NationStates Jolt Archive

You may remember the news of a few weeks ago about the current Iraqi PM Talabani saying that British Forces won't be needed anymore (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4432480.stm) in a few months.

Then combine that with the recent talks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4454564.stm) in which the Iraqi Government did everything it could to seperate itself from the US Forces and tried to portray itself as the sovereign over Iraq.

So my what-if is this:
If, say in a year or so, the Iraqi Government asked all foreign forces to leave Iraqi soil, and it is obvious that the security situation has not improved significantly, would troops stay in Iraq against the government's will?

I'm not so much saying that this is particularly likely (I don't think it is), but it throws up an interesting question: If the coalition's strategic interests and the will of the Iraqi people (or at least their government) no longer coincide, then what will happen?

In other words:
First, they said it was about WMDs.
That turned out to be a bit of a dud, so they instead turned to Saddam's horrific crimes.
But because those are over, they also need a reason to stay - and there are two of those: To succeed in establishing a democratic Iraq, and to defeat Terrorists who have now entered the country and turned it into a giant bootcamp.
Which reason is more important to you?

If, say in a year or so, the Iraqi Government asked all foreign forces to leave Iraqi soil, and it is obvious that the security situation has not improved significantly, would troops stay in Iraq against the government's will?
No, because if they stay after a democratically elected Iraqi government has asked them to leave, the current insurgency will look tiny in comparison with what will then follow.

No, because if they stay after a democratically elected Iraqi government has asked them to leave, the current insurgency will look tiny in comparison with what will then follow.
What then, when the majority of the population wants the invaders gone. Will we leave then?

- Because the way things are going, that will be the majority opinion within a couple of months, if not sooner.

What then, when the majority of the population wants the invaders gone. Will we leave then?

- Because the way things are going, that will be the majority opinion within a couple of months, if not sooner.
That already is the majority opinion and has been for quite some time.

In other words:
First, they said it was about WMDs.
That turned out to be a bit of a dud, so they instead turned to Saddam's horrific crimes.
But because those are over, they also need a reason to stay - and there are two of those: To succeed in establishing a democratic Iraq, and to defeat Terrorists who have now entered the country and turned it into a giant bootcamp.
Which reason is more important to you?
War is hell. They should never have gone to Iraq in the first place. Maybe they should invade North Korea? That has WMDs AND a dictatorship. Theoretical heaven for George.

No, because if they stay after a democratically elected Iraqi government has asked them to leave, the current insurgency will look tiny in comparison with what will then follow.

So essentially, it becomes a self perpetuating excuse for permanent occupation then? You can't call it anything other than occupation when the local government wants you out and you're still there.

Besides, to what point is the invasion of Iraq then? First it's WMDs, then its Saddam, now this? It's like going into a shop, breaking the goods, and then tying up the manager in the storeroom so you can put in a new one. And when that manager wants you out, you're still there.

If we leave Iraq before the situation improves, then I asure you that we will be back in there within 25 years kicking out another psychopathic dictator.

So essentially, it becomes a self perpetuating excuse for permanent occupation then? You can't call it anything other than occupation when the local government wants you out and you're still there.
Precisely.

It's like going into a shop, breaking the goods, and then tying up the manager in the storeroom so you can put in a new one. And when that manager wants you out, you're still there.
I thought the purpose of similies were to make things easier to understand?

That already is the majority opinion and has been for quite some time.You're right. I got the numbers confused. The 42% thing I was thinking about is the population procentage who wants the invaders dead.

basicly the americans and the british (and the other countries in the "coalition of the willing" well those of them who actually have armed forces there or armed forces at all (I mean come on naru and iceland!)) have a choice either stay there get killed a lot and then have to leave or leave.

the last time iraq was "liberated" was by the british.

very soon we were losing hundreds every year from the gurilla war

and yes I know I can't spell

Bribe whoever you have to, but the International community should stay there for like, 20 years. They CANT ask the americans to leave.

There is no such thing as Iraq.. just Kurds, Sunni's and Shiites in one country. Kinda like ex-Jugoslavia with its different etnicities. The thing is, even if they ask the americans to leave, now its late. Though they should have NEVER gotten into Iraq, now they destabelized it. If they leave, Iraq may well fall into a civil war, with dire consequences. Let's all remember that the majority of the population of Iraq is of the great Shiite nation. Curiously, in Iran, that happens too.

