US iraq withdrawal

[wittmanace]

looking at the varying ways success or lack there of (depending on the time and the opinon) has been measured, what are the actual paramets of declaring success and leaving iraq? ive been looking, but i cant find what the prerequisites of a completed mission in iraq are. this is true both of military success and overall success. is the end point simply the end of the insurgency? it seems to me that despite the intense debate as to how it is going in iraq (in various places, from public debate to the media) always fails to address the issue as to what the practical indicators of success are. numbers killed and numbers of attacks are often quoted, as are specific examples of improvements such as water supply and infrastructure repairs, but there is no level set as to what would constitute a completed mission. without any specific or quantifiable objective beyond 'a peaceful iraq' or a stable iraq, it is virtually impossible to judge the relative success of the mission there.

the question is then really, what objectives in iraq can be achieved and then counted as a mission completion, both military and overall? what do other forum members think would be deemed satisfactory for withdrawal to occur in practice?

i should add that the reason this has come up is because it is now 17 months since it was stated that iraq was 18 months from assuming responsibility within iraq with minimal us help:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6079444.stm

 

[merocaine]

Current Goals (as I see them)

1/a Non sectarian Democratic Goverment.

2/b Sectarian carve up where main faction live in an uneasy truse (current situ)

2/ Reduction of Violence to an exceptable level.

3/ Opening of the Iraqi markets to trade and foreign investment.

4/ Establishment of a perment military presence.

The US has no plans to withdraw anytime soon, despite the hullahballu about the draw down, its telling that troop levels will fall to the pre surge number of 130 thousand and then "Pause" (pentagon loves those catchy phrases). If America leaves anytime soon it will end up as a carve up between Iranian politically backed groups and saudi ones, I dont think the US wants to see either Saudi or Iran dominate any more of the middle easts oil stocks than they currently do.

p.s the news is generally confused by the situation in iraq, its not black and white, there are bad choices and worse choices, the good guys and bad guys keep flip flopping about, in short it doesent lend itself to an easy narrative (the white house had this problem to...), so for the most part the TV news tries to ignore it as much as possible.

 

[rrrtx]

I think the model worth looking at is post-WW2 Germany and Japan. I think there will be an almost perpetual security presence to ensure political and economic stability even after the violence has largely disappeared. Iraqi institutions need to be allowed time to develop and mature under the protective umbrella of the US. Any scenario without a substantial American presence won't work well because of the degree of motivatied outside intereference and the tension between factions inside Iraq. It's not what everyone here in the US thought they were getting themselves into but I think that's the reality.

The post war German and Japanese experience could be considered a successful model over the long term. They have emerged as stable democracies with very strong economies.

I think you'll see US troops there 20 years from now although in a sigificantly smaller role.

 

[PullerRommel]

Yo ucould look at the Post WWII occupied countries but the differences between them and Iraq. They didnt have a consistent insurgency and they didnt have a constant hatred between 2 different sects. IMHO the will not end in the near future the insurgency may lack number from now and then but it will persist in Iraq.

Dont you find it "funny" how there can be an "acceptable" level of violence

 

[rrrtx]

The other model to look at is Vietnam where you do have the similarity of an entrenched and determined insurgency as well as the influence and considerable resources of outside powers. This is something that was not a problem for Germany and Japan.

I think in the case of Iraq there are key differences. The violence is as much a result of factional infighting as it is a movement to be rid of a foreign military presence. As well, the powers trying to influence the outcome of events in Iraq are not unified but have opposing interests there.

It's still a matter of patient investment and will power to see things through to a positive outcome. This is where the US failed in Vietnam. Don't start something you aren't willing to finish.

Over the long term I do wonder if the factional fighting will diminish as the economy and security improve. I tend to believe that the insurgency will be made up of Islamic fundamentalists (many of them not Iraqis) in the long run. This may in fact already be happening.

 

[PullerRommel]

I'm currently reading a book by a Ret. US General on the Iraqi Insurgency and how to fight but it does talk about insurgents. It says that the majority of Insurgents are Sudanese, Wahhabi Saudis, Paletinians, Lebanese Chechyens, etc. and due to contrary belief they are working together even though they are Sunni and Shia'a

 

[wittmanace]

yeah, i also have heard of the insurgents being unified, supposedly under the "sharia council for the islamic fighters in the land of the two rivers", they in fact decide on the leadership of the insurgency, and were reported to have placed al baghdadi as head of the insurgency rather than the later reported al masri. al qaeda is one of several froups in the umbrella org from what i heard. ill look for the cource for this, last i heard of them it was when zarqawi was replaced, before his death.

i agree that the insurgency and all it entails makes this a different scenario from post WW II, and more like vietnam, but what happens if there is strong US resolve (military and political) means there is not really an example of this as in iraq, as vietnam saw loss of willpower and arguably military failure ( not to get into that point, as it is hotly debated but is a separate topic). i do also wonder if the factional fighting is a consequence of foreign involvement (rather than simply due to absence of rule of law) much like the pre 1994 south african example with umkonto we sizwe and inkatha, the post democracy factional violence simply not occurring on the scale assumed, and subsiding quickly. are there any indications the factional fighting is based on the hopes of greater influence in a post-coalition iraq? what is the official line from the coalition as to the cause of the factional violence?

