Consequences of US withdrawal from Iraq

[Asheren]

Moving toward a responsible exit strategy in Iraq

By Henry A. Kissinger
December 11, 2005
Since every turning point occurs in some finite time period, a key test of policy-making is when to schedule the seminal decisions. The debate over withdrawal from Iraq hinges on such a question. The administration and its critics seem to agree that the beginning of American withdrawal will mark a turning point. Unresolved are the speed and extent of the drawdown and whether it should be driven by a fixed timetable or by a strategy seeking to shape events.
An Iraqi waits outside his home during a house-by-house raid.
Though often put into technical terms, the issue is not the mechanics of withdrawal. Rather the debate should be over consequences – whether, in the end, withdrawal will be perceived as a forced retreat or as an aspect of a prudent and carefully planned move on behalf of international security.
Whatever one's view of the decision to undertake the Iraq war, the method by which it was entered, or the strategy by which it was conducted – and I supported the original decision – one must be clear about the consequences of failure. If, when we go, we leave nothing behind but a failed state and chaos, the consequences will be disastrous for the region and for America's position in the world.
For the jihad phenomenon is more than the sum of individual terrorist acts extending from Bali through Jakarta, to New Delhi, Tunisia, Riyadh, Istanbul, Casablanca, Madrid and London. It is an ideological outpouring comparable to the early days of Islam by which Islam's radical wing seeks to sweep away secularism, pluralistic values and Western institutions wherever Muslims live.
Its dynamism is fueled by the conviction that the designated victims are on the decline and lacking the will to resist. Any event that seems to confirm these convictions compounds the revolutionary dynamism. If a fundamentalist regime is installed in Baghdad or in any of the other major cities, such as Mosul or Basra, if terrorists secure substantial territory for training and sanctuaries, or if chaos and civil war mark the end of the American intervention, jihadists would gain momentum wherever there are significant Islamic populations or nonfundamentalist Islamic governments. No country within reach of jihad would be spared the consequences of the resulting upheavals sparked by the many individual centers of fanaticism that make up the jihad.
Defeat would shrivel American credibility around the world. Our leadership and the respect accorded to our views on other regional issues from Palestine to Iran would be weakened; the confidence of other major countries – China, Russia, Europe, Japan – in America's potential contribution would be diminished. The respite from military efforts would be brief before even vaster crises descend on us. Critics must face the fact that a disastrous outcome is defined by the global consequences, not domestic rhetoric. Similarly, the administration will ultimately be judged by results, not plans.

With all recent articles about withdrawal from Iraq i got a feeling that peoples want to burn bridge and don't think how they plan to cross the river after it. I made this thread to consider possible global consequences of US faliture in Iraq. I put it in History and Tactic because i don't want too much political BS in it just a civilised discussion. Above article present my view point but i myself think that outcomes will be much worse than showed above. I hope that when you post you include possible good and bad outcome for your country.

For Poland:
We are seen in many countries as a US allies. We share some amounts of their power and their faliture will greatly decrase our influence across the world. It is almost certain that some EU politicians will try to undermine our position in it. Assuming that EU don't fall apart after unsucesfull try to suppres islamic riots in countries like France. They will be most certain supported by Russia. It is possible that neighbour contries will change their policy to much more pro-russian one. Belarusian president might change his course aginst Polish minority to much more hardline one. And we will have no way to stop him from that. If russia try to regain their former position there will be nothing to stop them from using full scale economy war aginst us and other former satelite countries.

[Greek soldier]

The only thing I will understand from this withdrawal is that the US Forces are going to face yet another fiasco.

[Atlantic Friend]

Civil war, Iran gaining lots of influence in the area, generalized unrest along Turkey's eastern border (whether from Kurds or other groups), unrest in Jordan (IIRC Jrodan's economy was closely linked to Iraq's), unrest along Kuwaiti and Saudi borders.

Whether people supported "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is no longer an option, I think. Now it's "Operation Let's Try to Hold This S**t Together", and a failure there would have dire consequences.

