Can democracy in Iraq survive a US withdrawal?

[Undesired Walrus]

As November approaches, the most important topic of dispute between the Republican party and the Democrats will certainly be the issue of staying/withdrawing from Iraq. Clinton or Obama, McCain or.. um.. they are in stark contrast on what to do in that country.

Al-Zarqawi made clear what his plans were. This was not a fight to simply kick America out, this was a fight to take advantage of the mess and establish an Islamic state, as outlined in his letter to Bin Laden.

A frequent mistake I think, is comparing this war to Vietnam. Islamist terrorists are simply not Viet Cong. They are willing to murder anyone who will live by man made laws rather than God made laws. They are willing to destroy any attempt at bringing democracy, and are incredibly ruthless in this practice.

A withdrawal of American troops is only one less target, and certainly, certainly not the only target.

But my knowledge stops when we get into the old military matters, so maybe we can natter about what the best course of action is.

 

[latent aaaack]

I'm wondering what the consequences would be for the democratic party in future elections if by withdrawing from Iraq, as they promise, they indirectly cause a genocide and an Islamic state and/or Iranian ally/territory. From comments heard out of Tehran you can tell they are chomping at the bit to take control of Iraq.

This would be pouring diesel fuel on American politics and right wing militaristic authoritarians would reap in the pot.

 

[gumboot]

I think democracy can survive a US withdrawal, but not right now. Definitely not right now. I think it's pretty much a given that at this point that the US will withdraw, and that Iraq will become a nightmare of epic proportions.

This is the first time, since modern Radical Islam first reared its head 80 years ago, that they're close to getting what they want. I shudder to think of the precedent it will set for the future.

 

[Puppycow]

The answer to the question is up to the Iraqi people. If they really want democracy, they will have it. I'm not sure they really want it.

 

[Policenaut]

If they really wanted it they would have overthrown Saddam themselves.

 

[SezMe]

I'm wondering what the consequences would be for the democratic party in future elections if by withdrawing from Iraq, as they promise, they indirectly cause a genocide and an Islamic state and/or Iranian ally/territory. From comments heard out of Tehran you can tell they are chomping at the bit to take control of Iraq.

This would be pouring diesel fuel on American politics and right wing militaristic authoritarians would reap in the pot.

Remember, Iraqis are Arabic and Iranians are Persians. There is not a lot of brotherly love lost between the two, in spite of their shared religion. Their 8-year war is evidence of the enmity.

Iran might gain some substantial influence over greater Basra, but I don't think the Saudis will let it go much further than that.

But I agree with you concerns about future American politics. You KNOW, no matter what happens if the Dems get in that the Republicans will be saying we "lost" the war. That our enemies have been emboldened. And when (not if) another attack happens in the USA, the partisan invective that will flow will make today's battles look like a stroll in the park.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I think democracy can survive a US withdrawal, but not right now. Definitely not right now. I think it's pretty much a given that at this point that the US will withdraw, and that Iraq will become a nightmare of epic proportions.

This is the first time, since modern Radical Islam first reared its head 80 years ago, that they're close to getting what they want. I shudder to think of the precedent it will set for the future.

The way it probably will be remembered will be a battle the United States grossly underestimated, and then made a hasty withdrawal from.

For a propoganda war, that is an intense victory. I can see Zawahiri making another one of his 60 minute bragging videos right now.

 

[gumboot]

The way it probably will be remembered will be a battle the United States grossly underestimated, and then made a hasty withdrawal from.

For a propoganda war, that is an intense victory. I can see Zawahiri making another one of his 60 minute bragging videos right now.

Osama Bin Laden must have wet himself with delight when the USA invaded Afghanistan. I can't think of a worse decision they could have made in the War on Terrorism. Giving Al Qaeda a nuclear weapon would have been less detrimental in the long run.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Do you mean Afghanistan or Iraq?

ETA: Woops, didn't notice the other thread on this topic.

 

[gumboot]

Do you mean Afghanistan or Iraq?

Both times. I think he wet himself in fear when the US invaded Afghanistan, and then wet himself with delight when the US promptly got bored in Afghanistan, pulled out most of their troops, and went into Iraq.

Imagine if the USA had ignored Iraq and put 300,000 troops into Afghanistan instead.

All they really needed to say to Saddam was "Look buddy, the game has been fun, but after this stuff with 9/11 we've suddenly lost our sense of humour. We're about this close to invading your ass. It's time to stop playing games, because we've had it. Just give us a reason to take you down, I beg you."

Saddam wasn't the most brilliant strategist in the world, but I think he would have got it if it was spelled out to him.

 

[latent aaaack]

On the other hand a prime reason Al Qaeda decided to start attacks on America was what they saw as the example of the USSR after their invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan played a role in bleeding the USSR and hastening it's downfall and that's what they're wildest dreams would be of what they could achieve against the US.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are extremely expensive and the US's economic problems are piling up. Meanwhile the US military is straining while other threats in the world have not subsided and are increasing, meaning the wars are having a tangibly really destructive effect on America and it's ability to defend itself.

