DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**BundEnhamma** · 04-07-2007, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by lord of the mark
afghanistan is bordered by Pakistan, Iran, and the Russian dominated central Asian stans. Paki, Iran and Russia all had substantial interest in the outcome in Afghan. And conflicts with each other. The net result was a state dominated by the pro-Pakistan Taliban, who were aligned with AQ. And before anyone says that no state would dare to ally the way Pakistan did then, I give you Pakistan today, and Waziristan.

An analagous, if not identical, situation, could still take place in Iraq. I dont see the configuration of nearby powers, or the terrain, preventing that. The proximity of US force is a difference, assuming a future US govt has the stomach to go back into Iraq to alter the balance against any faction that is protecting AQ.

The real question is whether there is any net benefit, either in terms of political progress in Iraqi reconciliation, or in improvement in the Iraqi army, from a continued US presence in say, the next 24 months. If not, then we might as well leave now, as the negative consequences of withdrawl will be no worse, and we could begin to rebuild our army. However a full analysis of that would require a detailed look at current Iraqi political situation, including the oil deal, the debaathification proposal, the ferment in Anbar, and the possibility of new alignments in the Iraqi parliament, rather than a "theyre just hopeless Arabs" snark, despite how much the events since Jan 2005 would seem to justify that. The question remains on how our withdrawal will help with the WOT. It surely will help the US armed forces, but that is not the question.

04-07-2007, 12:26 AM	#9
BundEnhamma Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 448 Senior Member	Originally posted by lord of the mark afghanistan is bordered by Pakistan, Iran, and the Russian dominated central Asian stans. Paki, Iran and Russia all had substantial interest in the outcome in Afghan. And conflicts with each other. The net result was a state dominated by the pro-Pakistan Taliban, who were aligned with AQ. And before anyone says that no state would dare to ally the way Pakistan did then, I give you Pakistan today, and Waziristan. An analagous, if not identical, situation, could still take place in Iraq. I dont see the configuration of nearby powers, or the terrain, preventing that. The proximity of US force is a difference, assuming a future US govt has the stomach to go back into Iraq to alter the balance against any faction that is protecting AQ. The real question is whether there is any net benefit, either in terms of political progress in Iraqi reconciliation, or in improvement in the Iraqi army, from a continued US presence in say, the next 24 months. If not, then we might as well leave now, as the negative consequences of withdrawl will be no worse, and we could begin to rebuild our army. However a full analysis of that would require a detailed look at current Iraqi political situation, including the oil deal, the debaathification proposal, the ferment in Anbar, and the possibility of new alignments in the Iraqi parliament, rather than a "theyre just hopeless Arabs" snark, despite how much the events since Jan 2005 would seem to justify that. The question remains on how our withdrawal will help with the WOT. It surely will help the US armed forces, but that is not the question.
	Quote