[Asheren]

It is difficult to say how much influence Iran will get. Many countries will be intrested to balkanize region no mater of the cost. Soo middle east coutries won't be able to from any kind of solid islamic block. It will be a matter of cold calculation can we risk econmical crisis and be "safe" from terror, riots or even open insurgency. For countries like russia or china it will also be a good option because they can survive on their own supplies of oil. Skyrocketing oil prices will further undermine EU and US position. In the end both countries might emerge as a new world powers.

[budgie]

Good arguments here for staying and avoiding 'balkanization' but the process seems to be already underway. It may happen whether the west remains engaged or not...

[Atlantic Friend]

Balkanization is not automatically a bad thing, even if that means small, weak nations that can be played by larger threats such as Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia.

But above unity, I'd put stability. A unified Islamic Republic encompassing all of the ME is not in anybody's interest if it is a factor of conflict.

[Asheren]

I don't think that united islamic country is possible. It will be propably some sort of coalition. Based on common intrests. It is in intrest of all countries in that region to direct extremists violence aginst west and israel instead of internal conflicts.

It will also change military doctrine in all countries ruled by various regimes or dictators. Everyone who has considerable civilian population support will try to bost their asimetric warfare ablities. It will make any peacekeeping missions much more difficult. Operations like desert storm migth be completly impossible in future because enemy will asume insurgency tactic just waiting and watching as "enemies" withdraw their contingents one after another. It will make existence of UN and ONZ questionable.

[ogukuo72]

I've often said that I'm an optimist when it comes to Iraq. I'm still an optimist, not in spite of what happened last week, but because of what happened last week.

There WAS sectarian violence, yes. But what was even more important was the Iraqi leaders all stood up and stood together, and told all their followers to cool it. There was no downward spiral of violence. There was no escalating rhetorics from the sectarian leaders.

With Iraqi leaders like this, who are mature and cool, with the interest of the nation at heart, I think Iraq has a great future.

I still think that the coalition can - and should - withdraw their forces in the near term, rather than the long term.

[KB]

I am finishing up "The Assassins Gate" by George Packer, who writes a pretty well rounded book on his experiences as a journalist on the ground in Iraq after the invasion. What is really interesting is how the Saddam reign paralyzed ordinary Iraqis from taking any initiative or working together effectively and how the post war violence and chaos fed the rise of the fundamentalist political groups, particularly al Sadr.

[Jedburgh]

I posted this before, but its worth a re-read given current events and focus on the topic. This was published last October by the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute:

Precedents, Variables, and Options in Planning a U.S. Military Disengagement Strategy from Iraq (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB627.pdf)

[bigjeff]

If US withdraws from iraq,no doubt tat their credit will be reduced 'cause they will hv nah completed their objective they claimed for the invasion.May I ask why or would somebody provide more info about the reason for withdrawal?Is it becoz of the constant casualties in iraq?If so,it's kinda rediculous of them to expect no casualty in a war.Even it's nah considered as a war in iraq,there are still potential hardzards to work in the militant-active area.

[bigjeff]

If the US withdraws from iraq now,their credit in the world will surely be redcued as they would hv nah completed the objectives they claimed for the invasion.May someone provide more info about the reason for the withdrawal?I guess mostly is becoz of the constant casualties in iraq while if so,it's kinda rediculous of those ppl to expect no casualties in the war.Or even they dun consider iraq as a battlefield but it's undoubtly a insurgent-active region.Casualties in those area should be expectasble.


Operations like desert storm migth be completly impossible in future because enemy will asume insurgency tactic just waiting and watching as "enemies" withdraw their contingents one after another.

I'm very much into wat u said mate.The insurgent will use this as a propaganda and decorate it as a victory of themselves.

[ElHombre]

I've often said that I'm an optimist when it comes to Iraq. I'm still an optimist, not in spite of what happened last week, but because of what happened last week.

There WAS sectarian violence, yes. But what was even more important was the Iraqi leaders all stood up and stood together, and told all their followers to cool it. There was no downward spiral of violence. There was no escalating rhetorics from the sectarian leaders.

