US - Exit Stage Left

[BoredShirtless]

Are you forgetting how forcefully we defended South Vietnam after we pulled our troops out of there? Less than three years after our withdrawal NVA Troops were marching through Saigon. We either stay to defend it, or pull out and hope for the best.

That was nearly 30 years ago and the circumstances were far different. I believe a more recent example of what we would do can be seen by how we came to the aid of Kuwait and Saudia Arabia in the Gulf War.

You're kidding, right? You can't compare the pullout from Kuwait to pulling out of Iraq, totally different!

[Admiral_K]

You're kidding, right? You can't compare the pullout from Kuwait to pulling out of Iraq, totally different!

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about?

I'm comparing to how we came to the defense of a country invaded by an outside force.

If Iraq were invaded by an outside force, say Iran, or Syria etc, I believe we would come to Iraq's aid even after we had withdrawn. Just as we did with Kuwait.

[Big Phil]

Are you forgetting how forcefully we defended South Vietnam after we pulled our troops out of there? Less than three years after our withdrawal NVA Troops were marching through Saigon. We either stay to defend it, or pull out and hope for the best.

That was nearly 30 years ago and the circumstances were far different. I believe a more recent example of what we would do can be seen by how we came to the aid of Kuwait and Saudia Arabia in the Gulf War.

Kuwait/Saudi Arabia is a horrible example. The situation is nothing like Iraq today. In both South Vietnam and Kuwait, we were there at the request of the governments. We never actually defeated the NVA, but we did defeat Iraq quite convincingly.

In Vietnam, the population was pretty ambivalent about our presence, and some actively opposed our presence. Troops were fighting in South Vietnam, not North Vietnam. Moreover, foreign powers (the USSR) supported the NVA and VC by providing weapons and financial aid. As a result, after we left there was nothing left to prop up the government, and it was conquered by the NVA.

In Saudia/Kuwait, we were asked to be there, the local population supported our presence, and our soldiers did not fight in Saudi Arabia. They fought in Iraq and Kuwait, to drive out an invading force. There was no insurrection; no Kuwaiti Underground striving to defeat the US military. We are still in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait today because they are friendly nations who want us there.

Iraq is a lot more like Vietnam than it is Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Once we leave (and I think we should get out sooner rather than later), the country will go straight down the toilet.

[Big Phil]

You're kidding, right? You can't compare the pullout from Kuwait to pulling out of Iraq, totally different!

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about?

I'm comparing to how we came to the defense of a country invaded by an outside force.

If Iraq were invaded by an outside force, say Iran, or Syria etc, I believe we would come to Iraq's aid even after we had withdrawn. Just as we did with Kuwait.

I don't think we would, once we pulled out of Iraq. It would be politically disastrous for any American President to send troops back to Iraq - there would be too many "I told you so's" flying to make it feasible.

[Admiral_K]

Are you forgetting how forcefully we defended South Vietnam after we pulled our troops out of there? Less than three years after our withdrawal NVA Troops were marching through Saigon. We either stay to defend it, or pull out and hope for the best.

That was nearly 30 years ago and the circumstances were far different. I believe a more recent example of what we would do can be seen by how we came to the aid of Kuwait and Saudia Arabia in the Gulf War.

Kuwait/Saudi Arabia is a horrible example. The situation is nothing like Iraq today. In both South Vietnam and Kuwait, we were there at the request of the governments. We never actually defeated the NVA, but we did defeat Iraq quite convincingly.

In Vietnam, the population was pretty ambivalent about our presence, and some actively opposed our presence. Troops were fighting in South Vietnam, not North Vietnam. Moreover, foreign powers (the USSR) supported the NVA and VC by providing weapons and financial aid. As a result, after we left there was nothing left to prop up the government, and it was conquered by the NVA.

In Saudia/Kuwait, we were asked to be there, the local population supported our presence, and our soldiers did not fight in Saudi Arabia. They fought in Iraq and Kuwait, to drive out an invading force. There was no insurrection; no Kuwaiti Underground striving to defeat the US military. We are still in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait today because they are friendly nations who want us there.

Iraq is a lot more like Vietnam than it is Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Once we leave (and I think we should get out sooner rather than later), the country will go straight down the toilet.

The point was that in the event of invasion, or threat of invasion by one of Iraq's "neighbhors", that we would intervene as we did with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

[Gunhead]

Lets say the invader is Iran, if the U.S intervenes they could end up occupying both countries. That opens up a whole new can of worms that I really wouldn't want to touch. If U.S pulls out totally now there's no going back. Well I don't think it's going to happen but still.

