Iraq

[Aimster]

Where do you see Iraq being in 5 years? 10? 15?

Just curious what people think.

 

[bctbct]

US will be gone before 5 years so I dont care.

 

[Stunt]

Predicting Iraq's future is completely useless at this point; hell you can't even predict how stable first world nations will perform these days, let alone one in the middle of a war.

What I can say is that Iraq is far better off today than they were under Saddam.
Things will get better in Iraq over time.
Was it worth the money and lives? Probably not.

 

[dexvx]

Hard to say. I think it'd just break into Civil War, with the Kurds declaring independance. The rest of Iraq will probably degrade into a state of poverty and civil strife on par with Somalia, with Islamic Fundies in control and an Al Qaeda breeding ground.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Hard to say. I think it'd just break into Civil War, with the Kurds declaring independance. The rest of Iraq will probably degrade into a state of poverty and civil strife on par with Somalia, with Islamic Fundies in control and an Al Qaeda breeding ground.

If the Kurds declare independence, Turkey-Iran would wipe them out.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: bctbct
US will be gone before 5 years so I dont care.

you really think?

Whoever makes that decision will be blammed by the other side for turning Iraq into the worst place on Earth

 

[Schadenfroh]

US forgets any hope of a unified Iraq, splits the country into three nations: one for the kurds, one for the sunni, one for the shiite. THen, leave the place and let the three new countries fight each other for the next 50 years while selling all three sides weapons and ammo in exchange for oil to help pay off the first invasion.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: bctbct
US will be gone before 5 years so I dont care.

you really think?

Whoever makes that decision will be blammed by the other side for turning Iraq into the worst place on Earth

No way either side supports the next prez on this issue. We would be gone now but the repukes wont admit how wrong they are on this issue

 

[ProfJohn]

I think the people who are making these types of decisions are going to do a better job at looking at the long term political implications of any decision than those of us on these boards.

The easy thing to do would be the bring the troops home now, but they understand that a short term solution like that would be a disaster to the US in the long term and therefore resist the easy way out.

Finally, even if the Democrats do take over I doubt we will see a change in the way Iraq is handled. History shows us that Presidents often run on one platform and then follow a different path once in office, especially in foreign affairs. Both Clinton and Bush said they would never get involved in ?nation building? and yet that is essentially what they both did in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. It is much easier to campaign against a strategy when you are not response for what happens than it is to actually change plans once in power.

As for a direct answer, I think we will be there in a much reduced fashion helping to provide support to the Iraqi people and army. We will also use our presence there to act as a counter balance to Iran and its dreams of Middle East dominance. Hopefully, with in the next year or two the Iraq army and polices forces will be strong enough to take on and stop the insurgency themselves and once the insurgency is gone al-Qaida should follow.

 

[GeNome]

Knowing that Al Qaida will never be completely eradicated*, I predict it will end up similar to the way it was before. After one or two more years of secretarian fighting, Americans will start demanding a time-table for withdraw. Of course, at the rate things are going now, the Iraqi "police force" won't be nearly ready by then. America calls up the CIA, asks them to quietly install an "independant" dictatorship, and starts to withdraw troops once things start to calm down (since the USA is supposedly out of Iraq's collective face).

Of course, I'm not a geo-political genius, so this could just as easily not happen.

*Al Qaida, and terrorists in general, are not some big bad guy we can kill with a few bombs. They will always be around.

 

[tommywishbone]

Perhaps a Cambodian/Khmer Rouge type madness, except with lots more money to buy better weapons. I think the Khmer Rouge killed 1.7 million. Surely the Iraqi fanatics can beat that number.

 

[Blackjack2000]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the people who are making these types of decisions are going to do a better job at looking at the long term political implications of any decision than those of us on these boards.

I wonder what decisions they've made so far that are giving you this confidence. Frightening.

The easy thing to do would be the bring the troops home now, but they understand that a short term solution like that would be a disaster to the US in the long term and therefore resist the easy way out.

It is equally easy for those in power to bring them home now or leave them to die.