With Iraqi leaders like this, who are mature and cool, with the interest of the nation at heart, I think Iraq has a great future.

but what was the reason behind that de-escalation of rhetoric? there is reason to believe that it was less the country drawing together than it was the realization by shiite leaders that they were well on their way to dominate iraq anyway and any sectarian violence would only delay that.

as for consequences for the US, those have already taken place no matter when the withdrawal takes place. the US has proven that its leadership is incompetent.

[Asheren]

If the US withdraws from iraq now,their credit in the world will surely be redcued as they would hv nah completed the objectives they claimed for the invasion.May someone provide more info about the reason for the withdrawal?I guess mostly is becoz of the constant casualties in iraq while if so,it's kinda rediculous of those ppl to expect no casualties in the war.Or even they dun consider iraq as a battlefield but it's undoubtly a insurgent-active region.Casualties in those area should be expectasble.

There were inavsions that failed to meet their obiectives and countries still didn't lose its influence. China Vietnam war is a very good example. Chinese werent even able to meet objectives planed for first phase of their invasion. It was clear for world community that they were defeated but they emerged from war with political victory showing that they stoped Russian plans for making Vietnam Cuba of southeast asia.

You are forgeting that USA is still haunted by ghosts of Vietnam. They can't handle fact that their ppl die in war. I am afraid that US might completly lost its ablility to wage war other than in defense.

[bigjeff]

You are forgeting that USA is still haunted by ghosts of Vietnam. They can't handle fact that their ppl die in war. I am afraid that US might completly lost its ablility to wage war other than in defense.

Then i can't say anythin about tat,how come they expect the war without casualty?It's impossible.Well,if they pull out rite now,i think the morale of the US forces will be pretty low and truely affect its ability to fight another war.Vietnam war is a perfect example.

[Asheren]

Look at hmm Rambo etc. US is an army of terminators that can alone kill hundreds of enemies, add in to it all this tech supperiority crap that they feed their ppls every day. I can bet that averange joe has much diffrent view how the war looks like than it is in reality.

[ogukuo72]

but what was the reason behind that de-escalation of rhetoric? there is reason to believe that it was less the country drawing together than it was the realization by shiite leaders that they were well on their way to dominate iraq anyway and any sectarian violence would only delay that.

as for consequences for the US, those have already taken place no matter when the withdrawal takes place. the US has proven that its leadership is incompetent.

We'll see. These are not questions that we can settle by arguing. Only time and history will tell. My bet is that Iraq will not only survive but do well. I had the opportunity to talk with some of their foreign ministry officials in Bahrain last year, and they strike me as highly intelligent and aware. If they are representative of the kinds of people they have running the government, then there's great hope.

[wiking]

To pull out to soon, or even pulling out any time this decade, will be a severe blow to the US in the best of times. Now, it would be a bloody disaster.

In the US some are going to ask "Why did my child, brother, sister, father, mother or friend die for no good reason in Iraq? Why did you just let all those people get killed, and then run off and hide."

Others will be asking "Why did you wait so long to pull out, or go to war at all, so that my child, brother, sister, father, mother or friend died for nothing in Iraq?"

That's the US citizens' question, the Brits will be asking the same thing. And most other nations who contributed. And the pure loss of face, Bush went in to find WMD's, and he didn't find any. He also said he went in to remove Saddam and make Iraq better and free country. Saddam is gone, but it's hardly a better country. And the world is going to ask WTF! was it all about?

And if and when Iraq goes to hell, as it most likely will go to if the US\coalition pulls out to soon, then the world at large, who probably will be the ones moving in to try and patch up the new pieces will ask "Why the hell did you come here the first time around, and then bugger off from a half-arsed attempt at liberation, wich in turn means we have to come and scoop half the Iraqi population into bin-bags, put a third on trial for war crimes or the like and spend the next 20 years trying to police the few that remain?"

