What will happen in Iraq if we left today?......

[Postman]

I know you don't have a crystal ball.

[ogradda]

1. Everything would fall apart...

as opposed to the neat stuff that happens now :eyes:

[El Supremo]

2. Nothing worse than what's happening now.

That is my whole point on why we should leave NOW.

[whistle]

3. The Bush puppet government would distintigrate, Islamic ....

...fundementalism would move into power and Iraq would be absorbed by Iran to form the new Persia.

<snip>
IRAQ: Threatened teachers fleeing the country
24 Aug 2006 14:14:55 GMT

BAGHDAD, 24 August (IRIN) - "When I was a child, I dreamt of being a professor so that I could give knowledge to thousands of people in my country," said Hala Jumeiri, an engineering professor at Mustansiriyah University in Baghdad. "I fulfilled my dream - but today I'm fleeing Iraq for my own safety because violence has reached the classroom."

Jumeiri and her family are packing their bags and will leave the country in the next few days after she received threats and two of her colleagues were killed for doing their jobs.

"Gangs want to destroy the scientific minds of Iraq and with the current lack of security, even giving a low mark to a student in an exam can be reason enough to be threatened or killed," Jumeiri said. <.....>

There are no reliable statistics on how many professors have left Iraq since the US-led coalition forces began occupying Iraq three years ago, but UPUI statistics show that more than 10,000 professionals in general, including doctors, have already gone.

<more>
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/9c65cf0098d9fd852b6cc81cfa749748.htm


Also, the U.S. is already pulling out of Iraq...

<snip>
August 27, 2006
You wouldn’t catch me dead in Iraq

Scores of American troops are deserting — even from the front line in Iraq. But where have they gone? And why isn’t the US Army after them? Peter Laufer tracked down four of the deserters

They are the US troops in Iraq to whom the American administration prefers not to draw attention. They are the deserters – those who have gone Awol from their units and not returned, risking imprisonment and opprobrium.

When First Lieutenant Ehren Watada of the US Army, who faced a court martial in August, refused to go to Iraq on moral grounds, the newspapers in his home state of Hawaii were full of letters accusing him of “treason”. He said he had concluded that the war is both morally wrong and a horrible breach of American law. His participation, he stated, would make him party to “war crimes”. Watada is just one conscientious objector to a war that has polarised America, arguably more so than even the Vietnam war.

It is impossible to put a precise figure on the number of American troops who have left the army as a result of the US involvement in Iraq. The Pentagon says that a total of 40,000 troops have deserted their posts (not simply those serving in Iraq) since the year 2000. This includes many who went Awol for family reasons. The Pentagon’s spokesmen say that the overall number of deserters has actually gone down since operations began in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is no doubt that a steady trickle of deserters who object to the Iraq war have made it over the border and are now living in Canada. There they seek asylum, often with the help of Canadian anti-war groups. One Toronto lawyer, Jeffry House, has represented at least 20 deserters from Iraq in the Canadian courts; he is himself a conscientious objector, having refused to fight in the Vietnam war – along with 50,000 others, at the peak of the conflict. He estimates that 200 troops have already gone underground in Canada since the war in Iraq began.

<more>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-2318643,00.html

[BushOut06]

4. Good to hear that - you should post that as a separate thread

Nice to see that some soldiers realize they do have a choice, that they can refuse to fight in King George's illegal war. As I've said before, I REFUSE to support the troops who are in Iraq illegally. Now we find out that many of them are committing the same crimes that the RWers accused Saddam's regime of carrying out. It's no excuse to say "they were simply following orders". It didn't work for Nazi Germany, it shouldn't work for American soldiers in Iraq. The reports that make it into the news are only the tip of the iceberg.

I will pray for their safe and quick return, but I will not support them. Sorry.

