Strickland
12-03-2006, 05:40 PM
Speaking strictly as an individual, and therefore expressing my opinion only; I can see many potential positives resulting from our military withdrawl from Iraq. In my opinion, leaving Iraq would be the quickest way and best course of action to enable us to "share the burden or pain" with Iraq's neighbors. Currently, the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Syrians, Iranians, and Turks know that regardless of the potential threats looming inside Iraq, we - the US are there to deal with it now. Would it not make more sense to let these nations share the pain, and in the process, expend resources and energy on their own security?
If we left Iraq, surely the Iranians would be the first to "feel the pain." Currently, the Iranians benefit from the idea of "an enemy of my enemy is my ally." Surely many of the Shi'ites that have excepted Iranian aid have no affinity for Persian/Iranian influence; however, so long as the US and Brits are there, they accept it. I would rather the Iranians feel the pressure from Shi'ite militias in southern Iraq and the MEK, PKK/Kongra Gel in the Kurdish areas. It is possible that pressure from these groups, along with continued pressure from Baloch militants could have positive effects within Iran. At worst, the Iranians would crush groups that are hostile to the US, and listed on the US FTO list.
The Syrians have in no way tolerated the Muslim Brotherhood or other extremist Islamic groups in the past, and Bashar Assad is unlikely to start now. If the US were to leave Iraq, the Syrians would be forced to shift their focus of efforts from the Golan Heigths and Lebanon towards their common border with Iraq.
The Turks are no friend of the Kurds, and would most likely take the opportunity to eliminate the PKK/Kongra Gel once and for all. Again, this would serve to eliminate a group currently on the US FTO list, and thus support our overall objective in the GWOT.
The Jordanians and Saudis are unlikely to allow the Sunnis of Al Anbar to get beaten around by the Iraqi Shi'ites. Whether acting independently of the other or as a combined force, a Jordanian/Saudi force entering the picture that is friendly to the US and hostile to the Iranians would provide some much needed balance to the region. Additionally, Al Anbar Province is the ONLY province that stayed completely loyal to Saddam during 1991. In other words, regardless of what was happening across Iraq, these individuals stayed loyal to the regime. Having a large Jordanian or Saudi influence in this area would not be a bad thing.
For those who assert that we cannot tolerate the economic blow-back, especially as it concerns oil; I would remind everyone that oil was $27/barrell in 2001. Our economy continues to grow, and all appears well with our oil supply. Saudi Arabia remains the only ME nation in the top six oil suppliers to the US. A larger civil war in Iraq, involving all the neighboring countries, should do little to affect this.
For those that believe that our image or stature as a world power would somehow be irrevocably damaged if we left Iraq, we should remember the lessons of Korea, Vietnam, Desert One, Lebanon, and Somalia. None of these was our proudest moment; however, we got over it as a military and public, and came out stronger on the other end. We will get over this too, learn from the mistakes, and be stronger in the end.
If we left Iraq, surely the Iranians would be the first to "feel the pain." Currently, the Iranians benefit from the idea of "an enemy of my enemy is my ally." Surely many of the Shi'ites that have excepted Iranian aid have no affinity for Persian/Iranian influence; however, so long as the US and Brits are there, they accept it. I would rather the Iranians feel the pressure from Shi'ite militias in southern Iraq and the MEK, PKK/Kongra Gel in the Kurdish areas. It is possible that pressure from these groups, along with continued pressure from Baloch militants could have positive effects within Iran. At worst, the Iranians would crush groups that are hostile to the US, and listed on the US FTO list.
The Syrians have in no way tolerated the Muslim Brotherhood or other extremist Islamic groups in the past, and Bashar Assad is unlikely to start now. If the US were to leave Iraq, the Syrians would be forced to shift their focus of efforts from the Golan Heigths and Lebanon towards their common border with Iraq.
The Turks are no friend of the Kurds, and would most likely take the opportunity to eliminate the PKK/Kongra Gel once and for all. Again, this would serve to eliminate a group currently on the US FTO list, and thus support our overall objective in the GWOT.
The Jordanians and Saudis are unlikely to allow the Sunnis of Al Anbar to get beaten around by the Iraqi Shi'ites. Whether acting independently of the other or as a combined force, a Jordanian/Saudi force entering the picture that is friendly to the US and hostile to the Iranians would provide some much needed balance to the region. Additionally, Al Anbar Province is the ONLY province that stayed completely loyal to Saddam during 1991. In other words, regardless of what was happening across Iraq, these individuals stayed loyal to the regime. Having a large Jordanian or Saudi influence in this area would not be a bad thing.
For those who assert that we cannot tolerate the economic blow-back, especially as it concerns oil; I would remind everyone that oil was $27/barrell in 2001. Our economy continues to grow, and all appears well with our oil supply. Saudi Arabia remains the only ME nation in the top six oil suppliers to the US. A larger civil war in Iraq, involving all the neighboring countries, should do little to affect this.
For those that believe that our image or stature as a world power would somehow be irrevocably damaged if we left Iraq, we should remember the lessons of Korea, Vietnam, Desert One, Lebanon, and Somalia. None of these was our proudest moment; however, we got over it as a military and public, and came out stronger on the other end. We will get over this too, learn from the mistakes, and be stronger in the end.