IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I see your point
but let's think this through.

What would a wholesale withdrawal in, say, 3 months give way to?

I'm asking sincerely. Would all the work on infrastructure be blown to bits? Would the roving insurgent groups begin to take over towns and would civil wars ensue?

What is your take? Do you care? Hell, I don't even know if I give a shit anymore.

Blown to pieces,
Amy

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but, rather to skid in sideways totally worn out shouting 'Merde Sante, what a ride!'"

.

New It's not hard to see what would happen.
The Kurdish areas would remain about the same. There would be continuing battles over Mosul and the oil areas, but they would muddle through. Tensions with Turkey may increase significantly though.

The Shia areas around Basra would remain about the same. There would probably continue to be occasional attacks on the pipelines and the ports, but they would muddle through. It's hard to know at this point how Iran would regard its young weak neighbor.

Remember Sadr City and Falluja a year or two ago? Without some sort of government authority in those areas, the various militias and insurgent groups would have (or try to have) their way. Baghdad would again become a battle ground between various factions.

In short, the center of the country would become a huge mess. Yes, even worse than it is now.

Would foreigners invest in Iraq and help them improve their infrastucture and raise their standard of living? Highly doubtful. The country would stumble from crisis to crisis and vast stretches of the desert could well end up being ungovernable and havens for al Qaeda-types.

It's not an option to pull out prematurely, IMHO. I agree with you that we have to stick it out, learn from our mistakes, and do everything we can to help the Iraqis carry the load. Rumsfeld's right that only the Iraqis can beat the insurgency, but they can't do it alone.

To address Rand and Ashton's concerns - it's very different from Vietnam. There aren't 2 superpowers supporting the other side. We (the "Coalition" and the Iraqi government) are not fighting a several million man army (the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Army_of_Vietnam|NVA ] and the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong|Viet Cong]). We're fighting something like the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA|IRA] or the [link|http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/shiningpath.html|Shining Path] in that they are a relatively small group but can engage in extreme violence. They can cause trouble for a long time, but they cannot succeed in turning the country into a 16th century paradise (sic) if we help them and if the people of the country have the courage to stand up for themselves. In that sense it could become like Vietnam (but I don't think it will). The South Vietnamese government was terribly corrupt and the army didn't have the support of the people. They collapsed shortly after the US left. I don't think that will happen in Iraq (people there are risking their lives to become policemen and members of the government and clearly understand the importance of what they're doing and the risks), but it's an open question whether the population will choose wisely once the US presence winds down significantly.

We'll see...

</me donns his asbestos underwear and niobium hat.>

Cheers,
Scott.
     How many people have to die? - (imqwerky) - (7)
         not to stick up for viega too much - (boxley)
         Short version: it's their own damn fault - (rcareaga) - (4)
             Okay. Try again. - (imqwerky) - (3)
                 No. sale. {ka-ching} - (Ashton) - (2)
                     I see your point - (imqwerky) - (1)
                         It's not hard to see what would happen. - (Another Scott)
         What Rand said. - (pwhysall)

'ow do you know 'e's a king?
44 ms