The collapse of Basra shows the problem of pulling out of Iraq. But it also shows how the divisions in Iraq are deep and complicated and how they may intensify no matter if we leave Iraq tomorrow or in 10 years.
Basra in south Iraq had been hailed as a success story. But as British forces have pulled back, violence has taken over, the Washington Post reported. But it’s not Sunnis against Shiites; it’s Shiite militias battling one another for control. As a result, the city is now plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," according to a report by the International Crisis Group.
U.S. officials in Baghdad worry that what has happened in Basra could happen to the Iraqi national government when the United States leaves: Shiites will turn on one another, and the government will collapse — not that it isn’t already almost at that point.
But is a collapse inevitable no matter when we leave? And if so, should we leave sooner rather than later?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
24 Comments
Put a plate for each guest at the table has always worked in the past.
If the Basra Iraqis know they will be enjoying the Oil revenue with even split, then most likely the violence will dissipate.
If a group is known to violate the Oil Sharing program, then they would lose their seat at the table.
It might work.
This sounds similar to what happened in Colonial U.S. That is, different tribes and even sects of Native American tribes attacked each other over land, hunting and reigning rights.
But is a collapse inevitable no matter when we leave? And if so, should we leave sooner rather than later?Posted by Phillip Brownlee
August 09, 2007 in Iraq | Permalink
yes, i am afraid it is inevitable, and yes, we should let them have it, and let them finish each other off, and no whining about the humanitarian
It isn’t about money. It seems to be about religion and power. These guys die for both. You can set all the seats you want, they will still kill themselves and as many as they can take with them.
Has there ever been a more clear sign? LET’S GET THE HELL OUT OF DODGE !!!!!
C’mon home boys. GREAT damn job. Happy as hell with ya. You did everything you could. Now just bring your tails home now….
Shiites will fight Sunnis until that war is over, then turn on each other. It’s survival of the fittest there.
Iraq will never agree to privatized foreign ownership that bush is pushing down their throats.
Traitor dems are already planning to allow unfettered access to America for unvetted Iraqi muslim “refugees”. We should withdraw and leave those people to their own fate, no more dead Americans and no flooding our country with worthless refugees as we did after korea, vietnam, somalia, etc, it is time to break the cycle.
The choices are probably either we stay for many more decades or we should leave now. It will take probably 10 to 20 more years to get that country to the point where we can even REDUCE our presence there. We are the only glue holding it together now and the people there are just chompin at the bit for a fight. My feeling is that we probably have another Korea situation and our grandchildren will be over there too.
“Traitor dems are already planning to allow unfettered access to America for unvetted Iraqi muslim “refugees”. We should withdraw and leave those people to their own fate, no more dead Americans and no flooding our country with worthless refugees as we did after korea, vietnam, somalia, etc, it is time to break the cycle.”
We have to be very careful about these folks. While we might find their help with our invasion good, if you turn that around and think about people that would turn on their own people and their own country – in most cases for money- usually are not the kind of citizens you want. Who is to say that, if Al Queada offers them some cash, they will not turn on us? A better option would be to find another Muslim country like Jordan or Egypt to take them.
If you want to know how this is going to turn out, think Soviets in Afghanistan. The Soviets broke their military fighting a very similar kind of war. They also bankrupted their nation because they didn’t have sense enough to know when to get out.
Sound familiar?
“President Bush said he hoped al-Maliki’s message to Tehran would be the same as the U.S. message — that Iran should halt the export of sophisticated explosive devices used to attack U.S. troops in Iraq or “there will be consequences.”
But under his breathe he said the Saudis could do whatever they want and if it cause the death of Americans, thats the way it goes.Traitor Rebups hate America. Why is that?
Anti,
If you have a transcript of Bush saying that, I’d love to see it.
Otherwise, skip the hyperbole and stick to the _real_ failings of the Bush administration. Making crap up just makes you look stupid.