Iraq has become a bleeding artery on the US economy, the people's faith in their governemnt and leadership, and on GWB's own popularity. But to pull out to try and pin the bits together now, is a hell of a lot worse for the Iraqi's (who, after all, will be the ones taking the biggest blow on this in casulties and lengthy war), the US as a nation and the US citizens.

That's atleast what i belive will happen, if i'm right or wrong i don't know, but that's how i see it. But i think that any form of complete failure in Iraq now, will mean that for the next 20 or so years stating that you're a yank while abroad will get you treated as a plague victim, and chased by angry mobs if you also say you served in Iraq. And history books will be chalking Iraq as a complete military and political cock-up alongside Vietnam for the US.

The safe bet will be to stay the line, you'll be critizised as hell, but it's better to actually make Iraq a better nation, than to bugger off to soon and leave them to fend for themselves. Maybe, just maybe, a rebuilding and semi-democricising (is that even a word?) Iraq will be possible under another President. But i have great doubts about it being successfull under Bush. Purely because the man caused the damned mess, and honestly, someone else should be in charge of the mopping up.

Anything, and that includes outside of Iraq, such as Guantanamo bay, that is bad publisity to the US has to go away, and fast. And that doesn't mean shipping the prisoners to some other country for indefinite imprisonment. That means open trials, proper prosedure, and apologies and compensation to any one who is not found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And at the same time open investigations and trials of any and all Abu Ghraib and similar incidents.

Publicly showing this, might improve the US's standing in the ME, and might be a good step in rebuilding the lost respect and understanding between the US and the rest of the world. But there will be no going back to the old "jump when the white house says jump" politics so many European nations ran before Iraq.

[bigjeff]

Look at hmm Rambo etc. US is an army of terminators that can alone kill hundreds of enemies, add in to it all this tech supperiority crap that they feed their ppls every day. I can bet that averange joe has much diffrent view how the war looks like than it is in reality.

haha...so sacrastic.Well yeh,nobody understands how war is like unless u r in it.

[Asheren]

Sarcasm wasn't intentional. I saw many examples of peoples that shaped reality basing on movies etc. when they weren't able to saw/talk with someone who saw know how it realy looks like. Look at pictures from african war guess from where they took for inspiration for their combat "tactic". In Poland majority of crimnals use radio controled bombs where world wide tendency is to use time bombs. Why because they used them on movies and old criminal grups from communist time sporadicaly used that amounts of violence. Sorry if someone feel insulted now but americans are a nation full of ignorants who belive what they told them in TV. Vietnam was a clear example of that. Iraq might be another.

[mattnwnc03]

jesus , that place is just too frickin complicated.what the hell was g. bush thinkin about when he invaded?

[ogukuo72]

Politics and international affairs are complicated, which is why it should be left to the people who know what they're doing.

[bigjeff]

jesus , that place is just too frickin complicated.what the hell was g. bush thinkin about when he invaded?

I bet it's Oil,Oil & Oil!

[Leftcoaster]

Only time will tell what actual consequences derive from a withdrawl, for decades or far longer there will be subjective arguments made about whether what does occur would have happened if the U.S. had stuck around.

I'm curious to see what "withdrawal" actually signifies in the end. Somehow I don't see us taking off, turning our heads with fingers in our ears and hummingly drowning out all recognition or involvement in what occurs down the line in the land now known as Iraq.

If we leave the country proper, does that mean we won't return under any circumstances, or just that we have't decided which side we're going to favor when Iraq falls apart completely as a single nation state?

You don't here much reprtage here about terrible things going on in the region some would like to be known as Kurdistan, nor do you here about how the Kurds blame and detest the U.S.. It wouldn't be shocking at all to see us remain in the area as best buddies of convienience with that particular group.

