Quick US Exit From Iraq: Seven Scenarios
I’ve ten minutes to put this together before leaving for the airport. Nope — I haven’t posted in almost two weeks. I have been busy doing some research for an article. The research is time-consuming but fun. It’s a US Civil War article. As a matter of fact, if any reader has any information about the 26th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment, please add a comment or send me an email via my Creators Syndicate box. I have mined the Web and the Illinois archives that are on-line. I am interested in finding a detailed regimental history. I am also interested in personal correspondence. The outfit served in the western theater but marched through Georgia with Sherman and then through the Carolinas.
But this “Iraqi scenario” post strikes me as one I needed to get on the blog sooner rather than later. I saw the Prime Minister Maliki and Ambassador Crocker provided Hell scenarios earlier this week. These scenarios will appear in an upcoming Creators Syndicate column. I created these scenarios last month for a company which is starting a new media venture. The company’s senior leadership has been involved in elementary school education software. I’ve been doing “content consulting” —which by any other name is course and program content development. Good work for a teacher. I’ll put up a detailed post once the organization “launches” its product. The scenarios were tacked on to a much (much) longer “background history” of the Middle East.
Here are seven “scenarios” sketching “potential outcomes” of a quick withdrawal from Iraq. They are not mutually exclusive. They could well “blend.” In fact, an amalgam of the first six could occur.
These are speculative dramas. The US and the Iraqi governments have their own scenarios. I am certain that Iran, Al Qaeda, Syria and Turkey have also analyzed potential outcomes and made plans accordingly.
THE SCENARIOS
(1) THREE NEW COUNTRIES: Kurdistan in the north becomes an independent country – and immediately begins to wrestle with Turkey over the Kurdistan Workers Party (the PKK) which is waging a secessionist struggle in southeastern Turkey. Kurdistan has oil. Southern Iraq—a predominantly Shia – area, becomes a Shia state—with oil. Parts of Anbar province become a Sunni state (Iraqi Sunnistan) – which has few oil fields. But what becomes of Baghdad? Does it divide like a desert Berlin into Shia and Sunni sectors? Baghdad remains a source of continuing conflict.
(2) REGIONAL SHIA-SUNNI WAR: Iran sees a chance to recover not only the Shaat al Arab region – the delta of the Tigris and Euphrates, but a chance to extend its border into the economically productive areas of southern Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait immediately react to Iran’s drive into southern Iraq. Iraq has served as a “buffer” between Sunni Arabs and Shia Iranians, and the buffer is dissolving . Jordan and Egypt prepare for action. The War Over Mesopotamia could last for weeks, it could grind on for years.
(3) TURKEY EXPANDS :Turkey reclaims control of territory all the way to Kirkuk, creating a new Southern Turkey: The Ottoman Empire once controlled Mesopotamia. Turkey has a lingering claim to areas of northern Iraq. For almost two decades Turkey has fought with the Kurdistan Workers Party – a Kurdish secessionist group in Turkey which has bases in northern Iraq. Turkey could conclude the way to end the war with the PKK would be to absorb Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkey would pay a huge political price. It would lose all chance of joining the European Union. Ties with the West would deteriorate –and as a resultTurkey might become less secular and more Islamic in both identity and in political orientation. The Iranians would be glad to see their “Kurdish issue” disappear, but would be wary of a militant Turkey.
(4) SHIA DICTATORSHIP: Shia Arabs conduct an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Sunni. They create a condominium state with the Kurds. Iranian influence increases . Iraq’s Sunnis either die (a genocide) or flee to other Sunni controlled states – or move to the US.
(5) CHAOS: The region becomes a cauldron. Iraq shatters into ethnic enclaves, a few “new Mesopotamian city states” managing to control oil fields. Iran and Turkey exert “regional influence” over eastern Iraq and northern Iraq, respectively, but concerned about confrontation between themselves or provoking sanctions from Europe and the US, neither send their military forces in large numbers beyond current borders . Terror attacks and intermittent fighting afflict neighborhoods throughout Iraq. Local warlords rule by fear and make money either smuggling oil, drugs, or arms. This tribal hell is a perfect disaster—the kind of disaster that allows Al Qaeda to build training facilities and base camps for operations throughout the Middle East and Europe.
