What the withdrawl of USUK troops from Iraq might look like...

[ska invita]

yes but that slow trickle will not be indefinitly supported by the american people? if nothing else, the numbers of military personnel may fall to a point where the US cannot have aenough troops in reserve to handle other regional conflicts.

The question mark is crucial - There seems to be an atmosphere in the US of bring the troops back, only becasue it has dawned on them that the whole thing is a disaster. But what is the US casualty figure? 2000? Something like that... Thats not about to sky rocket, I dont think.

If US citizens are pissed off at teh war its not particularly about marien casualties - I dont think so anyhow - its more general mess, expense and bad look for the US.

The US army is already overstretched, and infact many republicans are very critical of Bush's war - not because they think it was wrong to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, but becasue he has tied in troops to one place for too long - they are fustrated by the lack of mobility (war mongering scum that they are).

 

[greenman]

Unfortunately for the USUK, the other actors on the stage are already moving -
Iran-Iraq meeting discussing oil, economic and security co-operation
This should be interesting.........

 

[ska invita]

Unfortunately for the USUK, the other actors on the stage are already moving -
Iran-Iraq meeting discussing oil, economic and security co-operation
This should be interesting.........

Good spot. This is about the only eventuality I can imagine that might hold together a united Iraq. cant wait to see how the US reacts to this...

 

[warren]

Blair, Bush and Howard are awful bloody Presidents.

Saddam was a bloody good President. Ran a tight ship, without him the Iraqis are fucked.

 

[ska invita]

Saddam was a bloody good President. Ran a tight ship, without him the Iraqis are fucked.

Your probably joking, but actually not far from the truth - there was a good reason why Saddam had US and UK support from the off, because he had the "skills" to make Iraq "work". Iraq, not unlike Afghanistan, is an unnatural creation and the local identities have never been overcome (although were placated by Saddam...apart from the Kurds).

I would argue that USUK are replacing dictatorships in Iraq and Afghanistan by their own "Iron fisted" rule - its only military might thats going to hold these countries together. As far as I can see USUK are but the military element in the equation, and will have to remain as long as Afghanistan and Iraqi borders remain as they are. IF they leave both ocuntries will fall into smaller units, with Afghanistan returning to a state of regional warlords.

In Iraq the alternative to creating regime change via bombing would have been to invest a fraction of those trillions of war dollars into bringing peace throughout the region and democracy by support of alternatives. Peacfeul revolutions against dictators have taken place across Eastern Europe with limited suppport from the West.

Another reason why this invasion failed was because of the first Iraq war, where locals were asked to rise up against Saddam, and then abandoned by the US at the last turn.

All of which is speculation and retrospection - the key issue (in this thread at least) is what a withdrawl of USUK troops might be like... if they ever do plan on leaving that is.

 

[pk]

Another alternative might be the unification of all Iraqi parties to dislodge the common enemy, resulting in a crusader-free yet anti-western State.

Even in a land where the consuming of pork is generally frowned upon, pigs might fly!

 

[pk]

Another reason why this invasion failed was because of the first Iraq war, where locals were asked to rise up against Saddam, and then abandoned by the US at the last turn.

Not just abandoned either.

US helicopter gunships were in the sky directly above the Iraqi army who were busy shelling Kurdish women and children fleeing to the hills... yet they did fuck all.

Those freedom loving Americans, eh?