Finally, even if the Democrats do take over I doubt we will see a change in the way Iraq is handled. History shows us that Presidents often run on one platform and then follow a different path once in office, especially in foreign affairs. Both Clinton and Bush said they would never get involved in ?nation building? and yet that is essentially what they both did in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. It is much easier to campaign against a strategy when you are not response for what happens than it is to actually change plans once in power.

I won't comment on your dig at Clinton. I'm no Clinton fan anyway. You are right to a degree, it's unlilkely that a sweeping Democratic victory will result in a more rapid standdown. But it will push the politcal discourse much further in that direction, and that alone is worth doing. Why do you think we're not invading Iran? Right now the population simply will not tolerate it. If Bush's approvel ratings crack 60% again, imagine how fast Iran will look just like Iraq.

As for a direct answer, I think we will be there in a much reduced fashion helping to provide support to the Iraqi people and army. We will also use our presence there to act as a counter balance to Iran and its dreams of Middle East dominance. Hopefully, with in the next year or two the Iraq army and polices forces will be strong enough to take on and stop the insurgency themselves and once the insurgency is gone al-Qaida should follow.

QFT

We will not allow the oil supply out of our direct or indirect control.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
US forgets any hope of a unified Iraq, splits the country into three nations: one for the kurds, one for the sunni, one for the shiite. THen, leave the place and let the three new countries fight each other for the next 50 years while selling all three sides weapons and ammo in exchange for oil to help pay off the first invasion.

Beautiful... Divide and Conquer.

But you're thinking too small. Pan Arab conflict is probably what's going to happen.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Blackjack2000

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the people who are making these types of decisions are going to do a better job at looking at the long term political implications of any decision than those of us on these boards.

I wonder what decisions they've made so far that are giving you this confidence. Frightening.

The easy thing to do would be the bring the troops home now, but they understand that a short term solution like that would be a disaster to the US in the long term and therefore resist the easy way out.

It is equally easy for those in power to bring them home now or leave them to die.

Did you read the NIE that was released? The whole thing, not just the bits and pieces that were posted on this board?
Here are two key parts that relate to what I said

The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

and

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.

Those two sections state the long term goals and objectives of our campaign in Iraq.
1. Hand the terrorists a defeat in order to create a sense of failure and therefore lead to less people willing to join the radical jihad movement in the future.
2. Create a Democratic system in Iraq where the people are more interested in working within the system than taking up arms to over throw the system.
That is the long term view, what is the long term view of those on the other side? Withdraw our troops and hope for the best?
NIE Key Judgments

 

[Todd33]

Bosnia, Kosovo and especially Somalia were not "nation building" efforts, but I don't expect truthiness from this guy, he's a spin artist.

 

[judasmachine]

A tax shelter, exclusive vacation site for the wealthy, sweat shop running paradise. Kind of like the Marianas.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: bctbct
US will be gone before 5 years so I dont care.

you really think?

Whoever makes that decision will be blammed by the other side for turning Iraq into the worst place on Earth

That's why we stay there until the country is stable.

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: bctbct
US will be gone before 5 years so I dont care.

you really think?

Whoever makes that decision will be blammed by the other side for turning Iraq into the worst place on Earth

I think at this point, most people blame the Bush administration for making it the worst place on Earth. The longer we stay the worse everything gets. Polls have showed that most Iraqi's want the US to leave now.

I can't say where Iraq will be 5, 10, or 15 years from now because I've never been there, know very few Arabs and Muslims. I haven't had so much as a single semester long course in "Iraqi History."

 

[1EZduzit]

They should progress to a point where they have a democratically elected dictator within the next 10 years.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: bctbct
US will be gone before 5 years so I dont care.

you really think?

Whoever makes that decision will be blammed by the other side for turning Iraq into the worst place on Earth

I think it is safe to say that Bush and his administration accomplished that.. now it is simply damage control.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: bctbct
US will be gone before 5 years so I dont care.

you really think?

Whoever makes that decision will be blammed by the other side for turning Iraq into the worst place on Earth

That's why we stay there until the country is stable.

We stay there forever? so if 3k troops for every 3 years die.. and 300 billion per 3 years... We'll be a bankrupt nation in just a few decades.. good strategy!