(6) “GANG UP”: Shia Arabs in Iraq are numerous, well armed and increasingly well organized – at least enough to expel all of the Sunni Arabs. The Shia and Kurds, who are now over 80 percent of the population, decide to eliminate their main enemy, and the source of most of the terrorism—the Sunni community. Neighboring Sunni Arab nations are kept out with the threat that Iran will intervene. Arguably, this scenario is already happening, though in slow motion.
(7) SURPRISE—THE IRAQI CENTER HOLDS: The democratic government proves to be resilient and popular. The assumption behind this scenario is that Iraq’s new democratic government is just responsive enough and its security forces are just strong enough to withstand attacks by extremists and give Iran pause. After several months of brutal warfare, the Iraqi Army destroys insurgent groups.
Out of seven possible “rapid withdrawal” scenarios only one –number seven– clearly benefits the majority of Iraqis. And the US. And the civilized world.
I am not clear on the practical difference between the “Gang Up” and “Shia Dictatorship” scenarios. Is it that in the “Gang Up” scenario there would be a number of warlords controlling Iraq while in “Shia Dictatorship” there would be a Shia version of Saddam?
Comment by Jim S — 7/12/2007 @ 6:35 am
I don’t think the “Turkey Expands” scenario is realistic. The Turks should know as well as anyone that the PKK isn’t an agent of the Kurdish government. Put that together with the demonstrated military effectiveness of the Pesh Merga and the fact that Kurdistan is a genuine warm friend and ally of the US, and it’s hard to imagine Turkey accepting the political and blood cost of an invasion. If someone wanted to proactively manage that situation, they might try to work a trade of sunni arab territory in Iraq for Kurdish areas of Turkey, satisfying the Turkish ego and removing most sympathy for the PKK’s insurgency.
Comment by Stacy — 7/12/2007 @ 6:46 am
While I hope for “Iraq Center Holds”, I fear some variant of “Chaos” wherein Iraq becomes battleground, with Iran, Syria, and Turkey as main sources of jackassery. In partial answer to Stacy, the blood cost of an invasion right now is balanced by two things: US forces in Iraq and the northern Kurdish regions not moving determinedly toward independence. Once we’re out, and the rest of Iraq continues its descent into hell, it’s quite possible that Kurdish Iraq will declare an independent Kurdistan… and then it’s Katy bar the door for Turkey. That’s exactly what they *don’t* want– an independent nation of Kurds just next door to their own large subservient Kurdish population. I think they’ll pay the relatively small blood cost now to avoid the disastrous costs later.
Comment by chess h — 7/12/2007 @ 8:04 am
Funny how the New York Times thinks that Number 6 is a more pleasant prospect than the continued presence of American troops to prevent that from happening.
Comment by section9 — 7/12/2007 @ 8:34 am
I like #2 the best, and actually think in the long run, that might the best overall solution. The left is fond of attributing all woes in the region to US actions and support of Israel, but it would become clear to all that Israel was the distraction, the “Israel card”, masking the real endemic problems. In fact, as bloody a solution as it would be, it might in the long run serve US interests best. The real unsettled problems are being papered over and the Iraq project was perhaps the last, best hope of avoiding the inevitable. Wars, especially long and brutal ones, change even the victorious nations in ways they could never foresee. Look at post Civil War or post WW2 US. The former saw a vastly expanded federal power, the latter an internationalist and interventionist world power. The social changes from both, not the slavery issue, but the progressive movements of the 1880’s, as well as the civil rights and women’s movement both have their genesis in the wars that preceded them. While the goal was to defeat an enemy, at all costs, what emerged was entirely new and unforeseen. So too with a post Mesopotamian War middle east. What would emerge I imagine would be far more congenial to open, democratic, liberal societies. Those who began and ran the wars would have far less control over their societies, and such a war would spur the west into far more use of domestic oil, nuclear energy, and other alternative fuels. They would emerge with far less inherent wealth and clout with the world. Surely no regime such as the Iranians, could survive such a war. The region could descend into a plurality of semi-feudal autonomous regional city states, the ancient Greeks without philosophy and culture, but far more warlike. Or it could emerge out of its pre-modern fantasy and embrace modernity. Either way, state sponsored terrorism wanes. And the most bellicose of states, Iran and Syria, are not the players they once were. Nuclear Pakistan has no dog in the fight and without Soviet influence, the war would be far shorter and less decisive to a particular victor. And as for aQ gaining popularity, already from Mosul to Baqubah to Ramamdi, their true nature has been displayed and is being rejected. I’d like to think that the vast majority of the people would finally discover that the real problems were corrupt petrocrats, religious fanatics, and their use of bogus shibboleths such as the US and Israel. If nothing else, such a war would tremendously weaken that region and certainly give us respite while they immolate themselves.