[Mastermind]

The problem facing the US Iraqi strategy is that too much was expected. The failure Americans constantly make is to assume everyone alive wants the American model of living standards. Peace, security, health, affluence, etc. Americans long ago sacrificed their national dreams for those things and now live in a kind of fantasy world where everything is simply expected to be showered upon them. The rest of the developing world never experienced anything like the American way of life and never will. Americans do not understand the concept of faith to a religion or a national identity. Their political structure is designed to sub-divide people into tiny groups of special interests. Thus, very few Americans understand the concept of sacrificing to a greater cause than themselves. When faced with an enemy that is wholly devoted to a national or a religious cause or even a political doctrine, they are completely stumped. Vietnam was lost because of the Americans totally misunderstanding the determination of the enemy. This is the problem with Iraq now. These Iraqi "insurgent" people will not stop their terrorist activity....not ever. The concept of "freedom" (what ever that really means no one knows) is evil to them...they are fighting for the complete opposite of freedom...they are fighting to preserve a religious dogma. They are fighting to resist the invasion of western temptations that are perceived as greatly endangering their primary reason for life on this planet. Americans can not wrap their minds around that concept. As a result, the American adventure in Iraq is doomed. The very concept of democracy in a theocracy is not possible...it is like trying to mix oil and water....it is not going to happen.

Secondly, there is no solution that is workable that is acceptable to the Americans. The political structure in America is much like the structure of a bird nest. It is chaotic and disorganized but over all, resembles something recognizable. I believe the American system is basically non-functional in the long run. The new world rising is something the American system is not capable of surviving within. the need for reacting to violent threats with more massive violence is not politically acceptable. In order to stop Iraq, like Vietnam, the Iraqi radical Muslim people will simply have to be eradicated. That is not politically or humanely acceptable. The Americans are incapable of even facing the necessity of rounding up the Muslims who pose the most threats. the Americans are even having trouble convincing their own people the terrorists should be imprisoned and the political fire storms over "panties on the head" style "torture" is so disruptive as to almost be laughable when exposed in the background light of a most dangerous and threatening enemy like the current Muslim threat.

The problem, currently, has no solution. Thus, we will see continual western retreat. That means eventual American retreat from Iraq...much like the retreat from Somalia. the consequences will be very grave indeed. The Muslims will be greatly emboldened. Attacks will increase and the violence will escalate. The west, having seen the futility of more invasions and more confrontations, will retreat and appease even more. The Muslims know this and will not quit their persistent "ant attack" strategy. The west, eventually, will be backed into an inescapable corner. When that happens, their technology will be of little help...it will be too late.

The end result is...all the world will become enslaved under Islamic rule...and that is not a prediction. It is an inevitability if the west does not change its approach to this problem.

[bigjeff]

Very detail analysis of the current state of america,u think just as ur name - mastermind.

I'm specially very much into this point as well:
the need for reacting to violent threats with more massive violence is not politically acceptable.

Nice chat mastermind.:)

[bridget]

I liked this article, and I think it's pretty acurate to the war so far, I talk to a few soldiers in Iraq on a a regular basis(I met through adopt-a-platoon, care package stuff) and they say this article is pretty true, and the Iraqi forces are making a lot of progress and they have no doubt that they will be able to stand on their own two feet soon,,,



The Three Phases of the WarThe war here has gone through three distinct phases, each with its own feel and style of operation. The first period, from May 2003 to July 2004, was characterized by drift and wishful thinking, military insiders say, with top U.S. officials at first refusing to recognize they were facing an insurgency and then committing a series of policy and tactical blunders that appear to have enflamed opposition to the U.S. occupation.
The second phase began in the summer of 2004, when Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. replaced Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez as the top U.S. commander in Iraq and developed -- for the first time -- a U.S. campaign plan. That plan, which looked forward from August 2004 to December 2005, gave U.S. operations a new coherence, directing a series of actions intended to clear the way for Iraqi voters to establish a new government.
Now, after parliamentary elections held in December, the U.S. effort has entered a third stage. The current emphasis is on reducing the U.S. role in the war, putting Iraq army and police forces in the forefront as much as possible -- but not so fast that it breaks them, as it did in April 2004, when a battalion ordered to Fallujah mutinied. Eventually, Casey said, the hope is that U.S. forces will be able to focus on foreign fighters, while Iraqi security forces take on the native insurgency. But that hasn't happened yet. The hardest fighting, especially in rural areas, still is being done by U.S. troops.

