Iraq: Premature Pullout is Not an Option

Since roughly the summer of 2005 we in the U.S. have heard the constant call for pulling the troops out of Iraq.  Supporters of this strategy point to the 3000+ dead US soldiers and countless more civilians that have died since the U.S. invaded Iraq in March of 2003.   They also point to the many insurgent groups and militias that bring violence and murder to Iraqis and U.S. troops.  They cite delays in getting the Iraqi government to take control of vital areas of the country - particularly in parts of Baghdad.  Each of these criticisms is valid and the facts behind them are generally truthful.  But one thing missing in this strategy of pulling out of Iraq is what the consequences would be.  Politicians seem to dance around the issue when asked.  Typically they skirt the question by redirecting the topic to President Bush's current "failed" strategies or turn the focus to the numbers of dead U.S. soldiers or other violence in Iraq.  They support this pullout strategy by indicating reasons why they support it but they don't give any indication of what the consequences would be.

So the question still remains - What would be the consequences or ramifications be of a troop pullout in Iraq?  If it is a strategy that is to be taken seriously obviously knowing the consequences of such an action would be a basic requirement.  Yet in searching through news about this "strategy" and listening to and watching many interviews from those who tout this policy I find little mention or even acknowledgement of consequences.

Opponents to the idea of pulling out of Iraq do mention consequences but only in a vague sense.  They commonly refer to the consequences of pulling out as "disastrous."  In some cases they mention that it would lead to an all-out civil war there and that all of Iraq's neighbors would end up getting pulled in.  Supporters of a pullout counter by saying Iraq is already in a full-blown civil war and that things wouldn't be any worse if U.S. troops were there or not.

Just to note, all six Joint Chiefs of Staff (heads of all the armed services in the United States) at the Pentagon oppose an Iraq pullout.

Although the consequences haven't been sufficiently spelled out by supporters of a pullout or those who oppose a pullout, anyone who really looks at the situation should be able to piece together a general idea of what would happen should the U.S. pullout of Iraq.

Turkey, Iraq's neighbor to the north, has urged the United States not to leave a "power vacuum" when leaving Iraq or allow it to be split up.  Turkey's Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, says that Turkey would be forced to get involved should the U.S. leave Iraq and allow it to plunge it into a "real civil war."  He says that all of Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia would get involved in Iraq if this were the case.

Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, has faced criticism for not pulling Australia out of Iraq.  He has resisted these calls for pulling out stating that pulling out of Iraq would unleash conflict not only in Iraq but particularly in Israel and Lebanon.  He states "It would undermine Saudi Arabia, it would undermine Jordan, it would create a whole new crisis within the Middle East."

Indeed, Saudi Arabia has indicated it would support the Sunni population in Iraq if the U.S. were to leave.  King Abdullah told Vice President Dick Cheney that the Saudis would back the Iraqi Sunnis against the Iraqi Shiites should the U.S. pullout.  Considering Sunnis are a significant minority to the Shiites they would certainly need the support should violence escalate between the two factions.

Iran is already providing significant backing to Iraq's Shiites including Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army.  Should stability falter to the point of all-out civil war, it can be expected that Iran will significantly increase its involvement - particularly so if the Saudis pour support to the Iraqi Sunnis.

Syria has simultaneously actively contributed to the violence inside Iraq and called for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq - certainly conflicting positions to take.  Syria also has very heavy involvement in Lebanon including backing the militant Hizbollah terrorist organization and the assassination of Lebanese leaders.  It would be unlikely to assume they wouldn't significantly increase their involvement inside Iraq if the U.S. weren't there to counter their resources.

Iraq is sort of in a central place, nestled between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Kuwait.  With Shia holy sites, three very different populations of people, and a healthy supply of oil it isn't hard to imagine how quickly things could devolve into chaos following a U.S. troop pullout.  This type of degeneration is very likely to cause a full-scale war in the region involving several nations and could spill into other areas of conflict including Palestine and Lebanon.

While it is fair to criticize certain aspects of the war in Iraq, I think it is important for people to understand the very fragile situation in the Middle East as a whole and how the war in Iraq figures into it all.  It is simply not possible to treat Iraq as a separate entity.  They are all connected.  Victory in Iraq could mean a significant step towards a peaceful Middle East.  Failure could be equivocally disastrous.  Regardless of what strategy is adopted for U.S. involvement in Iraq, the consequences of that strategy must be taken into account.  And pulling out early is certainly not an option.

In a recent interview, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger commented about the war and the importance of telling the American public the consequences of quitting the war in Iraq.  He  said, "`Who is for the war?' nobody can be for the war.  But if you can put to the American public this proposition: that if we quit the war the following consequences are likely - I think they might have a different view."  He went on to state that an exit strategy "has to be assessed in terms of the consequences of failure - not in terms of what excuse you will use for doing it.  That's what, in the end, he [President Bush] will be judged by.  But the Congress, too, has an obligation to understand that internal American fights cannot be the only occupation of the president. He cannot indefinitely fight against the Congress and the public."

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."  -Leon Trotsky