The problem is that when Saddam Hussain was dethroned, it left a power vacume and there simply weren't a single group powerful enough (either through political, military or economic power) to take control of the nation.
This would seem to be OK enough since the Americans are there to take control, but none of the sides want to have them in power.
This leads to an odd situation where the diffrent sides don't want to give eachother power, but don't want it to go into american hands either.

This is of course an oversimplification.

Precisely.

So let me get this straight. The idea behind removing Saddam was so as to destabilize the country and create a permanent excuse for occupation for however long the US wants?


I thought the purpose of similies were to make things easier to understand?

It is. But if you don't get it, well *shrugs*

So my what-if is this:
If, say in a year or so, the Iraqi Government asked all foreign forces to leave Iraqi soil, and it is obvious that the security situation has not improved significantly, would troops stay in Iraq against the government's will?

Legally, the US wouldn't have much of an option--if the Iraqi government is recognized as a legal government, which presumably it would be, then it would have the authority to tell the US and any other foreign troops to get out, if they so wished, and legally, the US couldn't do jack about it.

Now here's the big question--would this administration care what the Iraqi government thought and abide by their request?

Legally, the US wouldn't have much of an option--if the Iraqi government is recognized as a legal government, which presumably it would be, then it would have the authority to tell the US and any other foreign troops to get out, if they so wished, and legally, the US couldn't do jack about it.

Now here's the big question--would this administration care what the Iraqi government thought and abide by their request?


Legally schmegally!

So let me get this straight. The idea behind removing Saddam was so as to destabilize the country and create a permanent excuse for occupation for however long the US wants?
No, that wasn't the idea - it just what has happened. The US will have to stay indefinitely if it doesn't want the country to descend into chaos, but this will just lead to ever growing numbers of American casualties.

No, that wasn't the idea - it just what has happened. The US will have to stay indefinitely if it doesn't want the country to descend into chaos, but this will just lead to ever growing numbers of American casualties.
Two points--the country is already chaotic, so there's really no descending into chaos left to do. We could descend further, I suppose, but that's a matter of degree more than anything else. Also, if hatred of US involvement is fueling the insurgency, then we cannot be involved in helping them rise out of chaos--we're contributing to the problem, exacerbating it.

In other words:
First, they said it was about WMDs.
That turned out to be a bit of a dud, so they instead turned to Saddam's horrific crimes.
But because those are over, they also need a reason to stay - and there are two of those: To succeed in establishing a democratic Iraq, and to defeat Terrorists who have now entered the country and turned it into a giant bootcamp.
Which reason is more important to you?
You are forgetting the number one reason to stay in Iraq.....OIL!!

The number two reason is to establish US bases in the region.

IMHO, if the Iraqi government asked the US to leave, then the Iraqis would be told in no uncertain terms that the US forces would be staying.

You may remember the news of a few weeks ago about the current Iraqi PM Talabani saying that British Forces won't be needed anymore (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4432480.stm) in a few months.

Then combine that with the recent talks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4454564.stm) in which the Iraqi Government did everything it could to seperate itself from the US Forces and tried to portray itself as the sovereign over Iraq.

So my what-if is this:
If, say in a year or so, the Iraqi Government asked all foreign forces to leave Iraqi soil, and it is obvious that the security situation has not improved significantly, would troops stay in Iraq against the government's will?

I'm not so much saying that this is particularly likely (I don't think it is), but it throws up an interesting question: If the coalition's strategic interests and the will of the Iraqi people (or at least their government) no longer coincide, then what will happen?

In other words:
First, they said it was about WMDs.
That turned out to be a bit of a dud, so they instead turned to Saddam's horrific crimes.
But because those are over, they also need a reason to stay - and there are two of those: To succeed in establishing a democratic Iraq, and to defeat Terrorists who have now entered the country and turned it into a giant bootcamp.
Which reason is more important to you?

If the new government , on January first , asks the US to leave and says they are able and willing to take care of themselves, the troops will be out in record time ..victory will be declared ...parades will be held ...republicans will be re-elected in record numbers and the US will drop Iraq like a bad habit .

You are forgetting the number one reason to stay in Iraq.....OIL!!

Wrong. Empire is the reason. Neocons love empire. Read, for example, the Project for a New American Century's website.

