How long will this war last?

[bellychris]

just a question...how long do you think this war in Iraq will go on? And if it does end, what do you think we will have acomplished.

Also I'm also curious if anyone back from Iraq witnessed anything that the media did not cover.

I remember hearing stories that American soldiers where told a certain profile of a truck may contain a bomb and were told to shoot down any one of these trucks that came by regardless if they contained a bomb or not. A lot of innocent Iraq's died that day just because they were driving in the wrong truck at the wrong time.

[Thanatoast]

I believe the answer to this question depends on what you think the reason for the war was and what your definition of end is.

If the war was to depose Saddam and liberate the Iraqis, that's done already. If continued troop presence is deemed necessary until complete pacification. I'd say close to a decade or longer, depends on when we decide to give up.

If the war is continued to be fought on the "War on Terror" basis, I've heard the number twenty-five years thrown around by Senators and such. And that's the optimistic side.

If the war was a show of strength and an excuse to develop a permanent military presence in the Middle East, our troops will never come home.

This is why it's so important to carefully choose our leaders. Our current options are crap, but until we demand anything better, this is what we'll get. One guy who wants to take on the world, and another guy who doesn't want to take on the world, but doesn't know why.

[Desertrat]

Fair analysis, Thanatoast. Back in Octobe of 2001, I figured a minimum of five but more likely ten years to do the mix of diplomacy, military action and the cover/back-alley horribles that would be needed.

Given the absence of forethought given to how deal with a post-war Iraq, I'm adding time.

If you think of the mideast as part of the Great Game of international chess that has been ongoing since before the Roman Empire, we'll be there as long as there is oil. Of course, if you accept the validity of Hubbert's Pimple, we might not be there all that long.

'Rat

[busasa]

if it's really a war such as according to hungtinton's "clash of civilizations", then i guess the war will never end. Obviously, the rise of fundamentalism in the region is growing, and that phenomenon will NOT be eliminated as long as Western continues its imperialistic behaviour. There are many factors which contribute to this mess, which may include things such as oil and terroism, but then I believe the hatred of imperialistic behaviour towardiing the West is really engineered by the local cultural fundamentalist movement. Unless the western world can find a way to may be alter the culture or may be just destory it, it may be hard to make harmony in the region. While by no way I'm saying the Islamic culture is evil, there are quite some difference that it has with Christianity. The conflict in the Middle East is such a different case comparing to other regions' case, it's really hard to point out where the problem lies. I just don't think it's the same as in Africa, where the problems can be reduced if WTO, IMF, and WB stop explitating them. There are just too much conflicts in the region that I don't think "ordinary" diplomatic or military resorts can make peace in the region.

[zimv20]

i thought that the war was over, and what we're seeing now is 'peace'

[takao]

yeah war is already over....

in the beginning i gave it 3 years untill everyhing calmed down but after the recent events (those _new_ prison pictures aren't good either) i wil think it takes more time like 6-7 years till everything there goes to normal... if from now on better decisions are made ...like involve the UN more

[Neserk]

i thought that the war was over, and what we're seeing now is 'peace'

Yeah, I could swear Bush declared the end to major fighting last spring... oh wait, that was so he could cut off the combatant pay for the troops. That is right, I remember now. *We* are suppose to "support the troops" but Bush is exempt from that. Apparently only support in words is necessary, not in action.

[IJ Reilly]

If all goes well from here on in, Iraq might be capable of self-governing in 10-15 years; that is, if we're not too picky about the quality of the democracy the Iraqis create (a soft dictatorship, a strongman by another name, seems a likely outcome). The war won't be over until then, at the very least, because the US will be providing national security for Iraq until they can do it for themselves. Then I wonder how Iraq's neighbors will react if the new government is perceived as being too pro-Western and secular.

[Desertrat]

busasa, I'm no expert in any way shape or form about the Koran, but I run across snippets from scholars from time to time. One mentioned that "Jihad" is supposed to apply to killing foreign invaders. This view obviously doesn't fit the concept of Jihad as "Kill all Infidels, everywhere."