-Gunhead

[Chmee]

If Iran goes for a takeover of Iraq, it will be much subtler (and much harder to oppose) than a straight cross-border rumbling of tanks and troops.

Keep in mind that many Shi'ite religious leaders fled to Shi'ite Iran's holy cities to escape persecution by Saddam. Now they're back in Iraq at the head of Shi'ite political parties, with a lot of Iranian cash and political expertise backing them up as they roll into elections. These are the guys with the money, organization, and most important credibility (opposition to Saddam but no ties to the occupying Westerners) to end up running Iraq.

So suppose you have religious leaders with a lot of sympathy to Iran, running Iraq. Where's Iran's need to invade? They don't even need Iraq to be an ally, as long as it's neutral to Iran, that frees up Iran's military assets to focus on other borders and concerns.

To my mind, this is one of the biggest reasons Bush the Elder didn't finish off Saddam, because one of the most likely outcomes was neutralizing Iraq as a strategic balance against the Iranians in the region.

[Admiral_K]

Lets say the invader is Iran, if the U.S intervenes they could end up occupying both countries. That opens up a whole new can of worms that I really wouldn't want to touch. If U.S pulls out totally now there's no going back. Well I don't think it's going to happen but still.

-Gunhead

You wouldn't have to invade the attacking country in order to repel the attack. While we might end up doing that, depending on the circumstances, its not required as we demonstrated when we liberated Kuwait in the first gulf war.

[Coyote]

This may be nothing more than a "testing the water" comment to see what comes of it... having Powell say it makes sense, since if it goes badly then the Administration can just say, well, that was Powell.

But bear in mind the article said "some troops" not "All troops", which means we'd actually go back to the original scenario the Administration wanted but the Generals opposed: a small number of US forces.

Remember, this "150,000" was not what was wanted in the first place since it gives the political impression of being "out of control". So the Administration gets to go back to "Plan A" while chalking it up as "proof of success".

And the Iraqi security forces are getting a lot better-- the ING is moderatly competent and more dependable than the rag-tag collection of ICDC (Iraqi Civil Defense Corps) and they are getting more modernized equipment. Jordan and Egypt have sent them BTR-90 troop carriers, Bulgaria is donating 60 T-72 tanks, and other former Eastern Bloc countries are sending numerous AKs and other individual weapons. Jeeps and trucks are also being sent.

Remember, things here are not happy, but they are still nowhere near as doom-and-gloom as required for this to be accurately turned into "another Vietnam". It could still turn out that way, but we are not there yet-- despite the desperate need for this to be so for certain political interests hoping to ride a tidal wave of blood into the Oval Office at some point in the future.

[Chris OFarrell]

Are you forgetting how forcefully we defended South Vietnam after we pulled our troops out of there? Less than three years after our withdrawal NVA Troops were marching through Saigon. We either stay to defend it, or pull out and hope for the best.

That was nearly 30 years ago and the circumstances were far different. I believe a more recent example of what we would do can be seen by how we came to the aid of Kuwait and Saudia Arabia in the Gulf War.

How so. Please spell it out for us, given that your examples have absoloutly no resembelence to the current invasion of Iraq in ANY form, or Vietman for that matter.

While Vietnam and Iraq are starting to look more and more like each other in quite general, but still far reaching ways.

[Admiral_K]

I've already explained this once, but I'll do it one more time.

It was stated that once we pull out Iraq might be vulnerable to invasion by one of its neighbors. I take the stance that we wouldnt allow that to happen. Someone then piped up and said "well we let the North over run south Vietnam". I explained that the situation in Vietnam is far different, and that an invasion from an outside power would not be permitted. As examples I cited Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to whose defense we came to when threatened by Iraq.

[Big Phil]

I've already explained this once, but I'll do it one more time.

It was stated that once we pull out Iraq might be vulnerable to invasion by one of its neighbors. I take the stance that we wouldnt allow that to happen. Someone then piped up and said "well we let the North over run south Vietnam". I explained that the situation in Vietnam is far different, and that an invasion from an outside power would not be permitted. As examples I cited Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to whose defense we came to when threatened by Iraq.

The problem is your examples are not comparable, and I've already explained why. North Vietnam was an outside power, and we did nothing to defend South Vietnam against them. Iran is an outside power, and if we do leave Iraq, we're not coming back no matter what.

[The Kernel]

I've already explained this once, but I'll do it one more time.

