What would happen if we pulled out of the "Green Zone"?

[kentuck]

Since the "Green Zone" is in the heart of the capitol of Baghdad, it is the focus of American occupation in Iraq. It is the slap in the face that Iraqis dislike the most. Americans hunkered down in their capitol city with their Iraqi stooges. What would happen if everyone in the Green Zone were re-deployed somewhere else? I know that the automatic response is that we should "re-deploy completely out of the country".

However, this is a hypothetical military strategy. Would the different factions swarm into the Green Zone to take control? Would that be the new center for militias, Sunni and Shia? Would that not distract them from other areas if they were focused on the Green Zone? Would this not make the American troops safer for a limited time? And would we not know where most of the opposition would be fighting each other?

I am no military strategist but this seems like it would be a perfect distraction for the militias and give the new government and the US time to figure out a new strategy? But, I'm sure the Americans have never thought of leaving the Green Zone. And that is the first place they should leave...

[endarkenment]

1. it isn't just the green zone.

There are at least 14 huge permanent military bases around the country. Each of them is a mini green zone. Electricity airconditioning running water internet cafes gymnasiums - all a huge thorn in the side to an Iraq that has had its infrastructure devastated and destroyed by the occupiers over the last 15 years of sanctions bombings and occupation. This all violates one of the principles of counter-insurgency: live with the people, and is another example of how we did everything imaginable to guarantee that this all would be a disaster.

[kentuck]

2. I agree but...

55% of all the casualties happen around the Green Zone. They would happen in the Green Zone if they could penetrate it. As you say, all of these bases are thorns in the side, but none are presently as painful as the one in the center of Baghdad, in my opinion.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. CHAOS In The Green Zone

There would no longer be "safety" inside the Green Zone, and it would be taken over and disolve into total and utter chaos.

[kentuck]

5. Yes!

And would that not be a good military strategy?? Localized chaos! Centralized...

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

9. How Would It Be Centralized?

There would still be chaos everywhere else, in addition to new chaos in the Green Zone?

The GZ is the last bastion of potential "safety," but just because we let it turn to Crap, doesn't mean there won't be Crap all over Iraq, like there is now. Just be more Crap.

[kentuck]

12. Every militia leader would covet the control of the capitol city...

Which is what the Green Zone symbolizes. If they control that, they can claim they control the country. It would be a vicious battle between the different militias, in my opinion. But, better they kill each other and we know where they are, than they kill us, purely from a military perspective, of course. The area around the Green Zone would be easier to "control" than the area around the entire city. If the militias are in the Green Zone, then obviously, they are not somewhere else...

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

16. I See Your Logic....

Unfortunately, I'm sure once you stop to think about it, you realize this won't happen. I have a better chance of winning $1 Million on Deal Or No Deal, than george has of pulling out from the Green Zone.

If it's a brilliant strategy, there's even less liklihood of the brainiacs in the WH considering it.

[roamer65]

4. Think Saigon, 1975.

Except ethnic cleasing added in for extra chaos.

[kentuck]

I'm thinking every American could be secretly evacuated...

from the Green Zone and just turn it over to the militas and let them fight over it..

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. So you're saying a major military success for the insurgency...

would distract them and give us time form a government?

Well, we've been trying to form a government for almost four years now and failed utterly. So exactly how long do you expect the insurgents to be distracted?

[kentuck]

7. There would be a violent competition for the Green Zone...

This would focus the several leaders on that one goal - take the Green Zone! That would distract them from other maneuvers they may have been planning. The insurgents would consider it a major victory but it would be a trap. It would be easier to surround the Green Zone than all of Baghdad... I think it would be a clever military maneuver...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Yes, it's all so simple.

Couldn't possibly fail.

[kentuck]

13. I didn't say that...

I think it is a plan that might work. Of course, it could fail. But, what other idea is working??

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. other idea?

Let's take your pulling out of the green zone idea and just pull out of Iraq all together. And not go back in.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

10. Everyone Is Missing The Point

King george doesn't want to leave Iraq. EVER. Something about that oil thing.

