What happens in Iraq once US troops are pulled out ??

[kentuck]

I was reading Tom Friedman in the NYTimes this morning and he was talking about the new "democracy" that Barack Obama was going to "inherit" in Iraq. But he failed to address what Iraq might look like once our troops are withdrawn from their country? And they will be withdrawn.

We cannot keep 140,000 Americans in that country inevitably. We cannot afford $10 billion per month forever. It has to come to an end. What happens when the troops are withdrawn?

History shows us that Iraq is a clannish nation, where gangs and families rule their own areas and territories. The strongest and most vicious usually ends up in control. That is how Saddam Hussein came to power. Why should we expect that to change once American troops leave?

The first threat against the new government would likely come from a military leader, someone with power and guns behind him. The likelihood of a military coup is high.

Also, we have radical religious leaders, such as Sheik Sadr, that still control a large group of people and area. Will they be happy with what the government will offer them? Highly unlikely.

So, in response to Tom Friedman, I would say that Barack Obama is not inheriting a new "democracy" but rather a boiling pot of potential violence. Does that mean the troops should stay in Iraq forever? After all, they are the security that is keeping Iraq together at this time.

[mike_c]

1. we and the world must face the consequences of what we've done in Iraq....

I think Friedman's "new democracy," aside from being an utter sham to begin with, will go down in flames pretty quickly when it's not propped up by the barrels of U.S. guns. We cannot prevent that-- even permanent occupation would not succeed. In the end, we MUST accept that Iraq and its people are going to suffer much, much more than they have already suffered, and it's because of our aggression against them.

[DesertFlower]

2. i think no matter when we

leave there will be chaos.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. I don't think history shows us that.

I think we have been spoon fed the ethnic gangs, clans and families theory. Instead, modern Iraq, from the end of the Ottoman Empire until the re-conquest by our army, was a bit more complicated than that. Baghdad, for example, and until the american sanctioned ethnic cleansing, was not characterized by ethnic gangs and clans, but was best characterized as a secular metropolis where intermarriage and coexistence between religious and ethnic groups was common. Perhaps Sarajevo is a good model for what happened to Baghdad. Outside Baghdad is a different story, and the ethnic divisions of Kurdistan, al Anbar, and Basra, are indeed long standing. In my view there are four Iraqs - a federal district populated by what was once one of the most sophisticated and modern populations in the middle east, and could again rise to that level, and the three major ethnic regions. Iraq could form a single nation that encompassed its four faces, or it could devolve into three nations and a divided capital.

What I am fairly certain of is that how the Iraqis choose to organize their affairs is none of our business. I don't buy the Pottery Barn excuse for our continued imperial presence, and never have.

Friedman is as usual now trying desperately to rationalize his past behavior with respect to the war, a behavior that coined its own phrase: the "Friedman Unit" to describe the deliberate and vile bullshit of justifying mmilitary occupation in six month increments beyond which victory was certain to appear.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. See this for the likely future. It's what's happening now.

What should happen is that Obama calls in the regional states, especially Iran, Syria, and Jordan, and attempts to set up a regional solution. Which is probably what will happen anyway, with or without our "help".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4561763

[spanone]

5. we just caused a hiccup in their history..they will go back to where they've been thousands of years

[Fireweed247]

6. They will be united in being so happy that we got the hell out...finally...

The 'civil war' is all blown out of proportion by people who want an excuse for us to stay there.

Shia marry Sunni, much like someone Christian might marry someone Jewish. There are differences but that doesn't mean people are going to start wildly killing each other. There has been much evidence that the bombings have been Black Ops attempting to promote the idea of a civil war.

The Iraqis have been united in demanding we leave. They do not need or want us there. Nothing could be worst than what we have already done, and are still doing to them now.

[louis-t]

7. Our troops are doing the same thing Hussein did.

Only Saddam did a better job. Less people killed, more electricity and water, and no terrorists (except him and his sons).

[MadMaddie]

8. Winston Churchill is responsible for creating Iraq

He considered it one of his biggest mistakes. This goes all the way back to WWI and WWII, this is why * fucked up so bad by not understanding the Ottoman Empire and other relevant historical facts.

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/7526.html

<snip>
Churchill put together the pieces of the Ottoman Empire and created a Middle Eastern powder keg."
<snip>

[SoCalDem]

9. The inevitable.

We have been "holding apart", the divisive factions of that place.

There are some facts that have NOT changed.

The oil is in a few parts of the country.
It is a patriarchal society, cobbled together from many unequal parts.
They have "ethnically cleansed" by "tribe" (See Palestine).
Moqtada al Sadr will eventually wrest control with Iran's help.
New Boss, same as the old boss

[kentuck]

10. Amen Brother or Sister !!

Ain't it the truth!

[SoCalDem]

11. sister :) n/t

[kentuck]

12. Yes, Sister ...

:-)

peace

[bigtree]

13. The new regime will have to advantage themselves of their close relationship with Iran

To effect the same security they've enjoyed behind the protection of our troops.

[kentuck]

14. Could you elaborate on that a little?

:shrug:

[bigtree]

19. the Maliki government has already forged economic and military ties with Iran

In order to keep peace with Sadr and Sistani, who are supported by Iran, Maliki will need to either find a way to resist the push to power by those elements who support those two or work to share power. In any case, Iran should gain influence in Iraq by providing the security or security assurances to the Maliki regime or any other Iraqi regime that may emerge.

[Alamuti Lotus]

20. I cannot speak for the original poster, however

I can say that most ruling factions in Iraq have long-standing ties and a friendly relationship with Iran. Those being, the ruling party Hizb al-Dawa (study its founder, Shahid Mohammed Baqir as-Sadr and his political relationship with Khumayni(RA)), whatever the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq calls itself now, both Kurdish major factions, some independent resistance factions like Thar'allah, al-Fadhila, Sadrists and others I have forgotten the names of.. these all have friendly ties directly either to the gov't through politics (the Kurds especially), or Qom through religion (giving Taqlid either to Khameini or to Kazim al-Haeri - who is an Iraqi Grand Ayatallah currently living in Qom).(*) There's no conspiracy there, it's inevitable and a natural consequence of the assistance that the Islamic Republic provided a wide variety of factions in resistance to the Saudi/Russian/US-backed Baathi. The potential for clash comes between Saudi/UAE/US-backed salafis and the mainstream political parties.

(*)--anyone who can keep up with the complex brackets there deserves a cookie.

[gulliver]

15. It will fall apart. Then the Dems will be blamed.

There will be a civil war, the one we have been forestalling by draining the life's blood from the U.S. economy. Then Iraq and Iran will settle into a mutually beneficial relationship for decades while the U.S. will be shut out.

No matter how long we are in Iraq, the Republicans will be willing to stay longer. They know that success can't be achieved, so the only thing they can do is try to avoid blame for the failure. That means that a Republican can't be the proximate cause. Ergo, they will never pull out the troops willingly. They need the Dems to be the ones to pull out the troops.

Republican strategy is to provide free security to the Iraqi government forever. While it lasts, it shields them from blame. When it ends, they hope to escape blame entirely.

It won't work, though, because the people themselves want the plug pulled and know where the blame for the fiasco belongs.

[kentuck]

16. Right on!

That is exactly what the people voted on in the last election. That was the top issue for Barack Obama during the campaign. People agreed with him that we need to get our troops out of there...

[TypeKast]

17. Doesn't matter

It doesn't matter.

[Alamuti Lotus]

18. Why do you take the stance that they are a positive effect..

in the first place? Taking that point of view as a jumping-off point is fatally flawed, making the remainder of the question irrelevant.