Originally posted by Bobboau
I don't see how anyone could think that us pulling out now would be a good thing, hundreds of thousands would likely die and the rest would probly get put under a theacracy. well the theacracy would likely use the whole great satan thing, so I guess I can see how you'd like that, the oppression of millions is ok if it means you get another talking head proclaiming USA == evil. and now that I think of it, the death and utter chaos that followed our leaveing (far worse than the Chaos there now) would be blamed on us (correctly) so next time we want to do something you'll have another thing "Pinochette, Veitnam and Iraq" ah yes, the rape and torcher of hundreds of thousands is a small price to pay to proveing you'r right. hell for you the absolute wost case scenario would be that after we pull out somehow Iraq settles down and forms into a nice stable government, even here you'd be able to say the second we pulled out Iraq got better. hell the US getting pushed out is nothing but a freaking win | win for all of you.
Its "theocracy", but whatever. And no, I don't think that utter chaos would unsue. I think, though I am by no means an authority on the subject (no on here is), that after some minor violence you would have general elections and a mildly religious government would be voted in. That is, if you can keep the Kurds the hell out of it, cause they don't get along with the Shia and Sunnis and if either the Kurds or "Iraqis" tried to take each other's territory there would be civil war. The Kurds have what amounts to an independent nation up in the North. None but them has any influence there. Either, they break off and form Kurdistan, or they become a semi-autonomous province of Iraq and some sort of reconciliation is attempted.
Now, even assuming that civil war would be the result, thats fine by me. While you can force people to live together, you can't force them to like it. They have to work it out for themselves. This has been the case in so many nations which got "de-colonized". You had different and potentially antagonistic factions who were forced to live together under the colonialist boot. Once the colonizing nation withdraws, you get the factions with the same old conflicts and they have to settle them. If this means war, then that is the only permanent solution. Just look at India/Pakistan, or any of the multitude of African colonies, or hell, even Yugoslavia. It was Tito's influence that was holding it all together. The Yugoslvian provnices had lived together by sheer force of the government's will. The problems between these states, they weren't resolved, just ignored and the conflict postponed. Once Tito's uniting force was gone, you had civil war. If thats the way it had to be, so be it. Better that than supressing the conflicts and just going around pretending everything was OK.
Same thing with Iraq. If the Shia dislike the Sunnis, that is their choice. There *are* factions in Iraq who dislike each other, and that has to be resolved. I would much prefer it be done in a peaceful manner, but if that isn't possible, too bad. Its better in the long run. This is all assuming that Iraq would instantly be torn apart by infighting, which I think it would not. You grossly overestimate the level of religous fundamentalism among the general population. Even in big bad Iran, you have a huge reformist faction who would take power if only it were not for the government (clerics) allowing normal elections. They had elections, but the popular reformist candidates were barred from the list, so that most of the reformists did not vote in protest.
edit: Hundreds of thousands would die?
Get real man. What are you basing this number on, or is it just a sufficiently high number to justify whatever it is you want it to justify.