All these suggestions and reports about pulling out are irrelevant, since old george doesn't want to leave completely. He wants permanent bases, and future oil considerations. Along with possibly a U.S. friendly "elected" government.

[Wiley50]

11. The Green Zone Might Not Get Preggers n/t

[roamer65]

14. We have no choice but to partition Iraq at this point.

Syria and Iran should police the Shi'a partition, while Saudi Arabia and Jordan should police Al-Anbar and the remaining Sunni areas. This would establish two "safe zone" partitions for Sunni and Shi'a. This debacle is now at the former Yugoslavia level. It's like a domestic quarrel, you hafta separate to get them to stop fighting. Otherwise, we're looking at another Yugoslavia or Rwanda. Once Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are "in", we cut troops by 3/4 and withdraw to Iraqi Kurdistan and engage the Kurds, Turks and Iranians in talks to solve the Kurdistan issue.

We broke Iraq, therefore, we have to do our best to fix it. We simply cannot let another Rwanda happen.

[kentuck]

17. But do we have the troops for that mission?

Seems that would take many more troops?

[roamer65]

19. Bring in the neighboring countries troops along side ours...

to help the movement of people between the two partitions. This would be similar to the India-Pakistan partition of 1947. Then we draw down quickly and withdraw to Iraqi Kurdistan by end 2007 to mid 2008. We're gonna have to look back to how the British handled these partitions in the past for solutions.

[kentuck]

21. But nobody wants to help....

Bush has turned off the world.

[roamer65]

22. Offer a "no attack" pledge to Iran and Syria

The Saudis and Jordanians are already signalling they're ready to go...

[endarkenment]

24. Syria and Iran?

They are both on our short list of regimes in need of shock and awe. We absolutely refuse to have any direct talks at all with Iran and we just recently tried to lure Syria into a military confrontation in Lebanon. Why would these two nations cooperate with us and ease our pain?

[roamer65]

26. What is now the main key to a solution?

A Bush/Cheney resignation, or massive policy shift with someone they trust talking with them. But none of what I advocate will happen becuase Bush is a petulant, spoiled brat. This is going to go to a regional war.

[endarkenment]

28. Yup. nt.

[kentuck]

27. Wasn't Iran part of the Axis of Evil?

It would difficult to trust someone after that, I would think?

[piedmont]

18. Forming a "Kurdistan" would majorly piss off Turkey

and may de-stabilize eastern Turkey. I still agree, though that some sort of partition plan may be the only way to peace.

[roamer65]

20. That's why we leave 30,000 troops in Iraqi Kurdistan until we can

engage the Turks, Kurds and Iranians on the Kurdistan issue. Offer EU membership to Turkey if they get serious and solve the Kurdistan issue. I think the EU would play along. Turkey won't touch Iraqi Kurdistan as long another NATO member has troops there. Hell, even get NATO involved in this issue.

[endarkenment]

23. "we" have no say in the future of Iraq.

That is the part that "we" keep not getting.

[roamer65]

25. We're at the same point the British were in India in 1946-1947.

We need the equivalent of a Mountbatten plan that partitioned India and Pakistan. We have to facilitate a smooth departure and prevent a genocide, just like the British. Iraq is now dead as a country. Time to carve it up into "safe zones" for the refugees. It's not pretty, but time is running out and I don't want to see another Rwanda. We do have a final say in Iraq, as to how we depart. The Saudi King is right. We came in uninvited, and we cannot leave uninvited.

[endarkenment]

29. The dead were shipped over the border by rail freight.

The British did not prevent a massacre, at best they might have mitigated its scope. They certainly screwed things up on the way out. Pakistan ended up splitting in two, Kashmir remains a nightmare that nearly went nuclear, it is not clear to me at all that what the British did on the way out of India served any interests other than British interests. And it was none of their business. India was not theirs to carve up and Iraq is not ours.