It seems to me this word "imperialism" gets tossed around rather casually, and IMO too often erroneously. I do not see buying a product from a country at their demand-price as being imperialism. That a country in Africa or the mideast has no other products besides raw materials is the "fault" of the local government, not the Giant Corporations which buy from them. The selling of a country's raw materials in lieu of developing an infrastructure to sell finished products is commonly the sign of a thugocracy.

'Rat

[3rdpath]

sadly, i only see two possible ways to end this war:

either we or the iraqi's leave iraq...

not long ago i thought that maybe the war could be salvaged...but at this point i see no way that the u.s. can peacefully coexist with the iraqi's, their trust in us is gone and our reputation as the stewards of democracy is FUBAR.

call me cynical, but after the recent prisoner debacle, the sooner we leave the better. the situation is hopeless, it has the unmistakable odor of vietnam...

we have lost.

the only variable in our timeline at this point is the loss of life.

[IJ Reilly]

either we or the iraqi's leave iraq...

Last one out, turn on the lights!

[blackfox]

sadly, i only see two possible ways to end this war:

either we or the iraqi's leave iraq...

not long ago i thought that maybe the war could be salvaged...but at this point i see no way that the u.s. can peacefully coexist with the iraqi's, their trust in us is gone and our reputation as the stewards of democracy is FUBAR.

call me cynical, but after the recent prisoner debacle, the sooner we leave the better. the situation is hopeless, it has the unmistakable odor of vietnam...

we have lost.

the only variable in our timeline at this point is the loss of life.
Well, I do not think the US will be pulling out anytime soon...but if they did, it might not be the worst thing in the world...assuming a premise such as this:

The US pulls out, and initially Iraq is chaotic, but Iran steps in to fill the void and Iraq is shaped into an Islamic theocracy...
Now Iran, is actually one of the more friendly countries towards the US in the area (by average citizens, not government) as the populace has grown weary of post-revolutionary Iran...and is headed down a slow road towards democracy (not necessarily TO democracy, but TOWARDS)...and I could see Iraq, once stabilized...slowly recovering from anti-americanism, as the Iranians have...and clamoring for some western goods and ideas...both Iran and Iraq are fairly educated and sophisticated Middle Eastern societies...and left to themselves, may gravitate towards western values...as long as the US does not do any stupid 'meddling' which might give fodder to more hard-liner conservative factions...
Time frame: about 10 years...but no more US deaths, direct military expenditures and the like...most likely just diplomacy and economic assistance...

Of course as long as I'm dreaming...I'd like a pony...

[Sayhey]

It all depends on the November election. If Kerry is elected it will be much easier to get the UN and other nations to help in bringing about elections. If the UN can call together the various forces in Iraq, without the interference of the US, and a real framework for elections can be hammered out then it is not necessarily a long term commitment. If Bush is elected, we won't be out of Iraq until years after his second term is over.

[Neserk]

Iraq might be capable of self-governing in 10-15 years; that is, if we're not too picky about the quality of the democracy the Iraqis create (a soft dictatorship, a strongman by another name, seems a likely outcome)..

Didn't someone before post the list of countries who that we've invaded or been at war with which have become democracies? I belive the grand total was 0. Think history will be made?

[IJ Reilly]

Didn't someone before post the list of countries who that we've invaded or been at war with which have become democracies? I belive the grand total was 0. Think history will be made?

Don't recall such a list. But Germany and Japan come to mind, though both had been democracies before. The Philippines, also -- but that took nearly 100 years.

[vwcruisn]

duh.. it was over a long time ago!



http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13439

[Dippo]

The war has actually been over for more than a year now. We are technically in a "peace keeping" phase, and we will continue to do so until the Iraqi government is setup to take over. After that, we will go into a "pull out" phase where the troops are slowly returned home until only a small presence remains.

I serious doubt we will ever pull out of Iraq completely. Just take Germany and Japan for example, we still have troops in Germany and Japan over 50 years after the fact.

But of course the Koeras are still technically at war, so I guess it's a matter of opinion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1884546.stm The two Koreas remain technically at war, as their three-year conflict ended in 1953 in an armistice that has never been replaced with a permanent peace treaty.

[toontra]

The war has actually been over for more than a year now. We are technically in a "peace keeping" phase, and we will continue to do so until the Iraqi government is setup to take over.

Is this sarcasm? Difficult to tell.

