Horrible scenario for immediate pull-out from Iraq.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

Those who know me know that I don't often begin my own threads, especially not to propogate the vainglorious end-of-the-world product of my overactive imagination. However, I spent a lot of time on this thing, which I first posted in Will Pitt's get-out-now-strategies thread (i'll find a link for that eventually) and I was worried that it might get buried underneath all of the informed, rational discussion in that thread. So here's the original post, and my own terrible response. Be glad that you don't think these thoughts every night, the way I do. We are all doomed.

And, before I forget, apologies to markomalley (quoted here) who made what is quite possibly the most psychotic, yet completely logical and rational posting in the original thread.

Original post by markomalley (edited for relevance)

First 24 hours: arrange safe passage for them (military and USG civilians only -- contractors are ON THEIR OWN) through Jordan and Turkey.
Second 24 hours: destroy all fixed equipment and classified papers
Third 24 hours: start convoys to pre-arranged border checkpoints
Fourth 24 hours: arrive at border checkpoints. Abandon all military equipment and weapons at the border. Cross the checkpoint and surrender for safe passage thorugh Jordan and Turkey. Arrange for F-16 strikes from Incirlik Air Base to destroy all abandoned equipment.

Arrange air transport for troops back to the nearest port of entry into the USA. Purchase a one way plane ticket back to their home of record. Process the troops to identify potential war criminals. Those who are positively cleared of war crimes suspicions are provided honorable discharges and transported back to their home of record. Those who are under suspicion are held and further investigated. Those who are chargeable are transported under armed guard to the Hague where they stand trial as war criminals (under a UN court).

This plan would accomplish three things:
- First, it would get us out NOW without leaving a massive residual military capability that could be exploited by the local nationals
- Second, it would reduce our military strength to that which is needed to defend the US borders -- and those borders alone
- Third, it would reduce the expenditures of the Federal government quickly -- and start to undo the deficit that Bush* left us.

And my response...

Fifth 24 hours: Many Iraqis celebrate the exodus of US forces. The IGC, which has no power over the military or police, dissolves into squabbling. Iraq is effectively without government of any kind. Ayatollah al Sistani calls for calm and meets with Sunni elders regarding establishment of an interim government. The UN sends envoys to the surrounding countries to assure them that they will have assistance in dealing with any problems that might arise.

Sixth 24 hours: Talks between Sistani and the Sunnis break down when Muqtada al Sadr declares all Shiite-majority territories to be soverign and under his control. Militiamen from Sadr City occupy parts of central Baghdad, including the former green zone. Al Sistani denounces al Sadr for his actions, but can do little to stop him. Sunnis, who have most of the weapons, begin organizing their disparate militias into an army.

Seventh 24 hours: Kurds declare independence from Iraq and establish a free Kurdistan. Several major electricity substations and water facilities near Baghdad are burned to the ground by persons unknown. Baghdad is without electricity and running water. Looting of grocery stores and markets begins. Syria, Iran, and Kuwait begin sending troops to secure their borders with Iraq.

Eigth 24 hours: Turkey masses troops on its border with free Kurdistan. Sunni forces fight off Sadr's militia and take control of central Baghdad. Several other cities are without electricity, water, or sewage treatment due to bombings and equipment failures. Israel mobilizes its armed forces in response to the Iranian and Syrian mobilizations.

Ninth 24 hours: Kurds demand free passage between Kurdistan and Kurdish areas of Turkey. There are border clashes between armed Kurds and Turkish border patrols. Attempts to restore water and electricity to Baghdad fail. Looting of hospitals begins in most major cities. Many people with the ability to leave Baghdad do so.

Tenth 24 hours: Baghdad has been without water or electricity for 72 hours. Looting of stores carrying life essentials (water, food, ammunition, etc.) continues until there is nothing left. Sunni and Shiite forces clash again in central Baghdad. Several large fires are started by rocket explosions. Houses known to have private wells become flashpoints for violence. Many people begin using unsanitary river water instead for cleaning, drinking, etc.

