Withdrawal from Iraq and the possibility of Middle East Regional War

[eckherl]

I'd say let the Iraqis try to keep the country intact. a separation in three parts is in nobodys interest ( maybe US interest ). A kurdistan in northern Iraq wouldnt be able to survive on its own. Turkey would and should intervent. Id say a seperation into 3 countries would be disastrous, causing an even more difficult situation. Iran most likely would send troops '' to free the iraqis'', Turks should be obliged to secure its Turkmen peoples savety, and enable kurdistan from happening. The US gives support to kurds, and im truely wondering if the US would try to kick Turkey out. ( i would like to open a threat on this situation because allies would be against each other, and what i think the first who makes its fist hard will take the long straw ).

- my opinion is the whole iraq/iran situation was started to make this region unstable, to divide Iraq, and cause a massive war. This war is in everybodys interest, Iran would love it , US would love it as wel as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Its not obvious yet which way this war is gonn go, but some people are pushing it the direction they want -

Just out of interest - what makes you think that Saudi Arabia wants to see their regoin in total chaos, why would we attack a NATO country. No one in the Middle East is going to give Iran that kind of influence, especially the Saudi Arabians, they would fund our entire war effort before that was to happen or they would go in there themselfs.

 

[Rich]

The biggest difference between the two is Vietnam was actually a conventional war while the occupation of Iraq isn't. Vietnam was a clash between super powers, support wise, while Iraq isn't. Iraq is a sectarian conflict while Vietnam wasnt. Vietnam wasnt in a region vitally important to America, and all the West, like Iraq and Middle East oil. Another difference. There was no spectre of International terrorism in Vietnam either.

In retrospect Vietnam wasnt even vitally important to the policy of containment of communism. The China/Soviet relationship had already shown cracks, made larger with the Nixon visit. Even Chinese/Vietnam brotherhood only lasted so long. It started going bad by the mid-70s and by '79 they were shooting at each other. We still had rock solid foundations in Asia and containment was further strengthened with support of the Mujahideen when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

The truth was Vietnam was a waste. Hell we cared more about their freedom then they did.

The Iraq invasion makes much more sense. Take a good look at the regional map before 9/11 and the one now. We split Iran and Syria apart, increased our presence in the Gulf, thru alliance or presence we basically have our enemies surrounded and we control much of the oil and water. Its a pity people cant get past their, "I dont like Bush" thing, and grasp the overall strategy, "my God but people are simple".

I hear people say all the time, "Iraq is another Vietnam". And when I ask "how so"? I get blank looks or stumble mumbling about soldiers dieing. The truth is its nothing like Vietnam and I lived thru both wars.

Whilst the conflict maybe more of an ethnic/sectarian clash than was the case in Vietnam I think Shimmy is correct when he likens the situation to Vietnam. As in Vietnam the USA and its allies are caught up in a war that many people feel does not appear to have an achievable endpoint. So Shimmy's statement that "the US must get out of Iraq quickly before it really becomes another Vietnam", accurately reflects what a lot of people believe.

The problem, as in Vietnam, is how to get out without losing face and without plunging Iraq even further into chaos. IMO, the only way to achieve this is to speed up the training and equipping of the Iraq defence and security forces so that they can take over the roles that the US and its allies are currently performing. I believe, however, that time will run out before this can be properly carried out.

In Vietnam, following withdrawal, the situation was settled by the Vietnamese themselves when the North invaded and defeated the South. In Iraq the situation is, as many have said, much more complex and the potential for a war involving not only the sectarian groups in Iraq, but Iraq's Middle East neighbours such as Iran, seems to me to be very strong. I guess it's that threat and the potential disruption to oil supplies that complicates the decision facing the US President and his advisors.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

The biggest difference between the two is Vietnam was actually a conventional war while the occupation of Iraq isn't. Vietnam was a clash between super powers, support wise, while Iraq isn't. Iraq is a sectarian conflict while Vietnam wasnt. Vietnam wasnt in a region vitally important to America, and all the West, like Iraq and Middle East oil. Another difference. There was no spectre of International terrorism in Vietnam either.

