End the Iraq war.

[crazymf]

I'll start...

In 5 years, after China buys it's 4th American oil company, war breaks out over Taiwan and some disputed oil reserves somewhere and all troops are pulled out of Iraq and we never hear about it ever again on CNN. No one knows what happens there for years, or cares.

[BHS]

Iraq's constitution incomplete at target date - Iraqis manage to get basics of constitution finished to allow for continued elections. Elections scheduled and held on time thereafter, and eventually an amended constitution finds broad political acceptance. Various smaller interest groups coalesce into broader-based parties, and the insurgency is reduced to less frequent attacks that are in no way supported by a large majority of ordinary Iraqis, who enjoy increased security and a strong economy benefitting (finally) all social strata. American military presence is reduced to a large guest military base, which is staffed with a contingent similar to the current German or South Korean bases, for the foreseeable future.

China's economy tanks when they discover that all of the oil companies they bought from the Americans turn out to be clones of Enron. The Taiwanese navy captures Hong Kong, sells recently installed Mao statuary for scrap. Chinese retaliate with nuclear strike that backfires due to poorly designed and maintained Russian guidance system, Peking incinerated. Global protest movement blames the tragedy on the US.

[crazymf]

I hope you are right on the first part.

Second part made me spit my coffee, HAHAHA!!! Good one!!

I especially like the part about the failed nukes, except I wouldn't think China would get caught be that. USSR maybe, China no. You forgot the part where they send troops over here and we haven't got enough bullets to kill them all and they win.....??

WHOOPS!! No offence to any Chinese members. Talking strictly hypothetical here.

[Black Dog]

Fighting escalates, as the U.S. begins drawing down it's troop commitments, emboldening the insurgency, which begins recieving training and equipment from Iran and China. Ethnic strife continues to grow, as political dithering continues to delay the governmwent from establishing its trappings. On the ground, things will get even worse as corruption and mismanagment continue to hamper resconstruction eforts. The Iraqi military will remain an ineffective fighting force. The U.S. withdraws all but a handful of troops, garrisoned in heavily fortified and isolated permanent bases. In a last ditch effort, Iraqi politicos decide to pursue a strategy of decentralization to create separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite areas. Just prior to the ratification of the new Federated States of Iraq's constitution, a massive and well-organized insurgent assault (featuring armour, air support and a suspiciously large number of caucasians carrying M-5 rifles) routs the battered Iraqi Security forces and ousts the government. New Iraqi central government established under a Sunni stongman. Plus ca change, plus c’est la même chose.

[Argus]

Fighting escalates, as the U.S. begins drawing down it's troop commitments, emboldening the insurgency, which begins recieving training and equipment from Iran and China. Ethnic strife continues to grow, as political dithering continues to delay the governmwent from establishing its trappings. On the ground, things will get even worse as corruption and mismanagment continue to hamper resconstruction eforts. The Iraqi military will remain an ineffective fighting force. The U.S. withdraws all but a handful of troops, garrisoned in heavily fortified and isolated permanent bases. In a last ditch effort, Iraqi politicos decide to pursue a strategy of decentralization to create separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite areas. Just prior to the ratification of the new Federated States of Iraq's constitution, a massive and well-organized insurgent assault (featuring armour, air support and a suspiciously large number of caucasians carrying M-5 rifles) routs the battered Iraqi Security forces and ousts the government. New Iraqi central government established under a Sunni stongman. Plus ca change, plus c’est la même chose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhm, an unlikely scenario to say the least, but one which at least gives people the opportunity to say "I told you so" to the Americans.

By far the most likely scenario is that the US and other nations gradually draw down strength after a new Iraqi government is put in place. If the Iraqi military remains ineffective (a distinct possibility, I grant you) then we will see the emergence of security forces controlled by the local Shia hierarchy. I believe Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani's people offered the Americans 100,000 men to help secure polling booths during the last election, for example (declined). Since Ali Sistani supports the current transition government, and will support the new Shiite dominated government, you'll basically see the Sunis getting hammered. The insurgency, such as it is, will die out, but there will be conflict between the Sistani supported government and the Kurds to the north. Ali Sistani wants at least a modified form of Sharia law, and will likely get it - not to the same degree as Iran's rulers, though.

[kimmy]

well-organized insurgent assault (featuring armour, air support and a suspiciously large number of caucasians carrying M-5 rifles) routs the battered Iraqi Security forces

...the French?