Eleventh 24 hours: Refugees from Baghdad and other parts of central Iraq begin to reach the borders with Kuwait, Syria, Iran, and Turkey. An epidemic of various diseases is beginning in Sadr City and other poor areas of Baghdad, due to usage of contaminated river water. Kurdistan negotiates with Turkey to restore the border to normalcy. Thousands of refugees from central Iraq descend upon Mosul.

Twelfth 24 hours: Kuwait closes its border with Iraq and refuses to allow any more refugees. 200,000 have made it across the border before it is closed. Sunni forces attempt to surround Sadr City to contain the humanitarian crisis and prevent it from spreading to the rest of Baghdad. Word of the situation in Baghdad reaches Tehran. Thousands of Iranians, both military and civilian, are allowed to cross the border into Iraq to assist the Shiites.

Thirteenth 24 hours: Iraqi refugees overwhelm Kuwaiti border stations. Saudi Arabia closes its border with Kuwait. US troops still in Kuwait move to help secure the Iraq border. Much of Baghdad has been abandoned. Syria authorizes its troops to use deadly force to prevent refugees from entering Syria, but it doesn't work. The chaos has allowed many al Qaeda operatives to slip into Kuwait and Syria with large quantities of explosives.

Fourteenth 24 hours: There are now half a million refugees on the outskirts of Kuwat City. International aid agencies rush aid into Kuwait in order to head off disease outbreaks and prevent starvation/dehydration deaths. Iranian aid convoys approaching Baghdad are met by gunfire. The Iranian army begins to move into southern Iraq to support the Iraqi Shiites and protect aid convoys.

Fifteenth 24 hours: The US warns the Iranian military to leave Iraq in two days or face attacks. Massive truck bombs kill several high-ranking members of the Kuwaiti government and destroy several government buildings. Refugees begin to enter Kuwait City proper. Residents of Kuwait city variously try to help the refugees, fight the refugees, or swamp the airports on their way out. Small watercraft filled with Iraqi refugees begin to reach Qatar and other points around the Persian Gulf. Bad things are happening in the Kuwaiti oil fields - there are multiple reports of explosions at refineries and drilling sites.

Sixteenth 24 hours: Refugees flood Kuwait City. For all intents and purposes the Kuwaiti government has collapsed. US troops evacuate south and set up positions just north of Saudi Arabia to defend the oil fields. Thousands of Iraqi and Kuwaiti refugees are killed or injured while trying to escape into Saudi Arabia.

Seventeenth 24 hours: US warplanes begin bomging Iranian army columns in Iraq. Iranian army units in the open desert either retreat towards Iran or enter Iraqi cities for cover. Part of one Iranian army division has made it into Baghdad. Mosul is running out of food and water. Refugees flow north from Mosul to the Turkish border, where they are stopped by the Turkish armed forces.

Eighteenth 24 hours: Iranian forces rout the Sunnis in Baghdad. Iran now controls the capital and some southern cities. Israeli war planes are seen over Iraq and Iran.

Nineteenth 24 hours: Israel begins clandestinely bombing Iranians in southern Iraq. Iranian forces successfully shoot down several Israeli war planes. The Iranians display pieces of the downed planes on television. The US warns Israel to stay out of the conflict.

Twentieth 24 hours: Palestinians riot in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel, already on edge because of the neighboring chaos, vastly overreacts and kills hundreds, if not thousands of Palestinians.

It goes on and on and on.

Obviously, this is the absolute worst-case scenario. However, what frightens me is just how plausible it really is. It may very well happen even if we stay in Iraq. There is a fine, thin thread now between organized chaos and total chaos in that country. And *we* are that thread, for better or worse. All it would take to plunge the country into unrecoverable chaos and lunacy would be to remove electricity and water services for about three weeks. And we also have al Qaeda is rooting for chaos in Iraq. They would be only too happy to help in that endeavour.
The ramifications of the above scenario are huge and disturbing - World War III disturbing. And it may very well happen, maybe not with the speed and ferocity I've described, but in some form that is probably so fiendish that my limited knowledge of the region, poor reasoning skills, and morbid curiosity may be insufficient to even contemplate it.

I think I need to get drunk now.

[blackcat77]

1. We are not going to just cut and run

So this isn't a realistic scenario. We need to slowly and steadily leave the country at the same rate that UN troops enter it.