Comment by Rob Mandel — 7/12/2007 @ 8:36 am
This is a good summary of likely outcomes for Iraq. I wonder, though, just what the likely outcome is for the United States ? For Iraq, my own bet is that the center doesn’t hold, and that we get some form of de-facto partition of the place, and radicalism getting a tremendous boost by our defeat. What then ? I think the hangover from this defeat is going to be far, far graver than that following defeat in Vietnam.
Comment by El Jefe Maximo — 7/12/2007 @ 8:57 am
Why are these only scenarios if we withdraw rapidly? It seems to me that these are all possibilities, regardless of what we do. Turkey’s ammasing troops near the border — and we’re in Iraq. Iran’s training Shiite militia’s — and we’re there. Al Qaeda has several footholds — and we’re there. The Sunnis are boycotting the government and being massacred by Shiites — and we’re there. The Sunni insurgency is powerful and active — and we’re there. Not that these things won’t get worse, but the roots of all of your scenarios are strongly in place, and our presence does not seem to be creating new scenarios. You could argue we’re increasing the chances of #7 — but #7 only happens in a real way if we leave. You could also argue that we’ve increased the likelihood of some of the other scenarios as well. Which leads me to my question — what are the scenarios if we stay?
Comment by Daniel — 7/12/2007 @ 9:07 am
Hmmm … and why not an Iranian-Syrian joint dismembering? Iran gets the south and east, Syria the rest, perhaps with Turkey taking the non-oil portions of Kurdistan.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 7/12/2007 @ 9:43 am
Some stray observations: 1. Sure, Turkey might invade Kurdistan. But what makes them think they won’t get bogged down into their own “quagmire?” I think all we’d have to do would be to arm the Kurds to the teeth with advanced AT and AA systems. Then we need only tell the Turks, “Go ahead and invade–if you’re willing to accept Russian Front-level casualty rates among your troops.” 2. Yes, I suspect Iran is already licking its chops in expectation of grabbing the Shiite regions. But what makes them think Shi’a Iraq won’t turn into their own personal tar baby? The Iranians have damn little to offer in the way of assistance–economic or otherwise. Religious fervor doesn’t put food on the table or shoes on little Mohammed’s feet. Something tells me that if, or when, the Iranians grab a chunk of Iraq, they’d quickly wear out their welcome; after all, the Iraqi Shi’a are Arabs, not Persians. And, if history is any guide, the Iraqis would be even more of a pain in the ass to the Iranians than they’ve been to us; indeed, the Iraqis may well mount their own insurgency against the mullahs. In short, I think we must, and shall, succeed in Iraq. However, if worse comes to worse, the best exit strategy for us would be to ensure that if WE can’t win in Iraq…then everybody else who tries to pick up the pieces will LOSE.
Comment by MarkJ — 7/12/2007 @ 9:52 am
I think you might be underestimating the tenacity of the Sunnis within scenario #4. History suggests they would be more than capable of doing what it takes to consolidate power once US forces left. The Sunnis have shown a willingness to take the battle deep into Shiite territory, but you never hear about Shiite militants operating in the Sunni triangle. I personally think, since its painfully obvious that the Iraqis are never going to be able to peacefully co-exist in a united Democratic society, another Sunni controlled dictatorship is the best possible scenario. They, at least, would grasp the urgency of destroying the Iranian Nuclear program, and would make willing and more capable proxies against Iran than Israel. Which, in reality, was one of our main original goals.
Comment by RT — 7/12/2007 @ 10:21 am
Consider the question I sent to the President: Mr. President: I hear your speeches, which explain little and sound like spin from your spin doctors. I am very well educated and follow the news closely. What you need to explain to the likes of myself is the following, which has become totally blurred in the past few years: Whom are we NOT fighting in Iraq? Question: Bush wants to hold out for Victory in Iraq. Victory over whom? We are fighting the Shia militias, the Sunni insurgents, and the Al Qaeda terrorists who are out to kill Americans and create chaos. Who is with us? The population at large, the silent majority (?) does not support us or help us by informing the troops about IEDs and where Al Qaeda is. Most Iraqis want us out, because we contribute to the chaos. WE have no friends there except the fair weather ones who benefit from our shoveling out cash. Military victory is out of the question. Is peace between Sunnis and Shia something to expect after they have fought and hated each other for 1300 years? Less likely than a bipartisan policy under Bush leadership. You are not making the case.
