Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves

As ugly as this could get, this also provides a possible way out. I’m sure none of these countries really wants a regional war, especially one between the Sunnies and Shiites that could have broad and long lasting implications for all Muslims. There could well be trouble between the Kurds and Turkey as well if such a war gained momentum.

The threat of this happening could be the incentive needed to bring the key stokeholders in the region together to support a strong, independent, pluralistic (Sunni, Shiite, Kurds), and therefore neutral, Iraq. None of them wants to see the US there so as long as the US is there I would bet that most of these countries have people in Iraq trying keep it destabilized so the Americans will fail and have to leave, but if a deal could be reached whereby the US agreed to leave and a security force made up of these countries’ forces, and perhaps some UN forces as well, took over that might be enough to stabilize the country and allow the government to become established. If there was a genuine agreement then the interference from these countries would stop. The backers of the sectarian militias in Iraq from these countries could be leaned on heavily to bring their people in line. Al-Qaeda and the other anti-US groups would have lost their main reason for being there, and people who know the language and culture would be on the streets sniffing out the last of the agitators. It wouldn’t be easy, but I think it’s the only way out.

 

Saudi is less than 1/3 the size of Iran and is constantly under the threat of a Wahhabi coup de' tat. Other than money and air cover what can they do to protect Iraqi Sunni's? The Shia militia's already number in hundreds of thousands, I don't think any puny international peace keeping type of force is going to influence them.

Would oil production strategies by Saudi Arabia to cripple Iran be considered and act of war? If so, the inevitable response by Iraq would be to use their submarine fleet to influence the amount of oil Saudi could ship. The US Navy would of course, protect Gulf oil shipping ...boom goes the dynamite.

(this would make a good Tom Clancy novel)

(could be a good time to buy gold)

By the way at his point I don't think it's a Civil War because there are no distinct 'sides'. It is probably best described as anarchy. But an Iranian show of force (if the US pulls out) would probably provide the nucleus required to coalesce the generally Shia sympythizers.

 

so we revert back to Iraq during pre 2003 invasion

 

Yeah, THAT was pluralistic...

 

which is more pluralistic? iraq circa 2002 or iraq circa 2006?

 

Iraq circa 2006. Not that your question in any way rehabilitates the silly assertion that a dictatorship was pluralistic.

 

i guess you would rather have a bloodbath than peace.. i know its more fun and exciting..

 

Which has exactly nothing to do with our disagreement. Congratulations.

 

At this point, I'd venture to say the average Iraqi would probably prefer stability and survival over pluralistic chaos even if Saddam is involved.

 

This is great news we can sell the Saudis the weapons they need to fight the insurgents.

DD

 

We could let them duke it out and then just go take their oil.

 

^Yeah, because they would welcome us as liberators after years of bloodshed and oppressed ethnocentric rule....

Jeb for '16?

 

Which is a different point entirely, of course. I'd venture to say it is a mistake to assume their preference for stability equates to a preference to a return of Saddam's days.

 

Keep in mind that what the "average Iraqi" wants will not solely determine Iraq's future. The people with the guns will have a larger say in the matter.

 

No one wants Saddam Hussein back but if its a choice of two evils, I wouldn't be shocked if people picked Saddam over the mess we have today.

 

I doubt it. We know the Kurds wouldn't. Doubtful the Shiites would want Saddam's yoke back. That's two thirds of the country right off the bat.

 

does pluralistic mean democracy alone? shouldn't there be peace and stability?

if you were to choose between a peaceful non-democary

or a blood shed torn democracy what would you choose?

 

the more and more i think about, the more and more i start to believe that the overwhelmingly deciding factor as to why this administration was so persistent in invading iraq was to completely destabilize the entire region... ensuring a sustained period of raising oil prices, defense industry growth, and increased government appropriations and reach.

in fact, i'm having a hard time believing anything else at this point.

 

perhaps i'm wrong, but didn't the kurds and shiites make a significantly smaller proportion of the iraqi population?