As I went through Doody's "must read article on Iraq" I thought I might add this.
After elections and after the new government formation terrorist attacks on the country have enormously increased.
Nevertheless, the Sunni are starting to join the system, and the Zarqawi boys are having trouble with local nomadic tribes in the Al Anbar province.
How much is done with the Iraqi new Army?
How much is done as far as the economy (oil, pipeline sabotage etc) ?
Are the Western troops still numerous enough?

I'd be glad to hear your opinion, thoroughly explained and debated.

Thank you.

Unless there are some political changes in the main countries there (UK, USA Australia), were in for the long haul. There is no way the current Iraqi police or military could handle the situation.

I predict that it will end up almost like Korea, where we will have forces to some degree for years. Only it won't be because of any particular region attacking another. It will be because of warlords.

Couple more years....

Although I hate the thought of an extended police action in the Middle East, it has to be done. It seems that the countries willing to fight this war can be counted with the fingers on one hand and the World joke UN is more of a hindrance than help. The reluctance of the "World community" to see that this extremist threat is not going away and the more prolonged the war, the more civilian casualties there will be. While Rome burns, the fat cats of the world will fiddle and gripe about body counts.

Originally Posted by Missileer

Although I hate the thought of an extended police action in the Middle East, it has to be done. It seems that the countries willing to fight this war can be counted with the fingers on one hand and the World joke UN is more of a hindrance than help. The reluctance of the "World community" to see that this extremist threat is not going away and the more prolonged the war, the more civilian casualties there will be. While Rome burns, the fat cats of the world will fiddle and gripe about body counts.

Hey leave the UN out of this, it didnt support the war from the start and it has taken no part in it since. If nothing else it has at least stuck to its principles over that.

As far as the "world community" goes I would suggest that they are living by the old retail motto..."you broke it, you buy it" and really have no interest in cleaning up someone elses mess.


Anyway back to teh questions at hand:

Nevertheless, the Sunni are starting to join the system, and the Zarqawi boys are having trouble with local nomadic tribes in the Al Anbar province.
How much is done with the Iraqi new Army?
How much is done as far as the economy (oil, pipeline sabotage etc) ?
Are the Western troops still numerous enough?

I think the current state of the Iraqi army is the big question, if the original post is accurate then the US is going to be trapped in Iraq for centuries to come, if it isnt then there is some light at the end of the tunnel and things could be "stabilised" within a few years.

Economy wise its much the same however once the insurgency is in its final stages the economy and social development of the country should take off, after all this is a well educated and potentially wealthy nation.

However if you look at the history of the middle east Iraqi democracy has probably got more to fear from a well trained army than anything else, coup's seem to be popular in the region.

I think that we will begin to see a troop reduction by this time next year, but it just isn't possible for the Americans to leave iraq in 12 months because it takes a long time once troop reduction has began for it to complete. I think we'll have most of the troops home in 2.5 years.

I have read some of the replies to this thread, but with some I must disagree. I agree with silent driller, We took Germany in 1945 and we had an Armor unit there until 85', same with Korea.

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

I have read some of the replies to this thread, but with some I must disagree. I agree with silent driller, We took Germany in 1945 and we had an Armor unit there until 85', same with Korea.

Oh, it's a given that we will ALWAYS have some forces in Iraq. There are 2 large and 2 medium sized airbases that will be US property for the rest of our lives much like Guantanamo even if the whole country goes to ****. Iraq is going to be where we are going to stage a lot of supplies so that if we can be ready if we need to fight any of the nations boardering Iraq. Now we don't have to have a friendly country in the region where we can stage our troops, we've already got the infustrucute to deploy our forces in the region.

What this thread is discussing is when we will have almost all the troops back. We'll probobly always have like 5,000 soldiers in Iraq but that's A LOT smaller than 130,000. And due to the strategic situation there will be a gradual withdrawal; there will never be a big 100,000 soldier ticker tape parade where all our boys come home at once.

have read some of the replies to this thread, but with some I must disagree. I agree with silent driller, We took Germany in 1945 and we had an Armor unit there until 85', same with Korea.

Yes, but both of those counties needed that presence as part of their defense against foreign attacks.