Comment by Gunther Steinberg — 7/12/2007 @ 11:34 am
Seven scenarios Austin bay posits seven scenarios in the wake of a quick US withdrawal from Iraq, and only one is any good for the US.
Trackback by Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy — 7/12/2007 @ 11:48 am
My take on your quick seven: #1. I recently heard there was a discovery of an oil field in Western Iraq. That might end up being the answer to the oil sharing debacle. Have you heard about that? #2. That fear needs to be stoked in the KSA. Not only is their Iraqi buffer dissolved, a nuclear armed Iran “don’t need no stinkin’ bufferâ€! Interesting that there is a delegation of Arabs into Israel for “talksâ€. #3 in my opinion won’t happen because as you say that nixes the EU membership and US relationship. #4 will lead to #2 #5 won’t be allowed to happen while Bush is in office. If a new Democratic President creates conditions for that scenario, then we’ll be right back in there under the guise of cleaning up “Bush’s messâ€. #6 seems to be their current strategy. But I don’t think Iran can threaten the Sunni Arab counties to keep out of it without a nuclear weapon. Everyone in that region has to be absolutely stupid if they don’t see that’s what Iran is all in a hurry about. It’s not Israel, “it’s Iraq stupidâ€. This scenario will lead to #2. I still hopeful for #7. But I don’t think it comes about with a rapid withdrawal. Yon’s latest dispatch about the 1920’s joining forces with IA and US in Baqubah is probably the coming situation. First in Anbar and now in Diyala. As to your coming piece on the 26th IL: Have you looked at this genealogy research site? http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilcivilw/ Here’s the link to the webpage for the State: http://ilgenweb.rootsweb.com/ Also you might consider subscribing to the mail list so you can post to the message board for any descendants of the 26th that might have some personal letters or items of interest they would share with you. You’ll need to give some time for responses and might have to post it weekly or so. Select the digest format and you will get multiple responses in one email. You might get lucky. You can unsubscribe easily. http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/usa/IL/misc.html#IL-CIVIL-WAR
Comment by Texas Gal — 7/12/2007 @ 11:48 am
How about a #2 variant. Iran invades, Iraqis unite against an old foe, calls for US assistance, which is freely given with a healthy dose of American air firepower. Sunni Arabs from Eqypt, Jordon and Saudi Arabia lend support to their Arab brothers The new Iraqi army, American trained, equipped and supported by American airpower, is envigorated with new found patriotism and puts the serious hurt on the Iranians, driving them from Iraqi soil in a rout. Ten of thousands of Iranians lie dead on the battlefield, the Iranian Army broken. The Iranian disaster in Iraq causes an uprising in Iran and the mullahs and their ilk are overthrown in a bloody revolution. I seriously doubt the Iranians, and the Turks are going to invade for the above reason. The last thing they want is to unite the Iraqis and give the USAF and USN pilots some new targets.
Comment by Tarnsman — 7/12/2007 @ 12:35 pm
I agree with the last line in Mr. Steinburg’s letter, even if almost nothing else. The Bush administration has done a terrible job of informing the U.S. public about the stakes involved in Iraq. And that, among other reasons, as led to the empty “all or nothing” public debate we now have. Of course the Iraqis want us to leave. But a closer examination of most of these polls show that they want us to complete the mission of bringing stability first. Fouad Ajami, respected scholar on the ME, confirmed this conclusion this morning during a Denis Prager interview. Daniel’s last question is also a good one - what are the scenarios if we stay? We complete the COIN strategy and bring stability and shift our focus to Iran or the COIN strategy fails and we depart. If the latter, then you return to Austin Bay’s scenarios, minus # 7. At that point we have to wait for Hillary to come up with her answers to the ME mess.
Comment by JohnSal — 7/12/2007 @ 1:03 pm
Initial Benchmark Assessment Report : Iraq Either way, as we explained yesterday, the Democratically controlled Congress and Senate will do exactly as they did with the emergency supplemental bill, and pass legislation with some sort of timelines, which the President will veto, again, and whi…
Trackback by Wake up America — 7/12/2007 @ 1:19 pm
My pick would be a variation of #2 where a semi-regional Sunni vs Shia conflict occupies the south while a Turkey vs Kurdistan struggle threatens to careen out of control in the north.