-k

[Argus]

well-organized insurgent assault (featuring armour, air support and a suspiciously large number of caucasians carrying M-5 rifles) routs the battered Iraqi Security forces

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...the French?

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't be silly. He said they routed the Iraqi Security forces, not surrendered to the Iraqi Security Forces.

[Black Dog]

By far the most likely scenario is that the US and other nations gradually draw down strength after a new Iraqi government is put in place. If the Iraqi military remains ineffective (a distinct possibility, I grant you) then we will see the emergence of security forces controlled by the local Shia hierarchy. I believe Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani's people offered the Americans 100,000 men to help secure polling booths during the last election, for example (declined). Since Ali Sistani supports the current transition government, and will support the new Shiite dominated government, you'll basically see the Sunis getting hammered. The insurgency, such as it is, will die out, but there will be conflict between the Sistani supported government and the Kurds to the north. Ali Sistani wants at least a modified form of Sharia law, and will likely get it - not to the same degree as Iran's rulers, though.

Your scenario begs the question of what is currently preventing Shia militias from taking on the burden of security (the obvious answer being that such a tactic would further enflame sectarian tensions and lead to a full-blown civil war instead of the simmering civil strife we're currently seeing). Is that a desirable outcome?

[Argus]

Your scenario begs the question of what is currently preventing Shia militias from taking on the burden of security (the obvious answer being that such a tactic would further enflame sectarian tensions and lead to a full-blown civil war instead of the simmering civil strife we're currently seeing). Is that a desirable outcome?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sistani seems to be fairly patient. He knows that a new government is only a year or so away. He knows it will be dominated by people who will take their signals from him. When that government is put in place the people who will flood into the army will be men recruited by Al Sistani's people. They will NOT cut and run in the face of insurgents. They will be as crazed as the insurgents, better armed, and much more numerous. And they will be fighting for God, just like the insurgents.

But this will be a legitimate, elected government, and so it will have international support, and to keep it looking like Iraq was a good idea the US will be going out of its way to stay on good terms with it - and help it out with weapons and training.

If Sistani can keep away from the Israeli issue, and not go too insane with theocratic laws and punishment, the US and UK will remain on-side.

Of course, if someone manages to kill Al Sistani all bets are off.

[Black Dog]

Well, I have to disagree with your characterization of the insurgents as being hodge-podge religious nuts. The bulk of the insurgency (that is, the one's performing day to day acts of guerilla war fare against occupation and security forces, not the ones blowing up kids with truck bombs) would apear to be Ba'ath Party loyalists, former Iraqi Army troops carrying on the fight. Dead-enders? Maybe, but also apparently well-coordinated, well amed and determined. I wouldn't write them off so easily.

[Big Blue Machine]

The Iraq occupation needs time before we leave.

[Black Dog]

The Iraq occupation needs time before we leave.

Time to what, exactly?

[SirSpanky]

Time to entrench.

[Argus]

Time to entrench.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean, like, time to be elected?

[Black Dog]

Time to entrench.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean, like, time to be elected?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The occupation needss time to be elected? Wha...?

[SirSpanky]

I have no doubt that the US has good intentions in establishing a democracy (I assume thats what you meant)

I also have no doubt that the Americans are in Iraq to stay, to sell their agenda to a grateful new government.

[Black Dog]

Seemms a good place to put this:

Iraq war is over and the winner is...Iran

Iraq's new government has been trumpeted by the Bush administration as a close friend and a model for democracy in the region. In contrast, Bush calls Iran part of an axis of evil and dismisses its elections and government as illegitimate. So the Bush administration cannot have been filled with joy when Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and eight high-powered cabinet ministers paid an extremely friendly visit to Tehran this week.

[kimmy]

hmmm, I dunno. It might not please the Bushies that they're making friends with Iran, but ultimately having people in the region recognize the Iraq government as legitimate and independent is the most important step. If neighboring regimes are treating the new Iraq government as the real deal, it can only help its credibility. The insurrectionists would no doubt prefer to see their neighbors refusing to recognize the new gov't, and Iran-- a country not beholden to US interests-- moreso than most.

-k

[BHS]

hmmm, I dunno.  It might not please the Bushies that they're making friends with Iran, but ultimately having people in the region recognize the Iraq government as legitimate and independent is the most important step.  If neighboring regimes are treating the new Iraq government as the real deal, it can only help its credibility.  The insurrectionists would no doubt prefer to see their neighbors refusing to recognize the new gov't, and Iran-- a country not beholden to US interests-- moreso than most.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent, excellent point kimmy.

