What Would Happen If The U. S. Leaves Iraq?

Many in the U. S. and other countries are demanding that the U. S. government withdraw its armed forces from Iraq within a year or sooner. Is this a reasonable demand? What would happen to Iraq, and the rest of the world, if the U. S. did withdraw now?

As of today (Dec. 24, 2006), the Iraqi security forces don't look like they could even come close to providing the security that exists today, terrible as it may presently be, with over 130,000 U. S. troops in the country. So the country would probably quickly slide into a civil war far bloodier than present conditions.

Saudi Arabia has stated repeatedly that if a civil war did break out, it would support the Sunnis. Iran has been and will continue to support the Shiites. Syria and probably other countries in the region will also probably quickly take sides. This will greatly escalate the arms flow into the country and, hence, dramatically increase the bloodshed.

Either Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, or Turkey (to control the Kurds) will probably then send forces into Iraq. This will prompt the others to do the same as quickly as possible. This will result in the partition, and maybe outright annexation, of Iraq by these countries.

It is possible that a somewhat peaceful equilibrium might be reached at this point, but that is doubtful. Besides the Iraqis who would want to maintain their independence, there are too many communities and regions in Iraq with significant mixtures of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. These areas will be the focus of intense fighting, often involving direct contact with the forces of the supporting countries. This fighting will probably spill over to direct attacks on each of the countries involved.

Now many isolationists will say “Who cares, it is their problem and it doesn't involve us.” Many extreme conservatives will probably think this is actually good, with Muslim fighting and eliminating Muslim, and all too busy with their own problems to consider terrorism against the other countries in the world. Besides being grossly insensitive, there are a couple of serious problems with this situation:

1) The greater flow of weapons in the region will probably increase the flow of weapons into Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, resulting in an increase of attacks on Israel. These attacks will probably be encouraged by at least one of the combatants in Iraq in the hope that Israel will respond extremely forcefully to these attacks and distract the others involved in Iraq.

2) As these combatants feel more and more threatened, some will probably resort to unconventional (chemical, biological, or even nuclear) weapons (it happened in the Iraq/Iran war in the 1980's).

3) Eventually the attacks on the countries involved in Iraq will start hitting the oil industries of those countries (again, it happened in the Iraq/Iran war in the 1980's). Since the Middle East provides about half of the world's oil, any significant disruption in the flow of oil from this region will have a very major, even devastating, impact on the economies and lifestyles of the rest of the world. Consequently, the rest of the world, particularly the U. S., France, Great Britain, Germany, China, and Japan, will have to get involved to try to maintain the continued flow of oil from this region.

At first, the rest of the world may be able to maintain some semblance of neutrality by just protecting the tankers going in and out of the region. But the attacks will also be directed at other portions of the oil industry in the Middle East, such as the wells, refineries, and, most seriously, the port facilities and pipelines. The only way to effectively protect these assets is with armed forces directly inserted into the countries being attacked. This will force the countries dependent upon Middle East oil to choose sides.

4) If some countries side with the Sunnis and others side with the Shiites, the result will effectively be a world war. These countries on the various sides will probably at least start to sabotage each other, if not outright attack each other.

But a more likely scenario is that most of the world will side with the Sunnis, who have far more oil than the Shiites. The result is that Iran will feel like it is painted into a corner with the whole world against them and actively attacking them. Now do you understand why Iran so desperately wants to acquire nuclear weapons?

5) Meanwhile, we have an unpredictable, irrational, possibly nuclear armed North Korea sitting in another corner of the world watching all this and . . . your guess is as good as mine as to what they will do. Not to mention all the other tense spots in the world (China/Taiwan, India/Pakistan (who borders Iran and has significant Sunni and Shiite populations, and nuclear weapons), Ethiopia/Somalia, Sudan, etc.) . . .

Will leaving U. S. troops in Iraq guarantee that the above scenario will not occur? Possibly not, but there is a lot the U. S. could do to reduce the risk of civil war. Finishing the job the U. S. started in Iraq is probably the lesser of the evils, though it will be costly to both the U. S. and the Iraqis, though probably a lot less costly than not finishing the job.

Back to Rants and Raves