 

[merocaine]

Looking at vietnam or Germany/Japan as a guide to Iraq is probobly not the way to go..
Iraq is its own special case and what worked/ did'ent work in those countries, while providing some useful pointers in Iraq, are of limited value in general.

Iraq contains conflict which exist on a number of levels, between regions, between religions, between ethnic groups and political parties.
Added to that Iraq is surrounded by countries which are all hostile to at least one ethnic group within, Turkey with the Kurds, Suadi with the Shia, Iran with the Sunni arabs.

At the moment all those conflicts are being held in check by American fire power, unfortunately the Americans are having very little progress with resolving those disputes through a political process.
Also dispite its best efforts the Americans are not seen as being even handed (althought I believe they are making an honest effort to be so) by the major groups. So no one trusts the US enough to disband there private armies, all the major players have militias which are numbered in the 10's of thousands.

What keeps a lid on things at the moment is that the Americans have the biggest baddest milita of all.....

 

[Cooch]

No one has yet mentioned one of the key factors in any potential American withdrawal..... the attitude of the Iraqi Government. As long as a democratically elected Iraqi government (for all its faults) is asking the US to maintain a military presence in Iraq, there will be strong pressure to do so.
When the Iraqi government asks the US to withdraw troops - and by the nature of politics, this will probably be when the electors cease to see the presence of US troops as more of an advantage than a disadvantage - then the US will be unable to maintain forces there without being inconsistent with their own position that Iraq is a sovereign country.

If one hears correctly, the situation is confused by the geographical alterations in political alliances. In some areas. we have groups that have decided that it is in their best interests to work with the US and against AQI. In other (increasingly smaller) areas, the same groups (or groups with the same name) have decided that it is more profitable to work with AQI, and against the US.

There will never be zero violence. What we hope for (from an international perspective) is a level of violence with which the ISF can cope, which is not increasing, and which is not destabilizing a legitimate Iraqi government. The definition of "acceptable" is always going to be a political one relating to the need to maintain external military intervention

Regards........... Peter

 

[Zechariah]

Does anyone think splitting up Iraq into different countries would help? I really don't see a way to get past the fighting otherwise. Military victory doesn't really seem possible.

 

[PullerRommel]

IMO It wouldnt workout they would probably still clash to make there nations bigger and Turkey would probably invade the north.

 

[Generalissimo]

Well it seems to me that the conflicts that keep this multi-sided war going are being resolved one by one. The US-Sunni conflict is over (mainstream Sunnis co-opted, Al Qaeda mostly destroyed), the Sunni-Shiite conflict has paused for now and efforts at relsolution are being made, but it could restart very quickly. The Shiite power struggle is just now getting going in earnest with these latest clashes between the Iraqi Army/Police and the Mahdi Army. Basically that means it's the mainstream Shiite parties against Al Sadr. Whoever wins there will be top Shiite dog. If the Sadrists win, then that means game over for the US in Iraq. If the government wins, then Sunni-Shiite reconciliation can go forward, and the nation will be more stable (if not less corrupt and certainly less democratic). So once the Shiites fight it out, if the government/mainstream Shiite parties are left standing, peace comes closer in Iraq. Only the least threatening of the conflicts, the Kurdish-Arab conflict will remain and that can be resolved politically.

This sounds optimistic, but I have no illusions. This is the path to a best case scenario. It could all go south very quickly, but the seeds of a more peaceful Iraq are planted. Whether they will grow is another story.

 

[PullerRommel]

Ya but the only reason anything stopped is because they are being bought by the US to stop last time this happened all the militias turned in there guns got paid and then kept being paid. Then they bought all new weapons and the fightingting re-erupted.

Al-Quaeda was never much of a threat even the US govt. said they were only 2% but the bigger problem. They just use AQ to label the opponents so the people will have some thing to rally agaisnt :kar

 

[Generalissimo]

Al-Quaeda was never much of a threat even the US govt. said they were only 2% but the bigger problem. They just use AQ to label the opponents so the people will have some thing to rally agaisnt :kar

Yeah I might be guilty of furthering the propaganda here but I used the term Al Qaeda to mean the Sunni religious extremist element of the insurgency, which although small has disproportionate influence.

It seems to me the this inconclusive battle in Basra and Baghdad shows that the Iraqi Army is able to hold its ground reasonably well if they get American support with airstrikes, vehicles/armour and logistics. But if they have to go on the offensive above the battalion level or outside their normal area of operations, they are still not able to handle themselves at all. Again logistics and the lack of units with much quality above the infantry level is the reason for that.