Dan Minette wrote: > I think we've reached a > point where we cannot stop a civil war from happening. We > can, as long as we stay, stretch out the first phases of that > war, but I think the most likely outcome of staying the > course will be to increase the potential suffering, instead > of decreasing it.
Yep. And any attempts to train army/police would ultimately mean arming and training different factions. Otoh, if the Coalition were to suddenly announce the intention to withdraw, people with a stake in the region will have to step up and be responsible. Not that it it's going to be easy, not that the power hasn't devolved almost completely, but sooner or later someone has to sort the mess out, and that wouldn't happen until the Coalition withdraws. > So, I think our differences involve our understanding of the > most likely effects of staying until things improve > substantially Wouldn't happen until the Coalition withdraws. Right now the Coalition is responsible for Iraq, the weak Iraqi govt notwithstanding. And, as enough commanders on the site have said, the Coalition is a part of the problem. If you withdraw, you force the Iraqis and their neighbours to focus on their responsibilities. And you also remove a part of the problem. Besides, since the force has demonstrably not been large enough to establish and maintain peace, keeping it in Iraq will achieve little beyond prolonging the departure. I am not saying that there wouldn't be a great loss of life as the last restraint melts and war erupts within Iraq, I am not saying that the US wouldn't be blamed. Both these things will happen. But they will happen anyway. The only difference is that the longer the Coalition stays on in Iraq, any kind of a resolution is further delayed, and the patterns of chaos become more complex. > or we are told to leave Wouldn't happen. Thanks to the Coalition's postwar policies, any Iraqi government is denied a functioning police and military. Both these institutions have been deliberately weakened, and the Iraqi govt depends on the US troops to function as instruments of state's coercive power. > vs. the most likely outcome of having a withdrawal timetable. Politically, it would create a storm. 'Cutting and running' would be the phrase of the day, and Bush's foreign policy will be finally acknowledged as a disaster. Diplomatically, it would be a severe blow to the US image and international clout. It would be seen as an admission of defeat. Militarily, it would be a sensible decision. The US army will get a chance to rest, recoup, and refit. A significant portion of the Merkin army is stuck in Iraq, doing things it just wasn't supposed to be doing. If the media reports are even halfway accurate, the stress is formidable, and it will take some time to build the army up to its former level of readiness. Economically, well, very few post-withdrawal commitments can be quite as heavy as stationing the troops and the corporations in Iraq. Strategically, you will need to focus on containing the mess instead of pouring your resources down the pipeline called 'cleaning up the mess'. And that would involve dual focus - repercussions in the region, events within Iraq. The former would involve a change of strategy vis-a-vis Iran and Syria, the latter...sigh, that's a separate bundle of problems. The withdrawal can easily mean an unrestrained explosion within Iraq. The only way to restrain the bloodshed somewhat would be a robust UN force but that is not going to happen. So, in practical terms, Iraq would be on its own and we'd have to wait and see what'd happen there. Callous as it sounds, sooner or later things will come down to that. The only question is when and under what circumstances. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