As Colin Powell said, we broke so we own it. It's now our responsibility to make sure all of Iraq doesn't fall into chaos with no one there at all to defend the innocent.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Who are they?

Yes, but who are these UN troops? The UN itself has no troops of its own - they come from the member nations. And you do not just assemble a force of 130,000 peacekeepers overnight. Furthermore, I think the likelihood of the UN entering into this mess right now is extremely low. UN peacekeepers do not generally enter active war zones, especially those where terrorist acts are being comitted on a daily basis.

In my estimation, for the UN to even achieve adequate troop strength in Iraq would require that much of the UN force be comprised of Americans - the same Americans who are in Iraq right now. And they're not going to be free from attack just because they're wearing the blue uniform. Furthermore, I think it's completely unconscionable to put UN peacekeeping forces into the same lines of fire that we're now dealing with just so we can say that we've pulled out. The violence will not stop just because the troops are from the UN and not the US. We will effectively just be putting troops from other nations into harm's way to avoid more American casualties.

It's a moot point anyway, because the UN can't possibly assume this role right now anyway. It would take months, if not years, and nobody in our government is going to give up control of our forces to the UN. Kerry may try, if he wants to be mercilessly skewered by the right-wing, but it won't succeed. Hell, the UN can't even keep minimal staff in the country right now due to the security situation. Furthermore, they won't go in without a plan. Right now there is no plan. All of this takes time, time, time - which appears to be the one thing we're running out of.

[blackcat77]

5. I think that in this case...

...a lot of nations would be willing to participate just to declare a moral victory over the US after we attempted to humiliate them.

And it's in the interest of the nations of the middle east especially to get things under control there. Terrorists in Iraq are a threat to every nation in the region. You know, like the US claimed that *Saddam* was...

It won't happen overnight, but I think that there could be tens of thousands of UN troops in country in a couple of months and enough to get us out completely within a year. Another thing is that once the US is gone, much of the terrorist activity will dissipate.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. Hmm...

>...a lot of nations would be willing to participate just to declare a
>moral victory over the US after we attempted to humiliate them.

And a phyrric victory it would probably be, once the body bags started coming home, as the would, inevitably because.... As I posted in Senor Pitt's thread, I think there would be some insurgents who would not want to attack UN forces. However, al Qaeda does not care who they kills, as long as they get to kill someone and make life difficult.

[dpibel]

28. Oh come on (Caution: Filled with cursing and capital letters)

"However, al Qaeda does not care who they kills, as long as they get to kill someone and make life difficult."

Do you actually mean this as written, or do you mean al Qaeda doesn't care what occupation force they kills?

Even at that, this is rank fucking bullshit, and I, for one, am sick of it. Al Qaeda COMIN' TA GIT YA!!! Al Qaeda LIVES TA KILL!!!! Al Qaeda GONNA CONQUER AMERICA!!!!

For starters, other than the word of the Great Truthteller In DC and his Ancillary Staff of Truth Tellers, what makes you think al Qaeda is operating in Iraq at all, let alone in such numbers as to wreak havoc everywhere? Those dickwads in DC have been trumpeting the AQ-SH connection now for THREE GODDAMNED YEARS, and the best evidence that they've ever presented is (1) a story that Zarqawi got his leg amputated in Baghdad, which story they had to retract (at least as to the amputation) because piece of evidence (2) is a videotape of a two-legged Zarqawi whacking off Nick Berg's head. Other than that, there's exactly ZERO EVIDENCE that AQ is operating in Iraq. So WTF are they doing in this thread/

Speaking of this thread, what makes you so sure your disaster scenario bears one tiny, itsy-bitsy bit of credibility. All you've done is assemble a parade of "those fucking 'rabs can't control themselves, and all they wanna do is get veins in they teeth, eat dead burnt bodies, and KILL, KILL, KILL!"

But what's the recent truth?? Early in the US occupation what was the state of resistance in Iraq? Huh??? There wasn't any, in case you missed it. Know why??? Because the crazy wild bloodthirsty Mullahs and Ayatollahs and Imams TOLD THEIR PEOPLE TO CHILL. And you know what?? THEY DID. The leaders, crazed Muslims to a man, told their people to give the US the chance to do the right thing -- y'know, get on with reconstruction and setting up democracy and that shit.

