IRAQ: Predict the Future (TM)

[DaShi]

Iraq will become the new center of peace on Earth. After the rapture, of course.

[Zkribbler]

Call me a Pollyanna optimist if you'd like , but I predict:

(1) That the Shia will be smart enough to repect the Sunnis' minority rights
(2) That the US will be smart enough to have the majority of troops out my election day 2006, and
(3) That with the withdrawl of US forces and with the Sunnis placated, the insurgency will peter out
(4) That although the al Qaeda forces will not be placated, the Iraqi security forces will be strong enough to stomp them.

[germanos]

US/UK troops will stay at least untill Bush leaves the White House. The level of troops will be reduced with a quarter, at best half their current deployment.

The larger the troop reduction, the worse it will be for Iraq: the less western influence (read: force) the more corruption, terror (both insurgents and 'government' abuse of power) and influence for islamists.

Iraq will not be allowed to desintegrate into seperate 'states': all mayor players in the region have their interests in keeping Iraq a whole entity. US, Iran, Saudi will all do their best to get their own guys on top, resulting in a devided, war-torn Iraq. Turkey will do everything in its power to prevent an emergence of some sort of independent Kurdish entity.
The current level of violence will stay as it is. The only shift I suspect is the means by which this violence is projected: it will turn (once again) into state-terror, basically meaning a return to the Saddam era of a police-state, with little room for a rule-of-law, and therefore making Iraq all but a democracy to shine as a beacon for the near- and middle-east.

The only real wild-cards are Iran and Syria: essentially how the US will deal with both of them. But even then, I think that whatever happens to them will not make a significant change to the scenario I stated above: if war will spread to either of these countries, it will definately not benefit the stability of Iraq itself.

[Dr Strangelove]

Once US forces are out Iraq will descend into civil war. The surrounding nations will be drawn in. Probably Iran will be the first to intervene, beginning with covert aid, then as they discover the frustration of trying to fight suicide forces they'll render aid more openly. This will draw in the Syrians. If the country fragments, allowing the specter of an independent Kurdistan the Turks will intervene. Hopefully the non-Iraqi participants will have the sense not to attack each other, instead fighting a proxy war in Iraq.

On the bright side as more middle eastern factions get drawn into the civil war they may eventually discover that suicide warfare really sucks and they may decide to discourage it in the future.

[alva]

Hmm, if Cameron's star keeps rising or at least stays on the firmament, the English troops could be home fast, the moment Brown comes to power.

[Berzerker]

(1) That the Shia will be smart enough to repect the Sunnis' minority rights

(2) That the US will be smart enough to have the majority of troops out my election day 2006, and

(3) That with the withdrawl of US forces and with the Sunnis placated, the insurgency will peter out

(4) That although the al Qaeda forces will not be placated, the Iraqi security forces will be strong enough to stomp them.

(1) is the tough part, lotta people in Iran and Iraq with vengeance on their minds. But I would bet on your prediction coming true.

[Berzerker]

Oh wait, I forgot we want Iraq for our war on terrorism. We cant leave, we want the terrorists to take up the Sunni cause as a cover for their goals and fight us there instead of here.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Oh wait, I forgot we want Iraq for our war on terrorism. We cant leave, we want the terrorists to take up the Sunni cause as a cover for their goals and fight us there instead of here.

Yeah, let the terrorists kill Sunnis instead of Christians!

[Az]

Care to elucidate what the **** "American goals" are? cause the only ones I can think of ARE pie in the sky over which the US has 0 control.

A vague ideological notion set in a far away future is not a "policy victory" in any realisitic sense of the word.

Hell if I know - I don't even know who really sets them. This doesn't change the question - can the US achieve them - I believe the US can, if the leadership puts it's mind into it. That's a big if - but it's still in the realm of possibility. ( unless they're a physical impossibility )

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Yeah, let the terrorists kill Sunnis instead of Christians!

Actually they seem, to be set upon killing Shiites and Christians.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az
Hell if I know - I don't even know who really sets them. This doesn't change the question - can the US achieve them - I believe the US can, if the leadership puts it's mind into it. That's a big if - but it's still in the realm of possibility. ( unless they're a physical impossibility )

You can;t force people into a liberal democracy. That is an impossiblity by definition.

[Az]

You can;t force people into a liberal democracy. That is an impossiblity by definition.

No it isn't - a liberal democracy is a social structure and a system of government. these two can be 'forced' - by destroying current social structures that are undemocratic by definition - systems which indoctrinate the young are such systems.

A person cannot make a free choice if they have been brainwashed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az

You can;t force people into a liberal democracy. That is an impossiblity by definition.

No it isn't - a liberal democracy is a social structure and a system of government. these two can be 'forced' - by destroying current social structures that are undemocratic by definition - systems which indoctrinate the young are such systems.

A person cannot make a free choice if they have been brainwashed.

And building new institutions and making people believe in them is not brainwasing??? HELLO!

Both are attempts at indoctrination.

And any attem,pt by a complete outsider to force new systems unto the people undermines their legitimacy, specially in the times of nationalism. Just look at the general failure of previous attempts to force liberal western doctrines around the world. The few places were it worked, it was internal changes that laid the foundations, NOT, external heavy handedness.

[Az]

And building new institutions and making people believe in them is not brainwasing??? HELLO!

Both are attempts at indoctrination.

No, they aren't. You aren't forcing people to think a certain way, when you establish institutions.

As to "undermining legitimacy", it doesn't make it unworkable. It just another drag force you have to overcome.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az

And building new institutions and making people believe in them is not brainwasing??? HELLO!

Both are attempts at indoctrination.

No, they aren't. You aren't forcing people to think a certain way, when you establish institutions.

As to "undermining legitimacy", it doesn't make it unworkable. It just another drag force you have to overcome.

If you mean shallow ones, like ministries and police forces, fine. BUt if you attempt to change the underklying dynamics, or say force certain ideas upon people (like women's rights, or gay rights), then it is "brainwashing" as you so biasedly named it. And ir is those "liberal" noptions of human rights that the US supposedly is trying to "instill" in Iraq. And those are things you don't mandate in successfully.