Comment by PatD — 7/12/2007 @ 1:57 pm
From a cynical point of view, number 2 would be fine. Having the Islamic world turn in on itself would be OK. I don’t see Turkey expanding. Going into the Kurdish region would defy common sense, and I don’t see Turkey wanting to take under its suzerainity a host of restive Kurds. Number 7 is possible, but would require an significantly extended presence of US troops. This is hard to imagine, given the fact that our politicians can’t see anything beyond the next election and a media that has the collective IQ of a fruit fly.
Comment by Rich — 7/12/2007 @ 4:37 pm
The House of Sa’ud and to a lesser extent the other ruling families in Kuwait and the UAE have a very real fear/hate of the Sh’ia and Iran. All them nations on the Arab penninsula have money and lots of it to toss at the problem of Iraq. I would be interested in seeing your observations on what Saudi Arabia and the UAE can do.
Comment by An Old Sapper — 7/12/2007 @ 7:47 pm
Do not discount #7 even if we leave quickly, especially now that Anbar has settled down. Many countries in the world face insurgencies - the state is hard to kill. See Colombia, Philippines, Peru, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Sudan, Ethiopia, the list is very long. Look at Lebanon - sure its dysfunctional but it held together for many years, though Hezbullahland does exist. Also for the people who think that Iraq will break up…keep in mind Saddam Huessein managed to fight Shia Iran with a mainly Shia army. Iraqi/Arab nationalism is not that weak.
Comment by Aaron — 7/12/2007 @ 7:58 pm
If you are truly a Civil Wat buff, I suggest you look beyond individual State units in that fray, and find out which nation saved Lincoln and the Union and is totally forgotten and ignored by historians all over the world. I will send written documentation if you wish.
Comment by Gerald Looney, MD — 7/12/2007 @ 8:46 pm
If Congress forces a defeat for the US in Iraq, al Qaeda will probably get a huge boost in prestige. But I would predict that another Saddam-esque maniac would most likely arise and unify most or all of Iraq. Call it Scenario #8. I find the notion of chaos (Scenario #6) in an oil-rich nation like Iraq unbelievable. Someone will quickly snatch up most or all of it - and that someone will be the strongest and most ruthless. The scenarios that have Turkey or Iran gobbling up parts of Iraq are possible but not likely, in my view. Both countries have enough internal troubles of their own. It would not surprise me if this “new Saddam” turns out to be more media savvy than the original. Imagine a Middle East Hugo Chavez-type demagogue sitting atop all that Iraqi oil. I also suspect that the new Iraqi strongman could have an even closer relationship with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups than Saddam did if he wished. Let’s see Pelosi and Reid explain away that, if it comes to pass. When you try to boot major problems down the road (as the Democrat-controlled Congress is attempting to do), don’t be surprised if they come back to you sooner than you expect - and bigger than you feared.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 7/13/2007 @ 12:31 am
Mwalimu Daudi: “I would predict that another Saddam-esque maniac would most likely arise and unify most or all of Iraq. Call it Scenario #8.” Agreed..with Chinese support…China has a record of supporting unsavory characters for political/economic gain. China gets: –Client State in the Middle East –Prestige as a “peacemaker” at the expense of the US –Physical supply of oil –Bargaining chip to prevent the West from defending Taiwan. –Pressure point on a NATO ally (Turkey) - would require expensive redeployment of US troops to Turkey, with obvious friction between US troops and Islamists. I think the Democrats would trade anything to avoid #6, and if Hillary is elected, the Clintons already have a “special relationship” with the Chinese. If Obama is elected, he is naive enough to let the Chinese lead hime around by the nose.