Sure it's easy to criticize but what might a positive recommendation be? Don't go to war unless an existential threat to America surfaces and certainly don't try to give other regions our form of government. If an extremist country is harboring terrorists or developing WMDs in my opinion the choices should be to use devastating air power or tactical nukes or not attack at all because the US could be bled to death by non-stop wars.

 

[gumboot]

On the other hand a prime reason Al Qaeda decided to start attacks on America was what they saw as the example of the USSR after their invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan played a role in bleeding the USSR and hastening it's downfall and that's what they're wildest dreams would be of what they could achieve against the US.

That was probably the first time Osama Bin Laden peed himself with delight.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Sure it's easy to criticize but what might a positive recommendation be? Don't go to war unless an existential threat to America surfaces and certainly don't try to give other regions our form of government. If an extremist country is harboring terrorists or developing WMDs in my opinion the choices should be to use devastating air power or tactical nukes or not attack at all because the US could be bled to death by non-stop wars.

Sadly, the history of warfare is that nations rarely learn from their mistakes, a point laid out in the excellent documentary about Robert S McNamara, The Fog Of War.

In my humble opinion, the US shold realise it lives in a democracy, and when their soldiers start to get slaughtered in the high numbers, the emotional power of a nation is to bring them home. It is inevitable that the Democrats, with their anti-war stance from 2004-2008, would be a shoo-in at the next election. Thus is the trouble of democracy, and a example of the tyranny of the majority. (Or in this case, the longing of the majority).

On the other hand a prime reason Al Qaeda decided to start attacks on America was what they saw as the example of the USSR after their invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan played a role in bleeding the USSR and hastening it's downfall and that's what they're wildest dreams would be of what they could achieve against the US.

In Bin Laden's latest As-Sahab video, The Solution, this is exactly the point he is making. He compels the world to see that superpowers fall, and it just so happens he has scored an incredible propoganda victory by claiming
'19 men, driven by only their love for their God, changed the face of America's compass'.

I think it is very important to understand that Bin Laden never downplays the incredible might of American military power. His victories are when it is defeated by the ordinary man.

If Al-Qaeda gained a lot of money and could build a nuclear sub, firing up to 20 missiles into America off the cost of Florida, it would not score the same victory as a lone lover of Islam smuggling a nuclear weapon into New York and detonating himself and everyone else, because Al-Qaeda do not go in for sterile victories.

 

[gumboot]

Sadly, the history of warfare is that nations rarely learn from their mistakes, a point laid out in the excellent documentary about Robert S McNamara, The Fog Of War.

In my humble opinion, the US shold realise it lives in a democracy, and when their soldiers start to get slaughtered in the high numbers, the emotional power of a nation is to bring them home. It is inevitable that the Democrats, with their anti-war stance from 2004-2008, would be a shoo-in at the next election. Thus is the trouble of democracy, and a example of the tyranny of the majority. (Or in this case, the longing of the majority).



In Bin Laden's latest As-Sahab video, The Solution, this is exactly the point he is making. He compels the world to see that superpowers fall, and it just so happens he has scored an incredible propoganda victory by claiming
'19 men, driven by only their love for their God, changed the face of America's compass'.

I think it is very important to understand that Bin Laden never downplays the incredible might of American military power. His victories are when it is defeated by the ordinary man.

Here's the thing that is really lame. Okay, I'm personally of the opinion that Radical Islam poses a potentially dire threat to western civilisation. Lots of people don't agree. Fair enough.

But pretending for a moment that I'm right, it's not the USA that will topple and be consumed by the Caliphate. It's Europe and the Middle East, Northern Africa, across into the Near East and (if Indonesia joins the band wagon) into South East Asia and the SW Pacific.

The USA will be fine.

Yet more than anyone it's their actions that are sealing our fate.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It would be interesting to do a survey and see how much voters in the US have been motivated into voting for withdrawal by the horrific images of Islamist violence in Iraq (Like beheadings, spectacular car bombings, hell, even Bin Laden's war beard, i.e, all the things designed to inspire fear in the enemy).

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The USA will be fine.

Yet more than anyone it's their actions that are sealing our fate.

And has the potential to most inspire the Islamists, like September 11th.

It's a bit like getting one over on the big school bully through momentary wit, even though you could never beat him into the ground.

 

[gumboot]

It would be interesting to do a survey and see how much voters in the US have been motivated into voting for withdrawal by the horrific images of Islamist violence in Iraq (Like beheadings, spectacular car bombings, hell, even Bin Laden's war beard, i.e, all the things designed to inspire fear in the enemy).

The US media are establishing an impressive track record for losing wars. They only missed out on the Persian Gulf because it was over before they realised. Even then they did their best to reverse engineer it into a loss.

I'm trying to imagine CNN reporting the D-Day landings. I don't think we would have made it to Berlin.

And of course, here's the thing. The enemy know this. They don't commit beheadings and car bombings (and wear scary beards) because they think it's fun. They do it because they know exactly how the US media will report it, and they know exactly how the US population will react to those reports.