I agree with most of the points made in this paragraph. IMO there were some aspects where I believe the war was unconventional. In the early stages the Vietcong fought a guerrilla campaign similar to what the British had faced for many years in Malaya but things changed later as North Vietnamese regulars became increasingly involved.

In retrospect Vietnam wasnt even vitally important to the policy of containment of communism. The China/Soviet relationship had already shown cracks, made larger with the Nixon visit. Even Chinese/Vietnam brotherhood only lasted so long. It started going bad by the mid-70s and by '79 they were shooting at each other. We still had rock solid foundations in Asia and containment was further strengthened with support of the Mujahideen when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

The important point here IMO is the use of the word 'retrospect'. I can't comment on feelings in the USA but in Australia at that time the 'Domino Theory' was widely believed to be valid and Australia's early involvement was 'sold' on the premise of stopping communist expansion before it spread further south. Australia was already involved in a war against communist guerrillas in Malaysia and was mixed up in the confrontation with Indonesia which had, at that time, developed strong military ties with Russia. As a result of the concerns with events in Malaysia and Indonesia I believe that Australia was keen to strengthen its alliance with America and this, IMO, encouraged its involvement on America's side in the early stages of the Vietnam War. As the war dragged on and casualty figures rose public opinion turned against involvement. With the benefit of hindsight most people I know now believe that Australia made a huge error of judgement in getting entangled in Vietnam. As far as the situation in Iraq is concerned a majority of the population probably supported Australia's initial involvement but support for ongoing involvement seems to be evaporating rapidly. This is the similarity I see between Vietnam and Iraq. I agree that the wars are very different but the declining support for staying the distance in Iraq seems much the same to me as what I saw in Australia during the Vietnam War.

Cheers

 

[bluezhanqi]

Democracy does not fit Iraq. 1, It's a Muslim country with hugh internal difference, Kurd has problem to do with Turk. Problem b/w shia and sunni can go back era before Sadam. 2, long history of dictatorship, so there's no nutrition for seed of democracy. 3, Bloody Rivalry b/w Sunni and other groups.
For above reasons, i don't believe US can seed democracy in mid-east.

No matter US leave IRaq or not, the whole muslim world is definitely hostile and anti_US. After Us Leaving, it's just a matter of Iraq falling into the hand of terrorist or Iran backed Shias. I would prefer to leave the IrAQ for Iran.
only for this reason, US will have a more firm grasp on Saudi and other mid-east countries, and direct some terrorists to Iran rather the WEST.

Another way to reduce casualty is to use $$$$ to recruit veterans from other country if US do not care about money

 

[atilla]

like every one saıd wietnam took place ın cold war sutuations where there ıs 2 super powers terraın war dıfferent wıtnam dıdnt have a tyrant lıke saddam husseın and many reasons more

why ıt ıs sımalr to formar yogoslavıa ıs there ıs at least one regıon wants to establısh a new state ( like bosnia example ) but bosnıa suffered more then kurdısh terroteroy plus bosnıan presıdent wasnt trıbal leader

there ıs possıbılty un able to reach any ports for planed state vıetnam was dıveded 2 former yougoslavıa 3 or maybe 4

yogoslavıas neıghborıng was sımılar to Iraq rather than vietnams

but thıs doesnt means result wıll be lıke former yougoslavıa because ın ıraq how ever post saddam perrıod goverments was secular but wasnt comunıst so trıbal and relıgous and tradıtıonal tıes was stronger then yogouslavıas
both states former yougoslavıa and Iraq was reborderd from ottoman empıre end of WW 1

and many other resons whıch wont fınnısh by statıng

 

[atilla]

fit democracy

beeing müslim doesnt mean that ıraq cant or wont fit in democracy

Iraq can fit in democracy and will fit establish good democracy if the people who lives there belives this all story ıs for democracy not for accupayıng or controlıng the oil

İt is always easy to blame ordinary people who doest have power on decısıons whıch was taken or wıll be taken ın future about theır own country

We cant say now Iraqs new gowerment ıs gıvıng good examples of perfect democracy after they are elected ( ıf ıt can be called ellectıons )