So when did the trouble start?? It did not start when the crazed Iraqis killed those poor men in Fallujah. It started when American troops spent a bit too much time shooting civilians and checkpoints, and it became clear that the amount of reconstruction going on in Iraq was, well, slim to none, unless you count reconstruction Halliburton's stock portfolio.

Now. I've made this challenge many times on this board, and I'll make it again, and I am absolutely confident that it will go as far with you as it has with anyone else, which is fucking nowhere.

Go to this website: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iqtoc.html

You don't have to read the whole thing -- it's looooong and has LOTS of words -- just read the following sections: The sections of Chapter One from "Iraq as an Independent Monarcy" to the end of the chapter; and the subsection of Chapter Two called "Sunni-Shia Relations in Iraq."

Then get back to me and explain to me how it is that you're so certain that Iraq will explode into a maelstrom of violence if the Great and Effective Peaceful Peacekeeping Forces of the Peaceloving USofA withdraw their gentle peacekeeping ministrations.

Incidentally. The really interesting thing about the website I've referenced is this: if you'd like to dismiss it as some Saddam-hugging peacenik propaganda site, you'll have to get past the fact that it's the Library of Congress. Of course, also take into account that this history of Iraq was written in 1988, when Saddam was still a hero and defender of goodness and light in the otherwise troubled land of the Arabs.

In conclusion, I would just like to say this:

I am FUCKING SICK AND GODDAMNED TIRED of people making up worst-case scenarios about the pitiful wretches in Iraq and what they will do if "we" unleash their terrible passion and bloodlust.

In general, people who post on this board would, if their foot was getting wet, and the Fierce Warrior Chieftain said, "It's raining," AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME HE WAS PEEING ON THEIR FOOT. This is the most dishonest administration in the history of the USofA.

But on THIS ONE POINT (whatever a given poster's favorite point is--SH=Satan, or Iraqis can't wait to kill each other, or whatever), yes, dear friends, ON MY FAVORITE POINT, Donny Rumsfeld and Dicky Cheney, and that other guy--the one who can't talk--ARE TELLING ME GOD'S OWN GOSPEL TRUTH.

I'm sick of it.

As if anyone gives a good goddamn what I think.

[goodhue]

19. I think you are exactly right. n/t

[goodhue]

18. Who are UN peacekeepers?

The United Nations Charter stipulates that to assist in maintaining peace and security around the world, all Member States of the UN should make available to the Security Council necessary armed forces and facilities. Since 1948, close to 130 nations have contributed military and civilian police personnel to peace operations. While detailed records of all personnel who have served in peacekeeping missions since 1948 are not available, it is estimated that up to one million soldiers, police officers and civilians have served under the UN flag in the last 56 years. As of March 2004, 94 countries were contributing a total of more than 51,000 uniformed personnel—the highest number since 1995.

Despite the large number of contributors, the greatest burden continues to be borne by a core group of developing countries. The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of early 2004 were Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, India, Ghana, Nepal, Uruguay, Jordan, Kenya and Ethiopia. About 10 per cent of the troops and civilian police deployed in UN peacekeeping missions come from the European Union and one per cent from the United States. (see Monthly Summary of Contributors).

The head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Under-Secretary- General Jean-Marie Guéhenno, has reminded Member States that “the provision of well-equipped,well-trained and disciplined military and police personnel to UN peacekeeping operations is a collective responsibility of Member States. Countries from the South should not and must not be expected to shoulder this burden alone”.

As of March 2004, in addition to military and police personnel, more than 3,200 international civilian personnel, 1,200 UN Volunteers and nearly 6,500 local civilian personnel worked in UN peacekeeping missions.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q8.htm

[dpibel]

29. THANK YOU

It is so refreshing to run across somebody who actually does something on this point other than recite the standard wisdom.

I've been known to point out to folk who say "only the mighty USofA has a big enough army," that India, for instance, has at least as many people under arms as the US (and guess what? a whole bunch of 'em pretty much gotta be Muslim). As to the objection that India just couldn't afford it -- hell! do it the modern American way and outsource! Surely 150,000 Indian soldiers won't cost as much as the same number of Americans.