Osama Bin Laden has the US population wrapped around his little finger. Frankly the man is a genius. A scary, crazy genius.

 

[Spins]

Both times. I think he wet himself in fear when the US invaded Afghanistan, and then wet himself with delight when the US promptly got bored in Afghanistan, pulled out most of their troops, and went into Iraq.

Imagine if the USA had ignored Iraq and put 300,000 troops into Afghanistan instead.

All they really needed to say to Saddam was "Look buddy, the game has been fun, but after this stuff with 9/11 we've suddenly lost our sense of humour. We're about this close to invading your ass. It's time to stop playing games, because we've had it. Just give us a reason to take you down, I beg you."

Saddam wasn't the most brilliant strategist in the world, but I think he would have got it if it was spelled out to him.

Yes ... it's a pity that, ever since the first gulf war, the hawks within the current administration had become obsessed with Iraq, in that they hadn't finished the job first time around. They had convinced themselves that Saddam was lying about his WMD and he was still a threat to the west, and that the people within Iraq would welcome his overthrow.

In hindsight if we had kept out of Iraq and concentrated our forces in Afghanistan and gone after the route cause of the problem (Al Qaeda and to a lesser extent the Taliban) in force it would have been a "cake walk" (so to speak) compared to the problems we are now facing in Iraq.

A significant portion of the Afghanistan population didn't want Taliban rule and welcomed the invasion and help offered by the coalition. Also you can't even begin to compare the technological and military might of the coalition as it is today with that of the former Soviet Union in the 80s.

The chances are that we'd have also captured (or killed) Osama Bin Laden because I think the general consensus is that he was indeed present during the Battle of Tora Bora (early on in the campaign), but a lack of troops on the ground allowed him to slip the net and head for the Pakistan border.

Having such a significant presence in Afghanistan would have also kept the lawless tribes in the Waziristan region of Pakistan in check.

Back to the op, it's an incredibly difficult question to answer although in my opinion I would say that democracy would not survive in Iraq if there is a withdrawal within the next year or so. The country is still far too unstable (radical Islamists, kidnapping for ransom, and criminal gangs etc) and too divided along sectarian lines for the moderate majority to remain in control.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The US media are establishing an impressive track record for losing wars. They only missed out on the Persian Gulf because it was over before they realised. Even then they did their best to reverse engineer it into a loss.

I'm trying to imagine CNN reporting the D-Day landings. I don't think we would have made it to Berlin.

And of course, here's the thing. The enemy know this. They don't commit beheadings and car bombings (and wear scary beards) because they think it's fun. They do it because they know exactly how the US media will report it, and they know exactly how the US population will react to those reports.

Osama Bin Laden has the US population wrapped around his little finger. Frankly the man is a genius. A scary, crazy genius.

And to be frank, we don't have anything like this in the Western world when we get killed.

'Think not of those, who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead. Nay, they are living. With their Lord they have provision.

And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord;

They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve.'


I know more in the secular west find the above as quite irrational, but to people's base instincts, the above is wonderful. It was quoted after Al-Zarqawi died, and is proven to be an effective mantra when there are videos of Islamists firing rockets with 'Zarqawi' painted on the side into American bases.

As for your comment about a Caliphate in Europe however, I cannot see how this is plausible. Perhaps I am not thinking big enough, but even though Britain and France has a massive Islamist scene, can a religion really grab hold of a country, to the extent of flying the flag over Downing Street?

 

[gumboot]

As for your comment about a Caliphate in Europe however, I cannot see how this is plausible. Perhaps I am not thinking big enough, but even though Britain and France has a massive Islamist scene, can a religion really grab hold of a country, to the extent of flying the flag over Downing Street?

You're probably not thinking long enough.

I find when I talk to people of what I think might happen in the future, they are usually thinking in their life time - say the next 50 years. I can appreciate someone thinking me mad if I thought Europe would be swallowed by some vast Caliphate in 50 years.

If you look at older civilisations that have collapsed (not just states mind you, but entire civilisations) they seldom occur in 50 years. Often it takes centuries.

If you just look at population growth rates in Europe amongst different cultural groups, it becomes clear that in 1 or 2 centuries Islam will hold sway. At that point establishment of a European Caliphate isn't quite so implausible.

Of course that's assuming nothing significant happens to change the balance of power between now and then. It's possible something will change in Radical Islam itself to prevent that happening. But I'm of the mind that you shouldn't entrust the survival of your culture to a potential threat going away. In which case it's we in the west that need to change. But we won't change unless we feel the need to. My theory is that by pointing out that western civilisation could be a thing of the past in 2 or 300 years, I might just encourage some people to actually make an effort to avoid it.

Of course that's the cultural assimilation route. Another potential threat, which could come quicker, is that a strong enough Islamic Caliphate outside Europe grows to have enough military power to simply annex a militarily weak Europe. In that case you might be talking within a Century, but that sort of threat is rather easier to spot (although having said that, Nazi Germany spring to mind, maybe it's not so easy to spot if you don't want to spot it).

Anyway, no doubt I'm just a deluded harbinger, and things are nowhere near as bad as I claim.