Red_Dave

One thing those who advocate an imediate withdrawel from iraq [as i used to] should bear in mind is that the coalition forces are the only thing starting between a full scale civil war and the relatively sectarian conflict we are seeing today.

Where a civil war to occur we know Iran would get involved because it already has links with shia militia. The saudi government has already declared its intention to protect sunni civillians and this would draw the two countrys into conflict with each other.

If such a conflict where to occur it would be likely that the U.S and Brittian would get involved due to there intrests in the region [arms, oil e.t.c] and there alliance with saudi arabia. It would be likely that Syria would get involved due to its promise to protect Iran. The result would be a conflict between two coalitions of nations as in WW1 and WW2.

If this where to happen there would be far reaching concequences such as an increase in terroism in Europe and the U.S, and a economic chaos due to problems in oil supply. This would inevitably heighten ethnic tensions.

Naturally im not saying this is all going to happen but theres a significant risk that it will. If this risk exists could it not be accuratly said that the ocupation is a neccesairy evil?

WI Crippler

Well I don't see preventing a 3rd WW as a necessary evil, but due to our invasion of Iraq, it has become our responsibility to keep it from getting worse. What we are trying to acheive in Iraq is TRUE stability, not just stability for our own interests. if we wanted stability for our own interests, we could have made friends with Saddam, just like we did prior to the first gulf war.

The scary part about a 3rd WW taking place in that region, is that we don't know who is going to support whom. Obviously the US is probably not going to help Iran beat Saudia Arabia, or support any attacks in the region against Israel, but what about all the other players?? France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Pakistan etc... Its too cloudy to see how those nations would react to a disaster after a troop withdrawal.

mikhail

the problem is with the assumption we can stop the civil war it seems like you advocating war no matter how long.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

Iriemon

Interesting to speculate about. But I don't think it would be likely that civil war in Iraq would lead to a world war. The outside states are not that invested in it. It is not in the interest of Muslems on either side to start a inter-Islamic war over Iraq. Is it likely that Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia would send troops into Iraq? Is Iran for that matter? While I agree Iran wants to extend its hemegony, replacing American troops with its soldiers in Iraq would be a pretty foolish move. I would doubt the would expect that Iranian soldiers would be able to do any better job that US soliders and controlling the country, it would risk bringing other Muslim nations into a broader conflict as well as retribution for powers like the US. It would not be very popular with its people, who have enough problems as it is.

Even if there was a inter-Islamic war, it seems unlikely (and would sure be foolish, IMO) for the US to takes sides and get involved in it directly. Even if Iran were able to maintain some presence in Iran, it doesn't have the capacity to do anything against other ME nations such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the latter particularly having relatively strong firepower. I doubt the EU, Russia or China would care to intervene directly in such an event, except in a peacekeeping role, perhaps. And in any case it is unlikely they'd take a military position on the opposite side of the US.

The world wars were so encompassing because you had clearly defined alliances with roughly equivalent power. You don't have that situation in Iraq or the ME.

Much more likely is that there will be a low scale struggle in Iraq until the sides get tired of fighting and compromise, split apart, or a victor emerges. Not that makes the situation any better than it was in Mar 03 -- and probably worse from the US perspective.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Iriemon

What is our responsibility if it is our very presence there making it worse?

Billo_Really

The "thread question" has got it backwards.

The longer we stay, the closer we get to armageddon.

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

WI Crippler

Do you believe it is worse with our presence, or do you believe it would be worse without our presence?? Thats what you have to ask yourself.

This is my opinion. Since the invasion of Iraq was the US leading the charge, it is our responsibility to the Iraqi people to leave the place in better hands than we found it. After all toppling Saddam and the Baathist regime was our goal. We accomplished that in a mere 3 weeks. Should we have just left after then?? Would the situation have worked itself out had we toppled Saddam, and their military and economy, and just left?? I don't believe it would have, and you would see death tolls in Baghdad much higher than they are now. Or it would be stabilised under a regime far worse than Saddams.

The only thing we wouldn't have to see is the death toll count for coalition forces scrolling across the bottom of the screen daily.

Thats just my opinion though.

Tashah

As an occupying military power, the lawful responsibilities of the United States are codified in the Geneva Conventions and Protocols

__________________

Iriemon

IMO, our continued presence in Iraq is making things worse. The fact that the great satan infidel is unjustifiably occupying their holy lands adds fuel to the fire. There may be an escalation of violence when we leave, but in the long run our continued presence is making it worse.

Billo_Really

We've already broken those.