Finally, there's always the assiduously overlooked possibility that, if the Iraqi people were actually permitted to participate in the process, it might take far fewer troops for peacekeeping that it does for occupation (a distinction many Americans should work harder at understanding).

All of which is to say, the idea of withdrawal is hardly the muzzy-headed impossible dream it gets made out to be.

Thanks again for posting this info. I've got it bookmarked.

[NMDemDist2]

2. Good Lord man, you have one scary head there

you sure booze is enough? :hi:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. Perhaps not.

But why not try it anyway? Hell, our reformed alcoholic of a president is probably responsible for hundreds of thousands of people becoming alcoholics during his tenure, due to his illogical nonsense policies and massive murder/torture/self-flaggelation across the board. He is, after all, a WAR PRESIDENT, and some things like public health must fall by the wayside in these tough times.

[iangb]

7. Your scenario assumes that the Iraqi's are the problem.

They aren't.

Without US troops 90% of the reasons for the insurgency do not exist.

Remember that even under Saddam the Iraqi people were amongst the World's most heavily armed.....even more than the US population.......and despite all of those ethnic and religious differences serious clashes were rare.....if not unheard of.

Even Sadr is not the threat portrayed by the CCA (mostly at the urging of Sistani and Chalabi). Sadr can count many Sunnis and Kurds amongst his supporters, hardly typical of a divisive leader.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. Phew!

>Without US troops 90% of the reasons for the insurgency do not exist.

Yes, except that the remaining 10% of the problems are related to long-standing religious and tribal hatred, and the resulting economic and social disparities - these on a level that most Americans can't understand because nothing of the sort exists in our country.

>Remember that even under Saddam the Iraqi people were amongst the
>World's most heavily armed.....even more than the US
>population.......and despite all of those ethnic and religious
>differences serious clashes were rare.....if not unheard of.

Yes, because they had a government which was highly adept at beating the mortal shit out of people who opposed it. Highly adept at surpressing religious hatred, or using it as a means to its own ends. Please remember that our lovely Sadr City, home to two million oppressed Shiites, was named Saddam City until the fall of his regime.

>Sadr can count many Sunnis and Kurds amongst his supporters, hardly
>typical of a divisive leader.

Sadr is a fucking punk who is opposed even by moderate Shiites. He's a totalitarian religious freak and a murderer. Why in God's name would you stand up for this man? He has no support from the Kurds, excepting as he may help them achieve their goal of independence at some point. The Sunni leaders have made a calculated decision to support him because he DIVIDES the Shiite community, thus giving them more power. You cannot escape the simple fact that this is a country where one tribal group controls most of the money and weaponry, and the other group has the majority of the actual people. This whole portrayal of Sadr as some kind of modern-day Che is disgusting. This is a man with no political ideology beyond his own selfish agenda. He is a theocratic punk, attempting to hold the rest of the country hostage to his agenda.
And quite franky, you're a goddamn idiot for suggesting that al Sistani is somehow in league with Chalabi and the US. Sistani is not even interested in talking to the US whatsoever. You're supporting a simplistic enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend mentality - the same mentality, I might add, that has caused nothing but massive horrible suffering for much of the world during the cold war.

Give me one good deed that Sadr has done that hasn't been some kind of self-serving nonsense. Give me one original idea that this man has contained in his skull. Give me one example of him acting as anything more than a vicious thug. There are none.

[dpibel]

30. Source please

You seem to have a deep, well-founded knowledge, not only of the facts of Sadr, but also of his mind and motivations.

Where'd ya get your info? Think I know where you pulled it out of, but I'm willing to be educated. Please, please don't say, "Don't you read the newspapers?" Surely you have more than the official story to go on.

[goodhue]

16. exactly

More histrionics based on false premise that US departure will increase violence. In fact, reality is quite the opposite.

[9215]

9. I think you need to get a degree in the social sciences.

Your plan is a joke. Like so many other ideas on this website. You exclude the "human contact" so neccessary to the operation.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. Confusion.

I'm a bit confused by your post. I wasn't postulating a plan (or were you referring to the original post, to which I responded?)

All I was postulating was a massive, horrible, epidemic-ridden disaster. :)

[DoNotRefill]

11. Dream on...

that's so implausible as to be laughable.

