... let's start with this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-01.htm

CIA Officers Warn of Iraq Civil War, Contradicting Bush's Optimism

CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. officials said Wednesday, starkly contradicting the upbeat assessment that President Bush gave in his State of the Union address.

The CIA officers' bleak assessment was delivered verbally to Washington this week, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified information involved.

The warning echoed growing fears that Iraq's Shiite majority, which has until now grudgingly accepted the U.S. occupation, could turn to violence if its demands for direct elections are spurned.


Tens of thousands of Shiite Muslims protest in the streets Baghdad, Iraq. The protesters are demanding a fair election process for Iraq. (Photo/ Tom Pennington)

Meanwhile, Iraq's Kurdish minority is pressing its demand for autonomy and shares of oil revenue.

"Both the Shiites and the Kurds think that now's their time," said one intelligence officer. "They think that if they don't get what they want now, they'll probably never get it. Both of them feel they've been betrayed by the United States before."

<skip>

[rman]

28. So it's not because of WMDs, liberation or the war on terror anymore?

First you make a mess of Iraq, then you have to stay to guard the mess.

Apparently whatever reason it was why we went there in the first place, is not the reason to stay now.

Interesting.

Of course it's not because of the oil and military presence in the region.

[DoYouEverWonder]

35. Even if Iraq did implode after we pull out

Would it be any worse than it is now for most of the people there?

I think we need to get out and take all our high tech killing equipment with us and let other honest brokers try to help the Iraqis get their act together. We've already done enough damage.

[malaise]

39. Further split

Didn't the Brits already steal Kuwait during their occupation in the last century - the 19th province of Iraq? Get out of the people's country. Just go!!

[ShaneGR]

45. The problem would be external rather than internal....

If there were some sort of full American withdrawel, the Turks would probably roll into Northern Iraq to protect their interests against the Kurds and the Iranians would more than likely puch to quickly get southern Iraq to basically cede soveriegnty to them (Possible with the Shias). Oh yeah, don't forget the Syrians interest in a Sunni Baghdad.

[Disturbed]

49. Civil War will not happen.

The U.S. will not leave Iraq. The Rethugs and most Dems in Congress are united in that resolve.