Would "terrorist" acts continue if US withdrew from Baghdad ?

[kentuck]

The conventional wisdom seems to be that things would be much worse if the US pulled out of Baghdad? Who would they attack if the Americans were not there? The American puppets set up to run the new government? Why would it be worse? Why would anarchy ensue, as some have suggested? Since it is America and American interests that are presently being attacked, why should we believe that they would turn on their own once we were gone?

[La_Serpiente]

1. I am not sure on that one

I would assume that there was a power vaccum as soon as America got in there.

All of the countries in the region have an interest in Sadaam, especially Iran, Saudi Arabia, possibly Turkey, and maybe even Israel.

Saudi Arabia because they are always exporting Wahaabism. Turkey, maybe for nationalistic pride or something. The want the glory of the Ottoman empire. And probaby Iran because they want to expand their form of government. Israel...just because.

However, the underlying meaning for all of them is to get the oil. No doubt about it.

Many people don't realise that Sadaam was a stabalizing force in the region during the mid to late 90s. He had a secular government and got rid of all the fundamentalists. That could all change.

In a recent poll (the one cited by Cheney) it states that like 13 percent wants a government like Saudi Arabia and 17 percent wants a government like the US. However, 33 percent voted none of the above (some of the other choices were I think Egypt, Iran, I'm not sure)

So would the fight back the fundies? I don't know. Most Iraquis aren't fundy types. I saw another poll that said most don't pray five times a day. I think they act just like Americans really in certain cases. Not all Americans go to church and everything.

[htuttle]

2. Do you mean the city of Baghdad, or all of Iraq?

They will continue until we leave the country.

It's possible that the longer the US is there, the more unified the opposition will become, to where if the US is there a very long time, there might not be any period of anarchy after the US finally leaves (especially if things progress to where the US is formally negotiating with some Iraqi resistance entity). Is that a bright side? Not really.

[bywho4who]

3. I think you must consider Israeli postion.

They don't want to lose the influence they have via the U.S being there. they have a lot of power !:think:

[LastKnight]

4. the various factions...

thiers quite a few religious factions in iraq, and they dont quite like each other... chances are that the only reason they arent already fighting each other is because they are joined in thier hate for the occupying 'coalition'.

but your right, i can say confidently that 90% of the violence would stop there simply due to lack of targets. however if we did pull out today, and saddam came back... that would be a big 'told ya so' for republicans. either way, were in for the long haul now and thiers not likley to be any help, and i cant blame anyone who isnt willing to help, either, ill stop before i end up hijacking this thread lol.

-LK

[The Magistrate]

5. If The U.S. Departed, My Bluegrass Friend

Several things could be relied on to happen.

An attempt by Shia clerics to set up a government of their own, over the whole of Iraq. This would certainly be resisted by Sunnis, and Kurds.

Faction fighting, on doctrinal, tribal, and personal lines, between various Shia clerics. This would greatly weaken any Shia attempt to wield power.

Secession by the Kurds. As this would take a good deal of oil with it, it would be resisted by all Shia factions, and probably by Sunni leadership as well.

Iranian attempts to dominate any emerging Shia government, and to secure a favorable winner in Shia faction fighting. It would, at least, be hoped this could be extended to detatch Shia areas of Saudi Arabia, and even to taking the holy cities there.

Saudi attempts to hobble any Shia government, probably taking the form of assistance to Sunni elements.

[htuttle]

6. I think much of that is already happening beneath the headlines

For example, while Kurdistan has not formally separated, is anyone in a position to control them right now? (short of a full scale invasion by Turkey). About all they don't have is control of their oil at the moment, but nobody else seems to be getting it either.

I think of the items you list, only Iranian interference is at all tempered by the presence of US troops, and even that I'd say is 'tempered', not prevented. I think most of the rest of the conflicts are proceeding at their own pace, perhaps a bit more cooperatively given their common enemy (that's us).

I think it's possible that a coalition of sorts might form between a number of these factions if the occupation drags on long enough. Whether it would hold after the US eventually leaves would be another (often told) story.

[The Magistrate]

7. The Presence Of U.S. Troops, Mr. Tuttle

Keeps these things below the surface, and in two ways. First, by providing a unifying target, and second, because various factions among the Shia particularly hope to make use of U.S. power against their rivals.

Without U.S. presence, all would emerge into the open, with field artillery, in many cases.

[Mal]

8. If the US was to withdraw from Iraq

(not just Baghdad), I would predict open hostilities (read, bloody civil war) between the major factions as they decided just who was to rule Iraq. I do not, however, regard this as a totally bad thing. It is a time-honoured and legitimate method of deciding such matters, and even democratic, in a sense (anyone who can buy a gun can join in).

You are of course correct to put it as "terrorist". There are no terrorist acts in Iraq. There are acts of resistance to fight against the US occupation. A lot of those acts are nasty, but they have the choice to either be nasty, or lose.

[stickdog]

9. Sure.

And the US and its neocon Iraqi exiles would still be behind much of it.