OT: End of war in Iraq
 

This is my opinion. Let the brick-a-bracks start to fly.

IF I were an Iraqi citizen, and I saw the US Army leaving, I would be leaving right with them.

I have a bad feeling that Iraq is going to turn into another Cambodia/Laos/Vietnam. When the US pulled out, we know of at least 2 MILLION dead in Cambodia. We have no clue how many in Laos or (South) Vietnam.

I can VERY easily see Al-qaida, with full backing of Iran, killing everyone and any one who had ANY dealing with US. Look what Saddam did to the Kurds. I think this will be even worse.

And just like we did nothing after SE Asia fell, we will do nothing when SW Asia falls. Can Kuwait, Saudi etc be far behind??

My $0.02

Mike

I foresee trouble, but not a domino theory type of trouble. The civil war I predicted for Iraq now has a chance to break out. The local players now have their chance to get involved by backing their particular interest, a la the Congo after the Rwandese intervention. Iran and Turkey both have their interests in Iraq. The Sunni world may want to back the Sunni minority in Iraq, because these guys are going to come out on the bottom if Iran steps in to support the Shia, while Turkish control of Kurdish lands will deprive the Sunni of the oil income that's left. It's hard to say how this one will evolve, but I'm not about to invest in Iraqi government bonds.

It could also become a proxy battleground for the rivalry between the Saudis and the Iranians.

I agree that Iraq will turn into a multi faction based civil war and will be a bloodbath but please can I double check something that Mike said (hopefully without side-tracking this thread):

I know that the US had troops unofficially operating in Laos but did the US ever have troops in Cambodia? I thought that the slaughter in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge was unrelated to US involvement but I'm no expert here so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Related (and yes) - but Cambodia was doomed regardless which foreign powers were the most to blame. The depressing thing was that they were screwed if they either took action in the war or inaction. It was a no-win situation which would have most likely ended the same no matter what.

Yes, MACV/SOG ran recon teams in Cambodia throughout the war. They were considered black ops, though, so the teams had to use "sterilized" gear and weaponry that couldn't be traced back to the U.S. They also had to operate without fixed wing air support for the first few years- artillery and choppers only.

In 1970, Nixon ordered a limited invasion of eastern Cambodia to destroy the extensive NVA base camps and logistical facilities located there. Public opinion in the U.S. quickly turned against it, though, since they saw it as an escalation and Nixon had been elected on the promise that he had a secret plan to end the war (or at least U.S. involvement in it).

So what you're saying is that the war hasn't ended for Iraq, it's ended for the USA :p

The war hasn't ended for anybody. No matter what reasons we choose to believe about the US invasion of Iraq, the reasons for being there will rear their ugly heads soon enough. A chaotic Iraq is a far better hiding ground for terrorists than Iraq under Hussein ever was. Chaos will threaten the flow of oil. Chaos is good for certain monied interests, but for the most part chaos creates an undesirable investment climate. No matter how one looks at the problem, renewed war in Iraq brings all our reasons for being in Iraq in the first place back into focus.

The biggest mistake we made in the Iraq War was starting it in the first place.

Exactly Paul. Its been painful watching the sharp sword of our military being used to beat rocks for no good reason.

And the chaos begins.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/201...D9RPI8200.html

My $0.02

Mike

Yup, stay tuned for Iraq III. I believe we will be back there again in a few short years.:(

I can't. The US is too deeply in debt to afford to go back. Iraq will be left to decay into a bunch of warring factions for the next decade or two.
The US will try to put pressure on other countries to move in, but I can't see anyone all that willing who's got a military large enough to make a difference. We might also see UN peacekeepers, but as usual they'll be woefully short of manpower and hamstrung by ROE.

End of US involvement in Iraq, and the beginning of the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/UAE.

Someone may try to get all of the Sunni Arab players in a single box to fight the Shi'a in Iraq. There probably are still Ba'athist cells in Iraq, so it's possible that Syria might want to support the Iraqi fascists. On the other hand, it seems like Syria's plate is plenty full. Then there's Turkey's interests in the region.

Once the civil war does break out, the attitudes of the other major players capable of providing arms and armaments become an open question. What outcome does China want to see? What outcome does Russia want to see? What outcome does France want to see? What outcome does Israel want to see?

China's leading concern probably is access to oil. A stable Iraq is a better source of oil than a chaotic Iraq. However, if the Chinese don't believe they can get a stable Iraq in one play, they may try to shape events so that they can get a stable Iraq in the future. China has a relationship with Iran that is closer than its relationship with the Gulf States. How will that affect decision-making? Will old-fashioned politics cause China to back Iran and thus the Iraqi Shi'a, or will market pressures oblige China to back the Gulf States for access to their oil? There are other variables to be considered, such as the proximity of Iran to Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as American public opinion. We can't have American public opinion, which is already sour on China, turn into action that diminishes American consumption of Chinese goods. Though our addiction to cheap junk is unlikely to be overcome by something so far removed as global politics, once never knows. If MADE IN CHINA can be connected somehow to a Chinese betrayal of the sacrifices of American troops in Iraq, the unlikely might become possible.

Russia will have somewhat different priorities. As a major oil exporter, Russia stands to gain from a drop in Iraqi exports.

I supported it at first, but looking back in retrospect, it was a mistake. As bad as Saddam was, he would have been a lot better than what could happen now, at least he was a check again Iran, now it seems we have a vacuum. Nature abhores vacuums, something will move in and it is most likely Iran. It is a noble thing to bring a represenative form of government over there, but unless we assume almost dictatorial powers for a while like we did with Japan and Germany to re-engineer them, it is a lost cause. It is a different world over there, they do not know our values nor do they care or understand them. Most likely the people would vote themselves an Islamic dictatorship and things go downhill. I think we broke it over there and it is a choice between a rock and a hard place and if we want to keep Iran out, we should have stayed over there. Maybe WOPR from War Games is right, the winning move is not to play. :p