It's a difficult one to predict and I personally belive it will depnd on how how the government can cope without the " comfort" the coalition provides in some areas it will also depend on how the Iraqi police and armed forces and more importantly the secert services in rooting out the leaders of terror groups.
The worrying thing is that in the past the insurgents picked off coaliotn trrops that was thier MO but now it seems to be civil war and targetting civlians and they do this without worrying about the coalition soldiers if they kill a few soldiers in the process it's almost an extra now. So I belive that Iraq may get worse not better but I mdon't belive that is a valid excuse to stay longer.
Of course it's all opinion and we won't really know until it happens but the fact we can't draw up a timetable even just for hypothetical discussion proves how much of a mess Iraq is in.
Sorry should have been clearer, not saying it's a civil war I am saying that the insurgents gola would be a civil war.
As for an invasion it's a possibility but they may run the risk of seeing the coaliton to return to defend Iraq, the times have changed and Iraq now has more friends and allies that may help to defend it against any possiblr invasion.
Edward Teach said this in post #3 :
By definition it's not a civil war. I fear that it's another invasion. This time by al Qaeda and Iran.
Now where ever did you get the idea that Iran has invaded Iraq? It wasn't from that ever so trustworthy government in Washington was it? Tut tut, has the last 4 years taught you nothing about the Bush regime?
Two years ago:
quote:
June 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney: "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
Whether you like it or not, Iraq is Shia dominated, the Iraq government is Shia dominated, Iran is Shia dominated. Didn't you ever question this little fact before the war started? Iraqi power is a many headed beast, which we don't control, although I'm sure the Bush government would like to convince you otherwise. So no wonder that many parts of Iraq have cosied up to Iran.
I see now Bush is FINALLY trying to make diplomatic moves with Iran himself, but why would Iran now take anything Bush says seriously or listen when Bush is a lame duck president, has greatly strengthened Iran's position in the region, and of course Bush only has a year left in power? Too little too late.
It's pretty amazing that Cheney said that over 2 years ago. I don't know what data he was looking at, because I beleive May was the bloodiest month in terms of GIs since 2004, during the actual "war."
"In your opinion, what will happen in Iraq when the US and Coalition leave?"
Thousands of Iraqis will, undoubtedly, engage in a gargantuan struggle for power. The nature of this struggle cannot be clearly predicted. It will, no doubt, involve use of weapons and loss of lives. But this is happening right now. What really matters it that they, the Iraqi people, should be allowed to engage in said predicted struggle for power without the interference of the US or the British governments.
There will be no resolution while the US and British governments are meddling in the affairs of the Iraqi people. How can there be? The mere presence of foreign soldiers on Iraqi streets constantly reminds indigenous Iraqis that their country is nothing less than a bloody battlefield.
It's the vanity of the US regime that is stopping US troop withdrawal. What I mean is that the US regime is really quite scared of the fact that the Iraqi people might just be capable of sorting out the mess themselves without assistance from the US. But Bush and the other criminally insane foreign policy makers in the White House are too vain to allow those 'interfering Iraqis' the opportunity to resolve their own problems 'The West knows best' is the attitude of Bush and co. How wrong that twit is.
The real battle for Iraqis is to fight for the right to determine their own present and future without foreign intervention, whether that results in all out civil war, then so be it.
I don't thiunk there will be a powerstruggle to run Iraq mainly because there have been no indicators to that effect. Yes there have been attacks on the green zone, polticians and anyone else linked to an Iraqi government but but those only indicate discontent with having any government. The larger and smaller terror groups have not shown or made any claim to run the country even Sadr has now stopped his early claims to run Iraq, most Iraqi will not participate in any revolution because they belive democratic government is better that dictatorship.
Obviouly situations can and do change bit at this point trying to look to the future you can only really use indicators as to what is going to happen so bloodshed yes, Kurdish independence most likely, parts of Iraq becoming a no go zone definitely, Iraq government being overthrown not likely, Iraq government becoming strong unpredictable, Iraq government embarresing the US in regard to Iran without a shadow of a doubt.
brochu13 said this in post #6 : It's pretty amazing that Cheney said that over 2 years ago. I don't know what data he was looking at, because I beleive May was the bloodiest month in terms of GIs since 2004, during the actual "war."
They are all pulling thing out of their backsides, totally. Cheney, Dubya, the whole administration.
05-26-2007 03:59 PM