[whistle]

10. Most of our soldiers are honest Americans and great professionals

...but they are fighting a corrupt war based on lies and deception. No American soldier should be ordered into battle to indiscriminately slaughter innocent civilians, especially older people, children and women. The top military commanders know the difference and therefore they must be held accountable, not the soldiers fighting on the front lines. Our young men and women in combat in Iraq with be scared for the rest of their lives, by the actions they are being ordered to take in Iraq and they must be given a voice now. George Bush began the war, but his credibility as a leader has been destroyed and he should no longer have the authority to continue to direct this or any other war.

<snip>





THE IRAN PLANS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
Issue of 2006-04-17
Posted 2006-04-08



The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
<more>
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

[spanone]

5. Cheney would have to rewrite his 'energy policy'.

[MadHound]

6. The same thing that will happen whenever we leave Iraq

The fundemental fact is that any government the US has a hand in will be considered illegit and illegal by the Iraqi people, and it will be destroyed once we are gone. This will most likely be followed a civil war, one that will sort out who is actually going to rule the country.

This is going to occur whenever we leave, be it tommorrow or ten years from now. Therefore it is best to get our troops out of there, and minimize the damage that we not only recieve, but the damage that we inflict also.

[Deja Q]

7. The Iraqis will still kill each other based on their religions, BUT the

'insurgents' will go to the oil wells and summarily destroy them.

Which is bad for them as the world needs oil until replacements can be acquired (why the oil execs don't pump more into renewable sources, which would still ultimately give them big profits and I can fathom 2 or 3 methods)...

It'll be bad for us because we need oil not only for our own transportation, but transportation and storage and packaging of food, energy, tarmac for roads, anything plastic, you name it...

Pity nobody in the government is honest enough to speak this simple, obvious truth and instead fudge around with silly words about how it would just be a loss to our esteem or whatever the excuse is.

[Jacobin]

8. Increased violence

The fighting among the factions would increase until one side gained sufficient strength and support to have a leader emerge, probably a military dictator, maybe a Shiite ayatollah.

After a time, peace would be enforced by the Iraqi faction that emerged as victor.

Which is what will happen whether we leave right nor or in five years. Same result.

Somehow, people don't 'get' that its their country and they should be allowed to run it the way they want to.

No one intervened in the U.S. civil war, although France and Britain assisted opposite sides.

[leesa]

22. Exactly. It will work its way out. Our presence is only prolonging

what will happen anyway. The only thing that can be said is that removing our illegal occupation is at least removing one thorn from the body of Iraq.

[Yupster]

23. It will work itself out

The Iraqis who have helped us will either leave the country or have their heads sawed off live on TV.

Then the Shi-ite militias will take control and sweep through the Sunni Triangle sending the remianing Sunnis racing to the Syrian border for their lives. The Kurds will have defacto independance.

Iraq will settle down as a Shi-ite country with a fundamentalist government led by the Mahdi Army.

[madrchsod]

9. the country would split into three different "countries"

kurds in the north,sunni controlled center or basically baghdad,and the shites in the rest of the country. there`s nothing much left of iraq now. the educated class of iraq have fled the country to jordan and beyond. those who are left are the poor who cannot leave,those who will try to stay,and the murderers who terrorize the country. the destruction that was started by george41, perpetuated by clinton,and now george43 is almost complete.

[loves_dulcinea]

18. the kurds

in the north would be invaded and killed wholesale by the turks.

[pscot]

11. This has been on my mind

It sems likely the internecine killing will go on for a bit, but that after some initial chaos and looting, the Shi'ite Mullahs will get together with the backing of Iran, and will make the Sunnis an offer they can't refuse. The Sunnis will deal rather than risk being wiped out entirely. They would be crazy to risk full blown civil war and I think the odds of that happening are only around 20%. Iraq has a history of religious toleration, and with our troops out of the mix, chances for a settlement betweeen Sunnis and Shias improve quite a bit. I actually believe that Arabs are capable of self government. The result may not look like Switzerland, but they will achieve self-governance on their own terms.

