Iraq after the war?

Bosh · March 5, 2003, 17:11

My money's on the Lebanon option, largely due to the Shia majority in the south whose only real political voice is the Islamist Da'wa.

DuncanK · March 5, 2003, 17:26

Just gotta pick workers' paradise

Shi Huangdi · March 5, 2003, 17:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Boshko
My money's on the Lebanon option, largely due to the Shia majority in the south whose only real political voice is the Islamist Da'wa.

The Iraqi Shi'ite have been crushed before when they tried to rise up. If needed, they can be crushed again.

Imran Siddiqui · March 5, 2003, 17:30

I pick Afghanistan.

Arrian · March 5, 2003, 17:31

As did I.

-Arrian

Wittlich · March 5, 2003, 17:33

I voted for option #4 - but I know the odds are against it happening.

Bosh · March 5, 2003, 17:41

Quote:

The Iraqi Shi'ite have been crushed before when they tried to rise up. If needed, they can be crushed again.

Right, they don't have the power to sieze control like in Iran but they DO have the power to do a lot, after all they are the majority of the population, which is why the US will do all it can to prevent the establishment of democracy in Iraq.

And something like Afghanistan isn't going to happen in Iraq, the countries are two different. In Afghanistan you could coopt the warlords on the ground with brides etc (something that was implemented quite well) and keep things nice and decentralized while keeping the existing local power-brokers happy. In Iraq there ARE no local power-brokers to coopt, since Iraq is vastly more centralized (with the exception of the North) than Afghanistan ever was. And for that matter there's no Northern Alliance, the closest thing you've got are the Kurds and there's no way Turkey will stand for the US using them in the way it used the Northern Alliance.
Also there's the oil. Its much harder to establish a loose decentralized coaltion government like in Afghanistan since any Iraqi powers that emerge will all want to be sitting on top of the oil wells.

Whatever happens, I really hope that the US doesn't **** the Kurds over for a third time, they seem to be doing fairly well at institution-building

Sandman · March 5, 2003, 17:47

You forgot DU-poisoned wasteland.

Shi Huangdi · March 5, 2003, 18:00

"Right, they don't have the power to sieze control like in Iran but they DO have the power to do a lot, after all they are the majority of the population, which is why the US will do all it can to prevent the establishment of democracy in Iraq."

Ah, but after Saddam crushed the region they stopped doing everything. If nessecary we have a working model in place to install order in the region. I am hoping however that won't be nessecary. As I mentioned before, most of the people in Shi'ite Iran are secularists(even if their governemnt is not), and Iraq has a long tradition of secular government. It is really hard to say right now whether the Iraqi Shi'ites will want an Islamist state or not. Hopefully once we have Iraq under occupation, it will be easier to learn where their sympathies lay and if they would be willing to go along with a secular, democratic government.

"Whatever happens, I really hope that the US doesn't **** the Kurds over for a third time, they seem to be doing fairly well at institution-building"

Hard to say. If the Turks refuse to cooperate, the Kurds could be in good shape. From what I have read though Kurdish militias are training and preparing to resist a Turkish invasion, if they try to fight the Turkish army they could be in trouble.

H Tower · March 5, 2003, 18:03

I picked Lebananon, although Afghanistan might get mixed in too, if only because the US decides to prop somebody up for a while

BeBro · March 5, 2003, 18:21

Isn´t 1 and 4 basically the same?

Kramerman · March 5, 2003, 19:08

it would be awesome if 1 works out, but it is very unlikely...

Skanky Burns · March 5, 2003, 19:32

I went for the 8th option, seems the most likely to me.

The Andy-Man · March 5, 2003, 19:34

I said nam, but lebanonn seems quite likley and the same about installing a leade similar to Sodamn insaine.

though a combo of all 3 is probably more likley.

PLATO · March 5, 2003, 19:45

The whole situation depends upon the level of committment the US has after the war. With the level of world dissent it may have a chance to be significant. I think a lot depends on how much it is kept in the public eye by the US media as well.

Hopefully the US will follow through with this and option one will come to fruition

GePap · March 5, 2003, 19:46

Very good poll, with a fine set of options, and not politically biased either.

Good job Boskho.

DanS · March 5, 2003, 19:54

I doubt the Islamicists will come to power outright. It's one of the silver linings of having rival religious factions within the country. Assume about half of all Shiites are secularists and it would be tough for the Shiites Islamicists to lead a coalition.

Personally, I'm pretty sanguine about the prospects for a #1 lite, as long as the US stays committed for a while, but doesn't overstay its welcome. It's a tough balancing act to be sure.

The Andy-Man · March 5, 2003, 20:09

The question is really weather the USA can afford the costs of a large standing army in the middle east.

Lincoln · March 5, 2003, 20:13

Afghanistan.

Sprayber · March 5, 2003, 20:22

Would you like me to tell ya'll how it turns out when I get over there

Inverse Icarus · March 5, 2003, 20:22

one giant airfield surrounded by a radioactive ring in the sand.

Uncle Sparky · March 5, 2003, 20:28

Which one is the WW III option?