It was stated that once we pull out Iraq might be vulnerable to invasion by one of its neighbors. I take the stance that we wouldnt allow that to happen. Someone then piped up and said "well we let the North over run south Vietnam". I explained that the situation in Vietnam is far different, and that an invasion from an outside power would not be permitted. As examples I cited Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to whose defense we came to when threatened by Iraq.

Please, enlighten us as to the politically feasible way of saving Iraq from an Iranian invasion if we've already pulled out. What are we going to do? Airstrikes? Sanctions? Please, the public is not going to allow another major military conflict in the Middle East and the armed forces certainly aren't up to it unless it was a war of mortal danger.

[Durandal]

I've already explained this once, but I'll do it one more time.

It was stated that once we pull out Iraq might be vulnerable to invasion by one of its neighbors. I take the stance that we wouldnt allow that to happen. Someone then piped up and said "well we let the North over run south Vietnam". I explained that the situation in Vietnam is far different, and that an invasion from an outside power would not be permitted. As examples I cited Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to whose defense we came to when threatened by Iraq.

The problem is your examples are not comparable, and I've already explained why. North Vietnam was an outside power, and we did nothing to defend South Vietnam against them. Iran is an outside power, and if we do leave Iraq, we're not coming back no matter what.

That depends greatly on when such an invasion might take place and what kind of government Iraq has at the point. If Iran sends tanks rolling across the border 5 years after we leave, when Iraq has devolved into yet another Muslim fundamentalist government, then who gives a shit? Iran will be replacing one set of assholes with another. But if Iraq (by some miracle) actually manages to implement a stable democratic government, we might very well intervene to protect our investment.

[Durandal]

I've already explained this once, but I'll do it one more time.

It was stated that once we pull out Iraq might be vulnerable to invasion by one of its neighbors. I take the stance that we wouldnt allow that to happen. Someone then piped up and said "well we let the North over run south Vietnam". I explained that the situation in Vietnam is far different, and that an invasion from an outside power would not be permitted. As examples I cited Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to whose defense we came to when threatened by Iraq.

Please, enlighten us as to the politically feasible way of saving Iraq from an Iranian invasion if we've already pulled out. What are we going to do? Airstrikes? Sanctions? Please, the public is not going to allow another major military conflict in the Middle East and the armed forces certainly aren't up to it unless it was a war of mortal danger.

Are you sure about that? Killing dem dere dern sand-niggers seems to be all the rage these days.

[Big Phil]

I've already explained this once, but I'll do it one more time.

It was stated that once we pull out Iraq might be vulnerable to invasion by one of its neighbors. I take the stance that we wouldnt allow that to happen. Someone then piped up and said "well we let the North over run south Vietnam". I explained that the situation in Vietnam is far different, and that an invasion from an outside power would not be permitted. As examples I cited Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to whose defense we came to when threatened by Iraq.

The problem is your examples are not comparable, and I've already explained why. North Vietnam was an outside power, and we did nothing to defend South Vietnam against them. Iran is an outside power, and if we do leave Iraq, we're not coming back no matter what.

That depends greatly on when such an invasion might take place and what kind of government Iraq has at the point. If Iran sends tanks rolling across the border 5 years after we leave, when Iraq has devolved into yet another Muslim fundamentalist government, then who gives a shit? Iran will be replacing one set of assholes with another. But if Iraq (by some miracle) actually manages to implement a stable democratic government, we might very well intervene to protect our investment.

Fair enough, but I thought I'd already made my position clear - I think Iraq will descend into Civil War, and we will not be rushing our soldiers back into the middle of a mess like that after we pull our troops out.

[Surlethe]

Fair enough, but I thought I'd already made my position clear - I think Iraq will descend into Civil War, and we will not be rushing our soldiers back into the middle of a mess like that after we pull our troops out.

Damn straight. For analagous examples, all one has to do is look at Africa. What happened after Europe pulled out? Civil war. Re-intervening was politically impossible.

See, what one must remember about Iraq is, it's not honor, or responsibility, or good will which ultimately dictates what America does. It's what is politically good for the leaders.

Everything which obligates the politicians to do something, be it national security or welfare, is impelled by the desire to be seen as good for the country. Witness Bush's hype of WMDs in the leadup in late 2002 and early 2003. What was America afraid of? Terrorism. Bush wanted to invade Iraq, so what did he link Iraq to? Terrorism. He played on America's fears, and so reaped political capital, which he then spent on the war.

However, if the war fails--and, because of damned political decision-making, it's certainly looking like it--then it would take an ungodly amount of political capital to go back into Iraq, at least for another generation. The failure would be too fresh in the public's mind, and the news media would endlessly replay scenes of the current war anytime Washington started spouting rhetoric.