That leaves the Kurds, who are hated by everone in the region. Unless we establish a really subsdtantial militry presence in Kurdistan, along with no fly zones, the Kurds will be swallowed up by a coalition of Iraqis, Syrians, Turks and Iranians. That's likely to be bloody. In any event, the Shia writ will run unbroken from Karachi to Damascus and we will have what the neo-cons so desperately wanted, stability in the middle east. This might not be all that good for Kuwaitis and the Saudis. It could also spell big trouble for Israel. I believe the Arabs mean it when they say they want an end to the Jewish state in their midst.

[Zorra]

12. No more Americans would be killed or wounded, and the taxpayers

of the US would save a big whole lot of money.

I'm pretty sure of that.

What would happen to Iraq?

I guess that would be up to the Iraqi people, unless another country invaded them after we pulled out.

[Toots]

13. A new Saddam would appear and the country would move on

Apparently Iraq still needs to be ruled by an ironman type leader. Someone capable of bringing all sides together through any means necessary as Saddam did. Saddam at least kept the country functioning.

[Yupster]

24. I'll bet on Sadr

He has the muscle with his Mahdi Army.

The Sunnis will be wiped out or will leave the country.

[Philosoraptor]

14. When the oil is all sucked up, we'll find out.

Today, it'd descend into chaos, which it already has, either way no happy ending.

[kenny blankenship]

15. The same thing that will happen if we leave 2 years from now, 4 yrs or 8

or 12 years from now, or...

Iraq has a bitter recent history of a Sunni minority oppressing a Shiite majority. But it also has a bitter ancient history of being the prime battleground between Sunni and Shiite, and Arab and Persian, that stretches back centuries. Fourteen centuries. The Muslim holy day of Ashurah commemorates the death in battle of Muhammed's grandson Husayn Ibn Ali in Kerbala in the year 680 by our calendar. That's Kerbala in Iraq--he was there fighting for what Shi'ites believe to be his rightful succession to the leadership of Islam. His force was outnumbered by the Ummayad chieftain Yazid who though related to Muhammed was not descended from him. Shia Islam essentially was born in Husayn Ibn Ali's death as the schism became permanent between those who accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakr- a line of succession from Muhammed that stands on discipleship (Abu Bakr was one of the Sahaba or companions of the Prophet) versus those who believe Muhammed intended his leadership to be inherited by the Prophet's son and descendants. In the 1500s, the Safavid Shahs of Persia conquered Iraq for Shi'ism and the Sunni Ottoman Turks later took it back again. In the 1600s there more exchanges.
What happens by way of score settling after we leave is what is bound to happen less because of what we've done, but because of what Saddam did, and well because...

Americans have to get over somehow this notion of being all-powerful and the cause or prevention of everything that happens in the world.

[Kickoutthejams23]

16. Hundreds of thousands of "brown people" dead

Actually probably over a million. Hey what can I say Civil wars are bloody.

There would be a more powerful Iran and Syria. The Kurds would be hunted and killed like dogs. And then the Shiite Sunni civil war would commence in earnest.

Heck this might happen even if we stay.

Keep in mind Bush started this mess. And yes like pulling out of Vietnam pulling out of Iraq has it's genocidal downside.

But it will save American lives and monies.

[nedbal]

17. the Shiite Sunni civil war would commence in earnest. And then

The Kurds would be hunted and killed like dogs.

[burythehatchet]

19. Yugoslavia?

[leftofthedial]

20. halliburton's profits would tank

[leesa]

21. They would begin their recovery.

[kcwayne]

25. 50,000 American lives and 500,000 Iraqi lives would be saved

and the Islamic Theocracy that will take over the county today will be virtually the same as the one that takes over in 15 years after all of those lives are wasted.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. The already occurring seperation into 3 states would speed up.

Instead of the bloody civil war that's intensifying daily, the Iraqis would have to find a way to seperate with less violence. Probably by calling on 3rd parties like the UN, EU, or Arab League to facilitate the transition.

I see it as no longer a question of "if" but of "when" the Americans get out, or are thrown out, and the Iraqi people are forced by circumstance to solve their own problems without the "help" of Dubya and his band of neo-colonialist bunglers.