The Kurds have already said they will move there forces south to regain "Kurdish territories". Turkey has said that they will not allow a Kurish government on their border.

NATO & the EU are in rather poor shape due to the intransigent US stand on Iraq.

I expect a very long & bloody Middle East conflict, spilling over into Africa, southern Asia & Europe with major terror attacks in the US.

I suspect Bush anticipates this possability. I suspect that this is why he's having American Muslims register.

I really hope it doesn't turn out this way, but those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it... and Dubbya ia a moron.

Bosh · March 5, 2003, 21:51

Quote:

Isn´t 1 and 4 basically the same?

1 has a transition period of US military rule of a couple years (five years is I think the number that's being kicked around), and also implies massive US aid and whatnot not just setting up elections and leaving.

Quote:

If nessecary we have a working model in place to install order in the region.

What working model? Saddam's regime? The people in the south won't put up with Ba'athists ruling them once Saddam is gone and there really isn't any other elites that the US could coopt to run the area (unlike the Kurdish north where there are somewhat functional institutions, where things should go relatively well unless the Turks **** with things to "protect" the Turkomen in Kirkuk).

Quote:

most of the people in Shi'ite Iran are secularists

In which case would people of a given religion be less inclided to secularism? One in which an Islamist government is oppressing you or one in which a adamantly secular government run by people of a different religion is tyrannizing you?

Quote:

Iraq has a long tradition of secular government

And absolutely no tradition of democracy, even Egypt and Syria have had a little.

Quote:

The whole situation depends upon the level of committment the US has after the war.

I don't think there'll be all that much, the Bush administration's attention span isn't that long and there isn't the Communist Peril to goad the US into putting a lot of effort into it as was the case with Germany and Japan.

Quote:

Very good poll, with a fine set of options, and not politically biased either.

Good job Boskho.

Thanks

Quote:

Assume about half of all Shiites are secularists and it would be tough for the Shiites Islamicists to lead a coalition.

Right, it will be tough, probably impossible but the Shiite Islamists are probably in at least a bit better position than you seem to think since the Islamists are the only anti-Ba'ath political force in the south opposition in the south will take place under an almost exclusively Islamist umbrella, so you'll probably get a good deal of moderate Shi'ites joining Islamists militias and whatnot (I assume the same sort of thing happened in Lebanon).

Quote:

Which one is the WW III option?

Hmmmm, probably should have put in one like that, I guess ANOTHER VIETNAM comes closest.

Ramo · March 5, 2003, 22:02

Best case, given Shrub's political disposition, is a ruthless Sunni Ba'athist taking Saddam's place, he rapidly suppresses dissent, and back to the status quo antebellum. Except the Kurds lose their autonomy and are oppressed lots more, people die and vital infrastrucutre is destroyed.

Worst case, ditto, is that the Kurds don't follow Rummy's plan that they'd go meekly back to Iraqi servitude after we give 'em lots of guns, so they declare indepdence. Then Turkey invades, and as well as the new administration in Baghdad and perhaps even Iran. In the South, a massive civil breaks out between the entrenched interests, the Sunnis and the disenfranchised Shia. Only after lots and lots of people die, Iranian funded proxies take power, leading to an Islamist Iranian satellite at least in the South. In other words, Lebanon.

Urban Ranger · March 5, 2003, 22:07

I say it'd be a bunch of warlords slugging out with each other. So, a mix of Lebanon and Afghanistan.

Ramo · March 5, 2003, 22:07

The primary domestic anti-Saddam force is Islamist. And there's already an Iranian proxy group entrenched in the North.

Urban Ranger · March 5, 2003, 22:10

I see that there will be at least the Kurds, the Islamists, and some former Iraqi generals.

Drake Tungsten · March 5, 2003, 22:12

Quote:

Best case, given Shrub's political disposition, is a ruthless Sunni Ba'athist taking Saddam's place, he rapidly suppresses dissent, and back to the status quo antebellum.

This is exactly the impression I got from Bush's speech about creating a functioning democracy in Iraq...

Bosh · March 5, 2003, 22:15

Well the Islamists in the North are Sunni I think, they probably won't be anywhere as numerous as the Shia Islamists once things get rolling.

Also keep in mind that for Shia the Iraqi city of Karbala, where the Forth Imam was killed, is more holy then Mecca. So if things get nasty you could see Shia volunteers coming from all over to get and keep Karbala in Shia hands.

Ramo · March 5, 2003, 22:31

Quote:

This is exactly the impression I got from Bush's speech about creating a functioning democracy in Iraq...

Like how's there's functioning democracy in Afghanistan.

Quote:

Well the Islamists in the North are Sunni I think, they probably won't be anywhere as numerous as the Shia Islamists once things get rolling.

The Shia Islamists are already much stronger than the Sunni Islamists. In the North, you've got anti-secular Kurds, who really aren't that strong. In fact, they're so weak, they're kept afloat by the Iraqis and Iranians. OTOH, the Shia Islamists have been a real challenge to Saddam's regime, basically his primary internal enemies.