Comment by bristlecone — 7/13/2007 @ 5:43 am
Here’s my two cents. I think that Iraq is currently experiencing the ‘hollowing out’ of the state described in 4GW theory. Unable to provide basic services, marginalized and seen as ineffective, riven by racial and religious hatred, victimized by various groups and nations for their own gain, etc. I do not think Turkey can easily seize Kurdistan. The Turkish military thinks it is the essential martial hotness, but - especially if we give material support to the Kurds - an invasion will be regretted in 6 months, and cause the Turkish government to fall within a year. If we leave troops in Kurdistan, then an invasion will be off the table. Turkey knows that’s one fight they would lose big time. The Sunnis are basically illogical and semi-suicidal. There is no way they can gain control of the Shia areas of Iraq again. Instead, I see a genocide of Sunnis in the Shia-controlled areas - including Baghdad. Without a U.S. presence, they’d go at it like rabid dogs with guns. I can’t see whose military is going to protect them if we are gone, and Iran withdraws material support. Maybe China or Russia, but if they have no oil to offer, they may just find themselves the biggest losers in what may well turn out to be ‘the former Iraq.’ I’m thinking Iran may decide to create a client state in the south, but wonder if arab Shias and farsi Shias won’t soon be at each other’s throats. Here is where the Chinese may decide to patronize the ‘formerly Iraqi’ Shias, in which case Iran may come to regret ever getting involved. I don’t see a resultant revolution in Iran, though. The people there seem to want only to live their own lives in as much comfort as they can muster, disengaged from their government’s foreign adventures. The end result? Kurdistan, either at peace thanks to a U.S. presence, or in a decade-long guerilla war with Turkish invaders. Sunnistan, small, abused, the palestinians of the region, always looking for patrons, always in turmoil, always used by others, a violent ghetto writ large. Shiastan, eventually an independent state - possibly an Iranian client. No peace for a decade - maybe a generation. All of this is predicated on a U.S. withdrawal; I can’t imagine a Dem as president doing otherwise. The question is how precipitous, and whether we’ll once again desert the Kurds.
Comment by Steve — 7/13/2007 @ 8:06 am
Steve: “Sunnistan, small, abused, the palestinians of the region, always looking for patrons, always in turmoil, always used by others, a violent ghetto writ large. ” Interesting comparison to the Palestinians - in this case, instead of feeling “abused” (not to say they actually are, merely perceptions) by the Israelis, they are actually being abused by the Shias, so blaming the West gets less traction than in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I wonder what Al Queda’s and Saudi Arabia’s response to that will be, and whether it might spark a wider internecine Islamic civil war (perhaps leading to an overdue Reformation?) In general, do people tend to break along ethnic/tribal or religious lines?
Comment by John Galt — 7/13/2007 @ 10:26 am
If the US abandons Iraq, either 1) under Bush declaring a phony ‘victory’ and leaving or 2) the House voting to cut off funds or 3) in early 2009 under Hillary or Obama simply pulling out, Iran will be the one to gain the most. They will control the Iraqi Shi’a with money, arms and Islamic Shi’a fraternity and always the possibility of force. No need to rile the Arab Shi’a with their Persian presence. Surely they can create a pro-Iranian armed faction or even a puppet Arab Shiite (al Sadr?)leader in place to give them control without actual occupation. Basically they will fill the power vacuum in Southern Iraq once we and the Brits leave. They’ll control most of the oil in Iraq as well as its major export point. When we leave Iraq, and I believe we will quit, we also will abandon any pretense of militarily eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapon development. Israel simply can’t do it alone this time, conventionally anyway. Can anyone foresee a scenario where Hillary or Obama would risk one or more aircraft carriers in a unilateral, sustained bombing campaign against geographically widespread, hardened and well defended nuclear targets? Making that less likely would be the posture of the United Nations to such an action and the probability that president Hillary or Obama would likely be embroiled in domestic debates about tax increases and universal health care. The bottom line is, IMHO, Iran goes nuclear in 2010 at the latest with no real opposition from us as one result of us leaving the area. They will control much of Iraq’s oil as well. Turkey, with its focus toward Europe and currently secular, may not be able to politically sustain the casualties incumbent with a takeover of the Kurdish portion of a dismembered Iraq. If they’re shunned by the European Community for such an act, they may turn Eastward. They are, after all, Islamic with internal factions demanding an Islamic state. It may be wise for them to seek agreement with former Iraqi Kurds, to protect them and their oil from Iran and Syria in exchange for a reduction in activity by the PKK and even acceptance of some Kurdish migration out of Turkey. That might be workable. The Turks might do well to review the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan. Note: if the Turks do invade Kurdish Iraq, we will not do anything except exclaim our surprise and dismay. We may send them some arms if we’re still there but we won’t fight Turks. However, if we’re gone by that time, you’ll hear Hillary’s Sec. of State “Well let’s see, Kurds? Kurds? Are they in Florida? Ohio? Wasn’t Salladin a Kurd? Screw them!” The Sunni’s will be the big losers when we leave. Their only protectors will be Syria, al Qaida and Sunni Arab oil money. As someone mentioned above, they will be a bunch of rabid pseudo Palestinians, lobbing rockets and bombs at everybody including themselves with their sure-to-emerge myriad of factions and blaming their misery on us and guess who? Like their brothers across the Jordan, never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Let me add one other thing, once out we’ll never take military action in the Middle East again! Ahmadinejad will pray at the Wailing Wall first! America just won’t take casualties and the world knows it.
