What would the likey outcome of "cutting and running" from Iraq be?

**Goofball** · 06-27-2006, 21:01

I'll start by saying that my position on the Iraq war has up until now been that the invasion was illegal, ill-planned, and stood to provide no benefit to the American people. However, I also adhered to the "you broke it, you bought it" school of thought that says the U.S. and her allies have a responsibility to stay until they "fix" things.

But I'm starting to wonder about that now. I think it may have gotten to the point where having U.S. soldiers in Iraq can do nothing but make the situation worse for Iraqis, for Americans, and for the region as a whole.

Which led me to wonder what the hypothetical outcome would be if all Allied troops simply picked up and left within say, ninety days. Assuming that the U.S. continued to provide $$ and equipment to the new Iraqi government, what do all you Orgahs think would happen?

**Kagemusha** · 06-27-2006, 21:07

I think the result will be Civil War.It will come sooner or later anyway,since the coalition cant be in Iraq forever. The current government of Iraq wont stay in power after the coalition force that is backing it up deports.
Im very pessimistic of the short range situation of Iraq.But eventually the situation will calm down,once one of the factions will win or other option is that Iraq seizes to exists and brakes in to smaller states.

**Lemur** · 06-27-2006, 21:07

It is possible that the best thing would be for us to get out of the way and let them have their civil war. That will never happen, however. If nothing else, the Iranian regime's readiness to move into the power vacuum would prevent our leaving. And the very real possibility of creating a failed state would be too dangerous for us to stomach.

**Big_John** · 06-27-2006, 21:15

way to complex a question to answer, imo. for example, you say "Assuming that the U.S. continued to provide $$ and equipment to the new Iraqi government", but what does that entail? does that include a full array of modern armaments? what are the limitations on our assitance? will we, for example, continue to provide $$ and weapons if the government starts to deviate from our vision for the country?

the idea of "you broke it you bought it" may not really apply to iraq. i mean, in a way it was already broken, as a concept. should we try to maintain an artificial (and failed) state in that region anyway, from a humanitarian point of view?

if i had to hazzard a guess, i think the insecurity of the nation would eventually lead a strong shi'a militant government to take over. in such a case, we'd probably see a lot of intervention by iran and some more surreptitious intervention by the US, israel and the saudis. but it's just a guess.

**Watchman** · 06-27-2006, 21:46

Given that the sectarian nuts seem to already be rehearsing for a local licensed reproduction of the Yugoslavian succession wars, I daresay bugging out wouldn't result in anything particularly pretty. No, not even compared to how things are currently going, and that's saying something since that is "to Hell in a handbasket"...

I'm also half convinced that if the state of Iraq goes the way of the Dodo there'll be a big mess on the northern border, what with the rather volatile mix of opportunistic Iranians, virtually autonomous Kurds with oil, and Turkey with a thing about Kurds.

**IrishArmenian** · 06-28-2006, 22:17

For the US it would be a soon War with Iran and/or Korea, in which the only way they can regain their "tough to beat" reputation would be to wage all out total war, just like Sherman did in their Civil War. Civil War in Iraq will ensue, and they will go to the way they used to be.

**Watchman** · 06-28-2006, 22:21

...Ottomans... gone....
...Ilkhanids... gone...
...Seljuks and other Turks... gone...
...Caliphate... even longer gone...

Uh, how is it they used to be ?