If the new government , on January first , asks the US to leave and says they are able and willing to take care of themselves, the troops will be out in record time ..victory will be declared ...parades will be held ...republicans will be re-elected in record numbers and the US will drop Iraq like a bad habit .
I'll believe it when I see it. But how are you gonna sell that at home after Operation Iraqi Liberation just went oh so well?

... the Iraqi Government did everything it could to seperate itself from the US Forces and tried to portray itself as the sovereign over Iraq.

If, say in a year or so, the Iraqi Government asked all foreign forces to leave Iraqi soil, and it is obvious that the security situation has not improved significantly, would troops stay in Iraq against the government's will?
In a word ... no. That would be the perfect reason to totally disengage, IMHO.

As to why the Iraqi govt. distanced itself from US forces, I think they begin to suspect that there are many who would lay down their arms if the US left. I don't know if this is an accurate suspicion, but I think it was their motivation.

You may remember the news of a few weeks ago about the current Iraqi PM Talabani saying that British Forces won't be needed anymore (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4432480.stm) in a few months.

Then combine that with the recent talks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4454564.stm) in which the Iraqi Government did everything it could to seperate itself from the US Forces and tried to portray itself as the sovereign over Iraq.

So my what-if is this:
If, say in a year or so, the Iraqi Government asked all foreign forces to leave Iraqi soil, and it is obvious that the security situation has not improved significantly, would troops stay in Iraq against the government's will?

I'm not so much saying that this is particularly likely (I don't think it is), but it throws up an interesting question: If the coalition's strategic interests and the will of the Iraqi people (or at least their government) no longer coincide, then what will happen?

In other words:
First, they said it was about WMDs.
That turned out to be a bit of a dud, so they instead turned to Saddam's horrific crimes.
But because those are over, they also need a reason to stay - and there are two of those: To succeed in establishing a democratic Iraq, and to defeat Terrorists who have now entered the country and turned it into a giant bootcamp.
Which reason is more important to you?


Our game score is important to me. That's why we're still playing this game:

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/wargames.html

Iraq...

I'm so damn tired of it, if it was up to me I'd class the whole damn country. And while I'm at it, I might as well glass Saudi Arabia and take all their oil.

So my what-if is this:
If, say in a year or so, the Iraqi Government asked all foreign forces to leave Iraqi soil, and it is obvious that the security situation has not improved significantly, would troops stay in Iraq against the government's will?


I think it's a hell of a way out. If a constitutionally elected government asks you to leave, what choice is there?

If the new government , on January first , asks the US to leave and says they are able and willing to take care of themselves, the troops will be out in record time ..victory will be declared ...parades will be held ...republicans will be re-elected in record numbers and the US will drop Iraq like a bad habit .
That's the big question, isn't it - One type of power & wealth or another?

To me it seems the neocons are primarily acting based on ideology. If that is the case, and it wasn't/isn't just about money, then our troops aren't going anywhere. At least not the American troops.

Edit: About the legality of it.. Well, the invasion & occupation weren't legal, so I don't really see international law having much of an influence on this.

Wrong. Empire is the reason. Neocons love empire. Read, for example, the Project for a New American Century's website.
BTDT!! Oil is part of the riches of empire.

I guess the sand is too if they are contemplating making tons of glass to replace all the broken windows in Iraq.:rolleyes:

If the new government , on January first , asks the US to leave and says they are able and willing to take care of themselves, the troops will be out in record time ..victory will be declared ...parades will be held ...republicans will be re-elected in record numbers and the US will drop Iraq like a bad habit .

Fourteen permanent military bases say otherwise.

I'm trying to think why they would make such a request. The only thing that comes to mind is the elected government is Anti-American. Such as a religious group aligned to Iran. Now this group is not what the US wants even if it is what the people want. That would be a real bind. We ask for democracy, but democracy gives just the opposite of what we want. If a religious group were elected, they could ask Iran to send in replacement troops to restore order. Of course they wouldn't need to worry about torture, mass killing, etc. They would actually restore order. Iran could then put in a puppet dictator to replace our puppets. I don't think Iran would allow terrorists because they could gain power to challenge the new order. (Same reason Saddam would never deal with other potential powers)

That would bring us full circle. Peace in the area with an Anti-American dictator. Only we couldn't complain at all because that's democracy.