Or we cant blame ordınary Iraqıes for acceptıng lıvıng under saddam perıod sınce we all know bıgest democresıes created saddam and suported saddam for decades

If today there ıs no proper counter moves to Us armed forces ın ıraq thıs means actualy there ıs kınd of democracy ordınary people waıtıng for democracy

If today there ıs no strong and realıstıc moves agaınst Us ın the regıon we can say there ıs a good example of democrasy ( concederıng 90 % of people who ıs lıvıng ın mıd east ıs muslım )

Thıs ıs not about beeıng muslım thıs ıs about procedıng democracy to them ın dıfferent ways

or usıng the word of democrasy just but showıng and applyıng undemocratıc tools on them

and ı personaly belıve most muslıms are the most democrat people of the world

because they are stıll keepıng theır patıence

 

[Rich]

Or we cant blame ordınary Iraqıes for acceptıng lıvıng under saddam perıod sınce we all know bıgest democresıes created saddam and suported saddam for decades

So how did Democracies "create Saddam" and how much "support" did they give him compared to the Soviet Union?

Looking at your two posts Attila your English is much better when you give one of your unsupported opinions then it is when you try and explain one of your unsupported opinions. This "we created Saddam" is one of my favorite folk stories to come out of that region, "did you notice most of them are structured to place responsibility on others"?

Saddam rode a wave of Pan-Arabism in the Baath party and murdered his way to power on it. The Baath party was virulently anti-western and anti-Israeli, which is why I love this particular rumor so much, and If it was attached to anyone it was as a client state to the Soviet Union. Do they have history books in Turkey Atilla? I know they do but if they dont you can research this stuff on the web before you post it here. Here's a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party

Regarding support its true America gave Saddam Intelligence material on the disposition of Iranian forces during his war of stupidity-1 with Iran. If Iran would have over ran Iraq it would have been a disaster. We also sold him a small amount of unarmed trucks and helicopters. France and the Soviets, most of all the Soviets, were his main arms suppliers and his oil rich Arab brothers in the region were the ones who paid for them.

beeing müslim doesnt mean that ıraq cant or wont fit in democracy

Take a look around the Muslim world and you dont see a whole lot of democracy. It kinda looks like there is a pattern here. The closest is Turkey, but they had the luxury of once having one of histories most remarkable/brilliant men in Kemal Ataturk. This was a great man, with a great vision, and its a pity more in the west do not study him.

and many other resons whıch wont fınnısh by statıng

I couldnt understand your first reason, but it doesnt matter. I dont need anyone to explain the similarities between Serbia and Iraq. Because there arent any!

 

[shimmy]

Regress With or Without Egress

Is there really any way for the US to leave Iraq and Iraq not get involved in sectarian violence ?There was sectarian violence with Hussein. There was this violence before Hussein. There is only one way to really stop the violence and that would require a stoppage to the money coming in to support this violence-I do not see this happening for the forseeable future.
If the UN had a real leader all these years instead of that shill Mr. Kofi, there would have been a theoretical chance had all the UN nations agreed that the violence must stop. The UN had no such leadership and there is no worldwide appeal to have the violence stop. In fact , I suggest that it is the best interest of several nations ,like Iran , to have the violence continue.

 

[atilla]

not whith serbia former yogoslavia and there is similarty

1) both countrıes establıshment comes after WW1 and both countrıes were pice of ottoman empire ( even thıs ıs enough )

as u saıd my hıstory books also tells about general KASAIM whıch saddam got the power from D

We have to be realıstıc to see why how and what.Democrassıes sold weapons to Vietnam?? or to bosnıa ???? or to red indians ??? or native australians
or did democracy of west said they have right to live which we didnt hear from here D
many weapon producers sold weapons İran (before SAH time ) ?? and
IRAQ ?? as far as ı know most west sold equıpment to IRAQ Wasnt he dıctator at that tıme?? my hıstory book ıs also advısıng me to ask what was the ıntrest of ıran ıraq war ??

