Comments on: Some unsolicited advice for the United Iraqi Alliance

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:55:51 +0000

Uncle K, I agree. If the US stays long enough and continues past behavior, it may end up on one side of a civil war and quite possibly the losing one.

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:11:44 +0000

I don’t I understand what exactly this ‘civil war’ thing would mean under the current conditions. There is no army, no airforce, no tanks, pretty much nothing but a bunch of local militias with small arms. True, things sometimes do to turn ugly even with small arms, but I don’t see baathists invading the South or the Kurdish region, for example. They would probably have no choice but to find a compromise of some kind, because there is no side that’s overwhelmingly more powerful. Just a hunch.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:26:23 +0000

abb1, a withdrawal of US troops could lead to an outbreak of open civil war (with various possible lineups on different sides) John, do you think the possibility of “open civil war” is eliminated by virtue of the US forces being on the ground? I mean that in all seriousness. I understand the fears surrounding an abrupt pull-out—but I don’t hear the people expressing those fears considering that we could end up with “open civil war,” plus a foreign occupation force attempting to act as referee. An even uglier scenario, in my opinion—all the Vietnam comparisons will be fully realized. This is why I’m for pulling out as the least awful option—I think you’d agree with me that there are no “good” options at this point.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:45:52 +0000

abb1, a withdrawal of US troops could lead to an outbreak of open civil war (with various possible lineups on different sides). My point is that, if so, it seems likely that this will happen whenever the US leaves, and that the longer this is delayed, the stronger the insurgents will be.

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:10:48 +0000

My point is that the use of US troops to repress the insurgency has been worse than useless – the insurgents have gained in strength rather than losing it. Exactly. Why, then, do you say that “Of course, there are good reasons to be fearful about the consequences of a US withdrawal.”? Are you talking about the risk of an outside (Iranian?) invasion or something?

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 03:31:09 +0000

If the election leaves Allawi in office (even as a coalition partner) and the Americans in charge, it will be soon come to be seen as a pointless farce. And unless the government makes early US withdrawal a central demand, it will inevitably end up being seen, at best as a client and at worst a creature, of the Americans.

Are you presuming that the elections ought to be read as a demand by the Iraqi people that the US Forces leave immediately?

By: Giles

Giles — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:56:47 +0000

“which takes the obvious precautions of putting its own people in enough key positions.” But without protection sees them killed. I dont have any doubt that the Bathist could stage a coup if the Americans left. They have after all the only really trained troops in the country. More improtantly their support is in the centre, near the seat of government. I think the only real question is whether Iran would then support a counter coup?

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:50:51 +0000

“Duke of DeLand http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com” The trolls look active and organized on Iraq election day. This phenomena is not studied enough. I think there is DC leadership.

By: Duke of DeLand

Duke of DeLand — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:23:17 +0000

“brendan”, if nothing else, is full of words…..however, his understanding of actual events is sadly lacking! With Iraq shattering and breaking, there is a real threat that if the United States stays for another two years, there will be no ‘Iraq’ to leave from. Iraq shattering????? Where’d you obtain the data, fella? According to the FBI’s nationstatistics (2003, last year available) 1.3 more persons were murdered in the USA on Iraq’s election day (45.3) than were killed in Iraq (44)….including in Iraq 8 of the 44 were “insurgents” (read terrorists). YES, we have a much higher population….However, we are NOT at WAR, and we are not “shattering & breaking”. Nuff said! Duke of DeLand http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:22:41 +0000

Guy, I’m aware that Juan Cole takes a different view on this, but I’m not convinced by the threat of a Baathist coup. A coup implies a takeover from within, and, while I’m sure there are quite a few Baathists in the military and elsewhere, I doubt they are numerous or organised enough to stage a coup against a government which takes the obvious precautions of putting its own people in enough key positions. A continued insurgency is a more plausible way for the Baathists to regain power. My point is that the use of US troops to repress the insurgency has been worse than useless – the insurgents have gained in strength rather than losing it.

By: Andrew Reeves

Andrew Reeves — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:19:39 +0000

I’m sure that someone in Washington or Baghdad has thought of this already, but why not start moving to pull completely out of southern Iraq and concentrate on Samarra, Mosul, Ramadi, Baquba, and Haifa Street? It’s those particular areas that need to be cleaned out, and the shiny and visible withdrawal of U.S. troops from some parts of Iraq will look nice for the camera while also enabling more concentration in the trouble spots.

That, and they really need to do a better job of training Iraqi security forces.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:56:16 +0000

With Iraq shattering and breaking, there is a real threat that if the United States stays for another two years, there will be no ‘Iraq’ to leave from. In any case, the real significance of the Afghanistan election was missed by almost everyone…and it is a grim precedent for Iraq. In Afghanistan the elections were held a President was elected….BUT THE AMERICANS DIDN’T LEAVE. Nor did they even talk about leaving. There is a staggering lack of imagination in the pro-war side, such that their blogs will one day be rich pickings for sociologists and psychologists studying the psychology of self-delusion. The fact is that even now they are talking about the Americans leaving ‘in a few years’ or ‘in ten years’ or something. But if the Americans and British do not begin to leave sooon (and by soon i mean in the next few weeks) why should they ever leave? This is the best chance they will ever get. The fact that if the Coalition do not leave the balance of probabilities must be that the Coalition are planning a PERMANENT occupation (as in the dictionary definition of that word, meaning, forever, until the end of time) and that, therefore the insurgency will get worse and worse as more and more Iraqis join it in the years and decades ahead. What is also clear is that, if the Coalition stay, Iraq will explode. And it is likely to explode outwards.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:39:46 +0000

By: Brendan

Brendan — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:37:54 +0000

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:14:30 +0000

Of course, there are good reasons to be fearful about the consequences of a US withdrawal. What are these good reasons?