If the war is over, why does Bush, Rumsfeld and gang continually refer to the current actions in Iraq as the "war"? Are they referring to the other war, the metaphysical "war on terror"? Difficult to tell when you apparently have two separate wars going on in the same country simultaneously.

I think the answer is that "war" is whatever the US decide to describe as war (their definition is now wide enough to encompass almost any action, including pre-emption on faulty intelligence), and it will be over whenever they decide (or should I say it when suits them) it should be over.

Now that's simple, isn't it!

[busasa]

The term imperialism does have been threw around quite frequently, but I believe it can be placed on the situation in Iraq. If you ask any local people in the Middle East region, I will have no doubt that most people there will consider US as the imperialistic invade on Iraq. People in the western world often have no idea on how their consumption are being established on the third world's misfortunes. I do not want to go into the details of CIA's influence in Latin America, nor do I want to go into the details of how IMF and WB screwed up Africa through its SAPs. All Im saying is that one needs to realize the hatred that these indeginous people have toward the west before reaching a real solution that can make peace in those regions. This is why I state that "ordinary" diplomatic or military resorts will not do their jobs of making peace.

[numediaman]

Is this sarcasm? Difficult to tell.

If the war is over, why does Bush, Rumsfeld and gang continually refer to the current actions in Iraq as the "war"?

Actually, the President is running as a "peacekeeping" president.

I've taken the trouble to update the carrier photo. I think this is more in keeping with present circumstances.

[Desertrat]

busasa, I'd sure agree with "This is why I state that "ordinary" diplomatic or military resorts will not do their jobs of making peace."

Using the Israeli/Palestinian as an example, I'm not sure that any sort of diplomatic or military solutions are possible.

Still, to me the word Imperialism means taking and holding from original intent and thence in perpetuity. Our history is that of taking and then letting go after things calm down. While Guam, the P.I. and Puerto Rico might originally have been intended to be part of some sort of empire, I rather think Guam and Puerto Rico remain tied to us through inertia. :) And, after all, we no longer control Okinawa...

I tend toward an isolationist policy since the end of the Cold War. I've noticed my notions on that are ignored within the Beltway...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Our history is that of taking and then letting go after things calm down.

Like in Mexico in 1849 and Cuba and the Philippines in 1898? We've had our imperial moments, and that's not including the Indian nations. They didn't exactly give up their lands willingly either.

[busasa]

the notion of the often used "US imperialism" can be found in the broken talk of the recent WTO Cancun talk. As you might have recalled, the issue of unfair subsidy for the western world has harmed the markets of developing nations greatly. The cows in the developed world are getting paid more than the farmers in the developing world. SAP, which stands for structural adjustments programs, are deliberately aimed to open developing nations' market for the transnational corporation's penetration. This to me represents an age of neoimperialism, where militarial overtaking is replaced by the money game of private corporations. One can not also downplay the impact that the US has over Latin America with its support on warlords just like its previous support to Afgahnistan and Iraq. While one may be able to link that with the Cold War, one can still not ignore the fact that the US does deliberately want to influencel these nations in its interest. I don't think the current government in Afgahnistan will be able to hold power if it doesn't have the backing of US millitary.

[Sayhey]

Still, to me the word Imperialism means taking and holding from original intent and thence in perpetuity. Our history is that of taking and then letting go after things calm down. While Guam, the P.I. and Puerto Rico might originally have been intended to be part of some sort of empire, I rather think Guam and Puerto Rico remain tied to us through inertia. :) And, after all, we no longer control Okinawa...

'Rat

I would say rather that the US got into the Imperialism "business" late in the game when most of the world was already claimed by old Imperial powers. The US policy was to take on the oldest and weakest of those powers, Spain, and build its Empire from there. Little things like World War II and the movement to end colonialism intervened and our old style Imperial ambitions were cut short. The post war years that saw the greatest expansion of US power fell within the time of neocolonialism. If you don't think we participated in that, then I've a list of military interventions that I can give you.

[IJ Reilly]

I think it's fair to say that the United States never really entertained colonial ambitions on the scale and in the manner that the European nations did, but we certainly implemented our own more narrowly tailored imperial vision during the 19th Century. It was called Manifest Destiny.