[crazymf]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/21/iran/

Yeah, but check out the cheap pinstripe suit. hehehe

[Black Dog]

hmmm, I dunno.  It might not please the Bushies that they're making friends with Iran, but ultimately having people in the region recognize the Iraq government as legitimate and independent is the most important step.  If neighboring regimes are treating the new Iraq government as the real deal, it can only help its credibility.  The insurrectionists would no doubt prefer to see their neighbors refusing to recognize the new gov't, and Iran-- a country not beholden to US interests-- moreso than most.

Frankly, I don't think the Sunni insurgency gives a tinker's damn about Iran's blessing of Al-Jaafari's government: to them it probably looks like the Shiites are getting together, which, if I were in their shoes, would only make me fight harder.

But I think the core of this is that Iran is trying to put the new Iraq in its pocket.

As the article points out, there's plenty of reason for a Shiite Muslim regime in Baghdad to cozy up to Tehran and all the more reason for the Iranian mullahs to welcome them aboard. How would it look to the Shiite Iraq majority if, say the US (or its proxies) decided to start bombing Iran.

[kimmy]

Frankly, I don't think the Sunni insurgency gives a tinker's damn about Iran's blessing of Al-Jaafari's government: to them it probably looks like the Shiites are getting together, which, if I were in their shoes, would only make me fight harder.

Careful, BD... you're coming dangerously close to mentioning the "elephant in the room" that "lefties" fear to mention.

Many who rationalize the insurgency wish to discuss it in secular terms. "It's not about religion, it's about foreign invaders," etc. People have been extensively quoting a study by some Pape guy who seeks to unlink religion from terrorism. And eureka even mentioned "secular Sunnis" at one point last week, which I thought was an intriguing turn of phrase.

But you're acknowledging that religion is very much an issue here, which is good. I am most pleased.

As you mention, the Sunni insurgency might not give a crap what Iran has to say... but Shiites are the large majority in Iraq, and I'm sure that they would care. The insurgents would love for the fight to be "Iraqi citizens vs American invaders" because if it became viewed as "Sunnis vs Shiites" within the Arab world, that would be a disastrous perception for the insurgents. So again, I suggest that being treated well by Iran's government is good for Iraq's government but not good for the insurgents.

But I think the core of this is that Iran is trying to put the new Iraq in its pocket.

As the article points out, there's plenty of reason for a Shiite Muslim regime in Baghdad to cozy up to Tehran and all the more reason for the Iranian mullahs to welcome them aboard. How would it look to the Shiite Iraq majority if, say the US (or its proxies) decided to start bombing Iran.

If the Americans attack Iran, it's not going to play well in Iraq under any circumstances. I think that's fairly obvious, isn't it?

-k

[PocketRocket]

If the Americans attack Iran, it's not going to play well in Iraq under any circumstances. I think that's fairly obvious, isn't it?

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given the fact the Iran has not been playing fast and loose with dis-armament orders from the UN, which means the USA doesn't have a legitimate reason for invading, an invasion of Iran would not play well in ANY international circles, and so is highly unlikely.

Oh, sorry. I forgot. For a moment there I was thinking that Bush et al actually CARED about international opinion, and about having "legitimacy" on their side.

[Argus]

If the Americans attack Iran, it's not going to play well in Iraq under any circumstances. I think that's fairly obvious, isn't it?

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given the fact the Iran has not been playing fast and loose with dis-armament orders from the UN, which means the USA doesn't have a legitimate reason for invading, an invasion of Iran would not play well in ANY international circles, and so is highly unlikely.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a very big nuclear weapons program which is getting into a dangerously advanced state.

And last election, the guy who said that as soon as Iran gets a nuke they must use it on Israel, no matter how many Muslims die in the exchange - was the MODERATE.

And he lost.

What does THAT tell you?

[Black Dog]

Many who rationalize the insurgency wish to discuss it in secular terms. "It's not about religion, it's about foreign invaders," etc. People have been extensively quoting a study by some Pape guy who seeks to unlink religion from terrorism. And eureka even mentioned "secular Sunnis" at one point last week, which I thought was an intriguing turn of phrase.

But you're acknowledging that religion is very much an issue here, which is good. I am most pleased.

Uhm...I 've not seen any analysis of the Iraq situation that neglects religion altogether. Pape, f'r instance, mentions religion as a recruiting tool, a rallying point. But the goal is always temporal: that is, political.

You can't not talk about religion when you talk of the current/coming civil war in Iraq.