| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| Austin Bay-- Quick US Exit From Iraq: Seven Scenarios | |
| 2007-07-13 | |
Getting a head start on contemplating the unthinkable, Austin Bay sketches out seven possible scenarios-- six of them ugly-- for the aftermath of an abrupt American withdrawal from Iraq. A quick but worthwhile read. Also, check out Wretchard's take on the subject. My own analysis: we bug out of Iraq, things will get really shitty, really fast. There, AND here.
| |
| Posted by:Dave D. |
| #6 Austin's scenarios are not mutually exclusive; however each one (even the 'good' #7) probably result in huge numbers of dead Iraqis and huge numbers of Iraqis who seek temporary residence in the US. |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-07-13 13:06 |
| #5 The USA doesn't have to be on the ground to stop an Iranian move into S. Iraq. Any troop/armour moves would be sitting ducks for US airpower. Small scale covert moves would be little difference to currently. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2007-07-13 08:46 |
| #4 I agree with Wretchard: I think the key problem that must attend any forced American retreat from Iraq is avoiding the appearance and reality of having thrown in the hand. How do you walk away from the table without leaving the game? That's the key dilemma. And the answer, I think policy makers will find, is that you can't. Absent a complete disinterest in the outcome of the game, a willingness to accept whichever scenario eventuates, regardless of its desirability, there will be enormous pressure to remain in the game somehow, either by backing one of the remaining players or attempting to play from afar. Given the strategic importance of the region the real nightmare scenario is that you will have to go back in after you have talked yourself out. |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-07-13 06:51 |
| #3 There is only 1 real scenario: Iran moves into southern Iraq, and US and allied troops are not in place to push them back. Allowing inevitable ethnic cleansing to take its mostly non-violent course while both basing US troops away from cities and accepting a mostly support role for internal security, would certainly reduce US troop losses and would probably secure majority support. We are in sort of an experimental stage leading to change in October. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-07-13 04:04 |
| #2 "Senarios" #4,5, and 6 are already underway, with slightly different leading titles. No great leap in predictive analysis seen with these I'm afraid. Should senario #1 occurs, then senario 3 will follow at some level, most likely within 24 hours. Scenario 7 has about as much chance as Fred or I winning the Virginia lotto. A course of action (COA) not presented is the IDF whacking of Iraq and or Syria which could nuetralize all hostile activity within the region which could nuetralize hostile activity in the region for at least 30 days or so. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-07-13 03:09 |
| #1 The key variable not mention is will the US guarantee Iraq's current borders. If they do, then no Turkish or Iranian adventurism, and we have a partitioned Iraq. If they don't, then one or both could well roll the dice and we have a regional war, involving a number of countries that redraws the map. It also drastically reduces oil exports and sends the West in a headlong dash for alternative secure energy supplies (coal, nuclear). |
| Posted by: phil_b 2007-07-13 02:00 |