What would a US withdrawal from Iraq look like?

[wm]

Ok we have had a fairly steady diet of good news for the past several months. Many have taken to crowing that we have "won" without offering what the term means when applied in a setting like Iraq. This AM the news reported that the US-Iraqi negotiations had come to satisfactory terms. Maybe as that agreement is released we can use that to define success.

But there are remaining questions. They are long term and they are not being addressed. Notably they deal with the very same sectarian divisions we sought to dampen through measures like the Awakening.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The links below reflect a couple of episodes from the "wild west" days of American history that, IMHO, seem apropos to the story Tom posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfigh...he_O.K._Corral

Which side were Pat Garrett and the Earps really on anyway?

[Steve Blair]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The links below reflect a couple of episodes from the "wild west" days of American history that, IMHO, seem apropos to the story Tom posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfigh...he_O.K._Corral

Which side were Pat Garrett and the Earps really on anyway?

They were on their own sides, frankly. IMO, anyhow. The Earp clan was always good at looking after their own interests (going back to their time in Kansas), while Garrett was an opportunist.

Sorry for the digression.

[Tom Odom]

They were on their own sides, frankly. IMO, anyhow. The Earp clan was always good at looking after their own interests (going back to their time in Kansas), while Garrett was an opportunist.

Sorry for the digression.

Not really a digression as the splits in Iraq as captured in the article echo the same base line. They are on their own sides; a neutral zone between them remains a goal.

Tom

[wm]

Not really a digression as the splits in Iraq as captured in the article echo the same base line. They are on their own sides; a neutral zone between them remains a goal.

Tom

You noted you're rereading Pakenham's book on the Boer War. I suspect we could find some interesting analogies from the 1880s to the early 1900s in South Africa as well. While never explicitly stated as such AFAIK, isn't something like a neutral zone part of what the Boers were after in both their conflicts with the British Empire?

[Tom Odom]

You noted you're rereading Pakenham's book on the Boer War. I suspect we could find some interesting analogies from the 1880s to the early 1900s in South Africa as well. While never explicitly stated as such AFAIK, isn't something like a neutral zone part of what the Boers were after in both their conflicts with the British Empire?

Essentially yes at least when you limit discussion to the old school Boers like Oom Paul Kruger. The original trek was to get away from the Anglos and do as they the Boers wished. Where that came into conflict with the Empire was when gold and diamonds were discovered. The magnates like Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Beit sought British control because they saw it more in line with their own interests. An irony that Packenham brings out is that the mine owners felt the Boers were making them pay the Africans too much to work the mines. One of the Empire's claims was always that it sought to protect the interest of the Africans and non-whites against Boer abuses.

The wild card played in the struggle were the Uitlanders (outsiders) who flocked to the mines and they included the gamut of Europeans, Americans, Canadians, and Australians. The Boers sought to control their influence by not giving them the vote; a logical step since they outnumbered the Boers. Empire builders like Milner as well as Rhodes and Beit saw the franchise as the means to end Boer control. Once diamonds and gold were discovered, the Boer vision of a volks land was doomed.

Tom

[wm]

Once diamonds and gold were discovered, the Boer vision of a volks land was doomed.

While not actually germane to this thread, your line above prompted the following paraphrase to me:

"Once natural gas and oil were discovered, the (pick the name of your favorite former Soviet Republic or Autonomous Region) vision of a volks land was doomed."

[jcustis]

I've become predominantly concerned with the effects of 5-10 years from now.

Specifically, how many men under arms is the Iraqi Army projected to have by 2011? Can the government sustain them after we are gone and the COIN requirements inevitably die down?

At worse, what pressure will this martial force put on the already fragile government that I suspect with continue to strain under the sectarian forces.