Comment by Jerry — 7/13/2007 @ 11:25 am
Then what? Reasonable folks can have different opinions about whether the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do in 2003. This is of interest only to historians. Reasonable folks can have different opinions about whether the Iraqi military and police should
Trackback by Virtual Fret Noise — 7/14/2007 @ 1:13 am
I do not know if the Iranian people have the stomach, or the resources, for a full blown war.
Comment by davod — 7/14/2007 @ 2:49 am
Religion often gets in the way of politics and in some countries totaly dominates it. Option 7 would be a surprise to the whole world and probably the only option I would put money on that it would not happen. I think religion will determine the final outcone, whether extremist or general I do not know, but if we dont pu;; out soon, my children will be discussing the same things in their blogs. Mark
Comment by Mark F — 7/15/2007 @ 7:01 am
Dear Col. Bay: I used to love these types of projections when you and Mr. Dunnigan would put them in the “How to Make War” books that you would write. Is there any prospect of putting this type of scenario analysis, with the attendant probablities, on StrategyPage? When I suggested this a while ago, it seemed that this was too expensive, but this might be added as a “for pay” feature. ED NOTE: There is a chance Jim Dunnigan and I will do a few of these “projections” next year for StrategyPage. However, they are time consuming. Jim and I have agreed to write a fourth edition of A Quick and Dirty Guide to War– just signed the contract two weeks ago, as a matter of fact. Paladin Press will publish it in paperback. More on this later.
Comment by rpl — 7/15/2007 @ 8:30 am
The interesting aspect of reading these comments is that the consequences of the actions we take today are thought about by public but rarely discussed in detail by the MSM and much of our leadership. Austin’s 7 scenarios are part of an upcoming project that applies context to issues and events in the political and world affairs arena. These comments are a good evaluating tool for these scenarios. Some very good observations made here. David Robison
Comment by david — 7/15/2007 @ 1:06 pm
Great site! Would you consider a link exchange to the Internet Radio Network. At the IRN you can listen to over 27 of America’s top Talk Shows via FREE STREAMING AUDIO! http://netradionetwork.com
Comment by Steve — 7/20/2007 @ 2:09 pm
Hats off to Gunther Steinberg for his comment in free verse. As imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I will comment likewise: I fear not proposition #2 for it is as Rob Mandel has stated - an eloquent reminder to the whole world that we (the US) are not the enemy of the Muslim, …nor is Israel… but, rather, let it be repeated again: it is truly the Muslim who is the enemy of the Muslim.
Comment by Rip Rowan — 7/21/2007 @ 8:29 am
Steinberg; Wotta maroon. Bought into every single line of rationalization for terror every splinter group and militia has issued. Must be horribly “kinetic” in your brain. As for Anbar; Has no-one been following the news? Projected reserves in Anbar now stand at ~100 bn bbl. Yes, you read right. That makes for 100/215 of the new Iraqi projected + proven reserves total. The Anbar Sunni are therefore 3X oil-richer per capita than the ROI. Changes a few of the calculations and scenarios, doesn’t it? An the largest natural gas field in Iraq has just been reported, from Ninevah to the KSA border. Right through western Iraq. Sunni territory. Gorsh! And I suggest y’all read up a bit on Sheikh Abdul Sattar of the Abu Risha, founder of the Anbar Awakening. 35-yr old pro-Western pro-Iraqi Sunni dynamo. You’ll hate him.
Comment by Brian H — 7/23/2007 @ 8:02 am
[…] TO KILL A FRUIT FLY | Hedda LettuceStag Beetle | What's That Bug?Best iPhone apps, iPhone application development, iPhone programming, iPhone featuresApplera Corporation, Job Loss, Layoffs, Perkin Elmer | EmploymentSpectator | Employment NewsAustin Bay Blog » Quick US Exit From Iraq: Seven Scenarios […]
Pingback by Eliminate Fruit Flies Now! | 7Wins.eu — 12/11/2009 @ 11:17 am