On the positive side, you show promise as an "alternate history" science fiction writer, a la Harry Turtledove...Based upon your post, I'd buy your book if you wrote it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. Thanks.

Heh heh... Thank you. I figured that my stupid overactive imagination might make enjoyable reading for someone out there.

[DoNotRefill]

13. Seriously....

have you considered writing "alternative history"?

You have a gift. USE IT.

[bemildred]

14. Ah yes, the Domino Theory, recast for Iraq.

I remember it well from forty years ago.
WE made the chaos in Iraq, it will go away when we leave.
That is the truth of the situation.

[Bridget Burke]

15. We must continue to win Hearts & Minds.

Look, I see the light at the end of the tunnel!

(I always thought flashbacks would be more fun.)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. That's a bit oversimplistic.

Iraq is not Vietnam and the Middle East is not Southeast Asia. The problems are different. The chaos was there, in this case, before we arrived. Saddam was just really good at keeping a lid on it.

[bemildred]

21. You accuse me of being "oversimplistic"?

That is a hoot.
:thumbsup:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. Dammit I am allowed to make up words!

And remove hyphens at will!

[bemildred]

26. Very well.

FWIW, I did not suggest they are the same, I said they
are similar, or more accurately, I suggested that your
justification for the US keeping military forces in Iraq
is similar to justifications I heard 40 years ago for
keeping US military forces in VietNam, and it is. They
were bogus reasons then and they are bogus now. The
world will not collapse in on itself if we stop fucking
with it.

[KoKo]

17. As you say...it's possible it could happen no matter what we do. If we

pull out, it could happen, sooner. If we stay and things continue as badly as now, it could happen in pieces over a longer period of time.

That's quite a storyline there! Sadly. :-( It's a set up for WWIII.

But the Chimp said this will be a "War for Decades." Remember, according to the Repugs, he supposedly means what he says and never gives in. :eyes:

[drdigi420]

22. Instead of getting drunk

smoke a joint

it's MUCH better for you physically AND mentally

[Taylor Mason Powell]

27. These days, pot just makes me paranoid.

I'm as big a weed-lover as anyone, but the Bush administration has made me turn more to alcohol.

Whatever gets ya through the night!!

[Jacobin]

24. That's not the worst scenario, IMHO

If/when (that's inevitable now whether we stay or go) Iraq disintegrates, if Israel feels threatened, they will go nuclear.

If hundreds of thousands of arabs are massing on borders armies are invading countries back and forth, you are looking at far far worse.

Unfortunately, IraqNam will probably end this way with or without U.S. Troops there.

They are well on their way to this right now.

[Solomon]

25. So I guess what you mean is it's much better having us kill 'em, than

them killing themselves.

[markomalley]

31. In my defense...

...the specification I was responding to was, "I've been working on this for a few months, and I cannot come up with a "Get the troops out NOW" scenario that will actually work. Such is the depth of the mess Bush has created." by WilliamPitt in this thread.

Yes, we can get the troops out without massive loss of American lives or Iraqi lives. We can do so quickly.

For all of you who subscribe to the "apocolypse" scenario, I will repeat...it is the height of arrogance to assume a civilization that has existed for thousands of years cannot have the ability to work this out on its own. This is a tremendous opportunity for unity within that country (perhaps an unintended consequence of occupation is that EVERYBODY hates us now...and, from their perspective, the enemy of my enemy is my friend). People have lived in Mesopotamia for literally thousands of years. Maybe there is a need for a change in borders. Maybe there is a need for some international assistance to rebuild what the US military destroyed for them. Maybe there is a need for quite a few things. Maybe some of them are intelligent enough to figure that out on their own and ASK for help if they want it. We're not talking about total illiterate savages here.

Arrogance!

You folks who want to force the UN upon them or force anything upon them are no better than any other imperialist! This is THEIR country. THEY are the ones to determine THEIR destiny. THEY are big people. YOUR attitude is what caused the problem because YOU think you are so much smarter than they are. Get rid of your arrogance and let these people build their own country. It's their country, after all. Not mine. Not yours. Not the shrub's. Not the UN's. It belongs to the people who live there.

/rant