The key is whether we can produce enough Iraqi forces fast enough, and get the political process stabilized, before the clock runs out in the US. If a Democrat is elected in 2008 all bets are off. But even if the GOP loses one or more houses of congress this year, the Democrats may start to either cut funding for the war or pressure Bush to start a pull out "or else".

Ricks has more, and it's worth quoting at lengthSeveral aspects make this third phase different from the war of a year or two ago: · The U.S. effort now is characterized by a more careful, purposeful style that extends even to how Humvees are driven in the streets. For years, "the standard was to haul ass," noted Lt. Col. Gian P. Gentile, commander of the 8th Squadron of the 10th Cavalry Regiment, which is based near a bomb-infested highway south of Baghdad. Now his convoy drivers are ordered to move at 15 mph. "I'm a firm believer in slow, deliberate movement," he said. "You can observe better, if there's IEDs [improvised explosive devices] on the road." It also is less disruptive to Iraqis and sends a message of calm control, he noted.
· U.S. commanders spend their time differently. Where they once devoted much of their efforts to Iraqi politics and infrastructure, they now focus more on training and supporting the Iraqi police and army. "I spent the last month talking to ISF [Iraqi security force] commanders," noted Gentile, who holds a doctorate in American history from Stanford. "Two years ago I would have spent all my time talking to sheiks."
· Real progress is being made in training Iraqi forces, especially its army, according to every U.S. officer asked about the issue. One of the surprises, they say, has been that an Iraqi soldier, even one who is overweight and undertrained, is more effective standing on an Iraqi street corner than the most disciplined U.S. Army Ranger. "They get intelligence we would never get," noted Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East. "They sense the environment in a way that we never could."

Let's hope the liberals in Washington read these articles by Ricks, and take them to heed.
Spread the word.

[Mastermind]

My Dad was a farmer...he had many animals and in the days he farmed, greater reliance was on animal power. Mules and horses were used to haul corn to the cribbs and cotton to the gins. He had bought a really strong and well bred draft horse at an auction. He came home excited and proud he had managed to land such a great animal for a small price...few bid against him. He worked many long hours with the animal to bring it to a point it could work with the other horses. The animal was beligerant, stubborn and down right mean. When put into a team with the other horses, it jittered and huffed and refused to move in harmony. Dad gave the horse all manner of training, but although the horse did come around a bit, it was still very disruptive. He tried to use the horse as a one horse rig to skid logs and pull stumps, but our farm hands refused to work with the horse because it was so unpredictable and dangerous. Eventually, he tried to sell the horse..but it was no use, locals had become aware of the horse's reputation and no offers came in. In the end, Dad took the horse to auction and sold it to a dog food bidder for the standing offer of twenty dollars.

So...Iraq may be one of these useless big old dumb horses that eventually will just have to be let go. The "selling to the standing offer" idea may be to let Iraq devolve into civil war and then US forces quietly depart the arena. It might be all for the greater good of the entire Middle East farm.

[bigjeff]

[quote=bridget]· One of the surprises, they say, has been that an Iraqi soldier, even one who is overweight and undertrained, is more effective standing on an Iraqi street corner than the most disciplined U.S. Army Ranger. "They get intelligence we would never get," noted Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East. "They sense the environment in a way that we never could."[\quote]

Tat's true forever,foreigners will find it so hard to get intelligence as the locals won't trust fully as they do to their own ppl.

[bigjeff]

So...Iraq may be one of these useless big old dumb horses that eventually will just have to be let go. The "selling to the standing offer" idea may be to let Iraq devolve into civil war and then US forces quietly depart the arena. It might be all for the greater good of the entire Middle East farm.

I think the american gov are doin smth on this issue through.They provoke the conflict between the parties Islam world so they will be pretty busy with the war on their on so they will forget about the coalition forces.It's a pretty smart move through with a mutal result as the casualties and the strength of the islam will be reduced.