my hıstory book ıs also remındıng me british campaıns ın WW1 ın ıraq

Thanks for remındıng me MY history book whıch in case we can go back to seljuks and crusaders DD

but no need for that BASICLY are you tryıng to say ordınary people of IRAQ created saddam ????? and I m sure they profıt a lot maybe they profıt more then US oil companies which is on ground now DD
And sure Mustafa kemal was great but he also says unlımeted freedom no acceptence of accupaying from any one!!!!! and also no mandate !!

and also adds peace in our lands peace in world

seems there is still no peace in former ottoman states and u can gues why by looking your history books

 

[tomahawk6]

As far as democracy is concerned it works as long as the political leaders are honest with the voter. In many modern examples the voter does their part but then the person elected as President decides its such a great job that he wants to do it for life. Once he consolidates power and gets control of the military and police the voter no longer counts except as a rubber stamp. We see that now in Venezuela. Chavez will soon be allowed to run the country as a dictator for 18 months. Anyone think he will give up those powers in 18 months ? I dont.

Look at Iran. The public saw the ayatollahs as a welcome change from what was viewed as the oppression of the shah. As time went on Iran transformed into a theocracy. No one runs for office unless they are approved by the clerics.The people are powerless to change their form of government short of a revolution.

Iraq has already shown they can have honest elections. Politics isnt pretty as we see in the US. We are fighting a war overseas as well as a political war at home. One party does everything they can do to sabotage the other party at the expense of the national interest.I wouldnt mind rounding up all the democrats and locking them away so we can win the war. But its not the way we operate in the US. Somehow we muddle through. Its absurd to think a country like Iraq can function as a democarcy when after over 200 years we still have our problems. You cant wave a magic wand and create an army from scratch complete with professional NCO's and officers.It takes time.Police throughout much of the world are corrupt.They arent paid alot and they take bribes to suppliment their income.We see that in Mexico so why should Iraq be any different ?

Back to the thread.The enemy cannot beat the US on the battlefield. The only way the anti-democratic forces win is if we leave. It is true though that if democarcy is going to win in Iraq then they have to fight and the second component is that the military has to be under civilian control.

Iran is a threat to their neighbors. Their goal is to spread shiaism [if thats the proper word]. Many of the countries of the region have sizeable shia communities which would be perfect fifth columns. In the recent fighting in Najaf against a shia sect militia we have discovered that the leader of this group was a sunni masquerading as a shia leader to attack shia religious leaders. Interesting eh ?

 

[johndoe]

When the US leaves Iraq I feel that Iran is the only ME nation that will get intenseely involved in Iraq. Should this happen , at some point Saudi Arabia and possibly Syria, might start to worry about such Pesian influences and about the safety of the Sunni population. Perhaps Turkey will then start to worry about anti-government influences in its land too. Could Iran seek to "annex " part of what is now Iraq ? If it does what does that do to the security of neighboring Islamic nations ?
Any move by the US (or anyone else) to ensure a secure Kurdish territory will certainly meet with opposition from Turkey and possibly Iran.
All this aside, the US must get out of Iraq quickly before it really becomes another Vietnam.

Why would Syria care as the current alawites rulers are a shia sect?

Also, Kurdistan and shia iraq can survive w/o as they have oil but kurdistan will be probably be invaded by Turkey. I don't think iran now wants a division of iraq as they (shias being 60%) control whole of iraq (along with the kurds in the north which can have their own "autonomy") rather than s. iraq if everything splits up!

It is people in the middle that will lose if Iraq goes the way of federalism. There will be a civil war which will affect Iran more than it wants to affect itself right now with the iraqi mess.


My 2 cents (or $2) lol

 

[luca28]

:shudder :nutkick :nutkick :nutkick

IMV it is almost to complex and unpredictable to me to have a crystallized opinion on this. But I'll say that overt Iranian involvement is very unlikely. As Waylander already pointed out, there is the Persian-Arab issue to consider. And by going overt the Iranian mullahs seriously risk a US reaction ie direct military confrontation, as it provides pretext for such.

And they don't want that.

So, this could IMV be ruled out.