“Traitor dems are already planning to allow unfettered access to America for unvetted Iraqi muslim “refugees”.Posted by: Gul Dukat | August 09, 2007 at 02:45 PMAnd this guy is just so smart!
Forget the transcript, Just look at his actions, Iranians do things which kill Americans he says “there will be consequences.”
Saudis do things which kill Americans he sells them weapons
“If you want to know how this is going to turn out, think Soviets in Afghanistan. The Soviets broke their military fighting a very similar kind of war. They also bankrupted their nation because they didn’t have sense enough to know when to get out.”
Only back then it was us supporting (OBL) those against the Soviets
Gul, it was your boy BushDaBum who deliberately created millions of refugees. Now it comes as no surprise that you would happily see them all die. It is traitors like you who endanger this country by harboring the REAL terrorists – the Saudis.
Bush told us that Basra was the model for the new Iraq. He was right – for once!
The Iraqis who are in the most serious trouble are the traitors who sided with the invaders of their country. Now they will REALLY be alone when our puppet government collapses. Bush was told this would happen; the blood is on his hands – and those of his fellow travelers.
“This sounds similar to what happened in Colonial U.S. That is, different tribes and even sects of Native American tribes attacked each other over land, hunting and reigning rights.”
is that before all the christians killed the men, women, and their children to steal their land, or after?
Traitor dems are already planning to allow unfettered access to America for unvetted Iraqi muslim “refugees”.
We should withdraw and leave those people to their own fate, no more dead Americans and no flooding our country with worthless refugees as we did after korea, vietnam, somalia, etc, it is time to break the cycle.
Posted by: Gul Dukat
first those “Traitor dems” wanted us out of iraq and you called them traitors, and cut and run dems.
now you act like it’s a new idea you repugs thought of.
“We should withdraw.”so… now you neo-CONS want to cut and run?
i guess “cut and run” will be replaced by a cute litte phrase thought up by karl rove?
most of the vietnam refugees i’ve talked to were brought here by the catholic church, as long as they promised to become catholics and give money to the church.
so you are afraid of a little foreign competition?george bush says foreign competition is good for our country.
well, as long as he profits from it.
—–
We have to be very careful about these folks.
WE HAVE KILLED A RELATIVE OF JUST ABOUT EVERYONE OF “THOSE PEOPLE”
While we might find their help with our invasion good, if you turn that around and think about people that would turn on their own people and their own country – in most cases for money- usually are not the kind of citizens you want.
AND, WHAT HAS BUSH AND HIS GROUP OF THUGS DONE TO US??YOU DESCRIBED THEM TO THE “T”.
Who is to say that, if Al Queada offers them some cash, they will not turn on us?
THEY HATE US BECAUSE WE INVADED THEIR COUNTRY AND WE HAVE KILLED
SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSANDS OF THEM.
Posted by: Kev
DO YOU EVER WONDER WHY WE ARE BUILDING THE BIGGEST EMBASY BUILDING IN THE WORLD THERE??
BUSH GAVE THE CONTRACT TO A FRENCH COMPANY.
Yup.
Those of us who said that invading Iraq was a bad idea because it would start a civil war?
We were right.
Actually, that’s what Cheney said.
In 1992.
Here is what Cheney said in ‘92:”I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. . . . And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don’t think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war. . . . And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we’d have had to hunt him down. And once we’d done that and we’d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we’d have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi’i government or a Kurdish government or Ba’athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.—Cheney at the Washington Institute’s Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991
It would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
Dick Cheney
F***in A.
Yep, Capn, the irony is just too sweet.
The old saw of the “unforseen consequences” kind of loses its validity, doesn’t it. They knew full well what we were getting in to. (Except for maybe clueless George.)
Some war on terror Bushllit’s gotten us into. The only difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that Iraq has less jungle and more oil, and we have fewer allies.
Meanwhile, six years into this war on terror, Osama’s head has yet to be stuck on a pole in the East Lawn; in fact, he’s stronger than ever! Some war!