Friday, May 25, 2007

If We Left

Have any of our Representatives in Congress thought about what would really happen in Iraq if the US military just left, or do they even care? The most obvious corollary would be to what has been happening in the Darfur region of Sudan. The Iranian Government would play the role of Chad and arm the insurgency with weapons to topple the government. The Iraqi Government would arm the Shiite militias to stomp out the insurgency as well as get rid of those annoying Sunnis. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would of course help the Sunnis. Meanwhile in the North, the Kurds would declare their Independence and force Turkey to make the decision as to whether to invade or not. Now instead of violence in just a couple of provinces, we have it spreading to all of Iraq. The Chinese and Russians would pick a side to support (just like they have in Darfur) ... they need the oil too badly to leave this one to chance. While all this mayhem is distracting the UN and governments of the world ... Iran will continue to work on getting a nuclear weapon ... Syria will re-exert its' influence in Lebanon ... and Israel may be forced to intervene for its' protection. Looks like a pretty good start on World War III.

We may have been wrong to invade in the first place ... but, no question, we would definitely be wrong to cut and run without first leaving a sustainable government in Iraq. Is my reasoning wrong?

Sphere: Related Content

13 comments:

lime said...

thanks for the visit by my place today.

you're absolutely right and that is part of what grieves me so. such a poorly thought out invasion with inadequate forces and no real plan for exit has just destabilized a region that has been unstable for time immemorial because of hatreds rooted for millenia. it was a fool's errand and now we are stuck.

Paul Champagne said...

lime ... The deposing of Saddam was a good thing, for the country, for the region, and for the world. If only we had as good a plan for winning the peace as we had for winning the war. Can you immagine a democratic Iraq (rich in oil money and with a people living in freedom) and the influence that would have on progressives in Iraq and Syria (as well as the rest of the Middle East.

evalinn said...

No, most of them don´t care about that.

I don´t usually visit these political blogs, but yours seem interesting, I´ll be back to check more.

Paul Champagne said...

evalinn ... thanks for stopping by, the difference between this blog and other "political blogs" is that I don't have an agenda. I'm just a middle-class working slob that wants our government to work for us. I have no economic interests in government policy, I just want to feel safe, and be able to live my life with the freedom and opportunity to either fail or succeed. Isn't that what America is all about?

snowelf said...

Hi Paul :)

I have to be honest on the fact that I don't know a lot about politics--just enough to be considered moderately knowledgeable, but I really agree with a lot of your ideas and thoughts.

take care and see you soon,

--snow

(Hi lime!)

evalinn said...

Great filosophy, I think that´s what most people are like. Unfortunately, most people don´t always guide politicians.

Paul Champagne said...

snow ... thanks for stopping by, there are plenty of things to occupy our time besides politics ... but no other thing has a greater impact on our lives, from the price of gas to our safety in our daily lives, politics plays a role.

evalinn ... the reason that common sense and the feelings of average Americans don't always guide the politicians is simple ... most average Americans don't vote. If we ever had a general election like the one the French just had where 85% of the voters showed up at the polls, I think that this might just change. Till that time, political lobbyists, big business and unions will have the greatest say in what goes on in this country.

Mike M said...

Paul, you and I think a lot alike. I agree this thing has gone on too long and we can't just rush out and leave a void to be filled by God know who.

All wars that the US are involved in require FPLANs. FPLANs are the strategic plans for fighting and exiting that Congress and the White House have to agree on and sign before we can go to war. The problem we face now is that we are no longer in a "war". We are support. And there is no FPLAN requirement for "support-only' operations.

I have a nasty feeling we are going to be in Iraq the same way we have been in Korea for 30 years.
We will always have a presence there.

Paul Champagne said...

mike ... I fear you may be right, and we will be there for a long time. My only hope is that the Iraqi government will eventually step up and take over most of the security duties and allow our troops the ability to concentrate on tracking down terrorist cells.

evalinn said...

I know, why is that? Democracy may be a right, but it is also an obligation. Our election participation is also around 80%, though it is slightly declining. I think people are forgetting that this is not to be taken for granted.

Paul Champagne said...

evalinn ... freedom is never free, sometimes it takes Great sacrifices, sometimes only a small sacrafice of time (to vote). The problem seems to be in the United States (except for those too lazy or indifferent to vote) that they use the people who vote as the pool for jury duty. If they reversed it and had the voters exempt from jury duty, I'm guessing that voter participation would go up.

Transplanted Lawyer said...

The idea that some Shia provinces of Iraq might seek to secede and seek political unity with Iran is not wholly out of the question in my mind. This would likely include Basra Province, cutting Iraq off from access to the sea altogether.

In the grand scheme of things, this would be what I would call a "bad thing."

Paul Champagne said...

lawyer ... that would be a very bad thing. Iraqs' only next best route to a seaport would then be to truck their oil through Syria (also a client state of Iran). They could go through Saudi Arabia, but that is a long way to travel.