Meanwhile in Iraq: The Iraqi Military wants America's Military; F-16s, AH-6s, M1A1s, Hellfire missiles, etc.

[Caelius]

If there was a ever a more clear sign of Iraq's long term geo-strategic alignment in terms of international relations than this is it.

Iraq is definitely going to be a great US ally for the forseeable future, regardless of who gets elected President, regardless of how many troops the US pulls out in the next few years.

With them wanting all these goodies its essentially going to tie their military-industrial complex to the US's military-industrial supply train, especially in terms of logistics.

Spare parts, trained personnel, the works....

With the $80 billion surplus the Iraqi Government is running they'll definitely be able to buy it all too.

Source

Iraq prefers to pattern its Air Force along American lines, and is consulting with Pentagon experts about establishing a frontline, U.S.-trained force based around F-16 fighters, C-130J transports, armed helicopters and other advanced systems.

At a two-day conference in Crystal City, Va., Iraqi security officials spoke publicly of their preference for frontline U.S. equipment, including the F-16, to defend against internal as well as external threats.

"Our procurement of arms will be done through FMS," the Pentagon-run Foreign Military Sales program, said Gen. Babakir Baderkhan Zibari, Iraqi Armed Forces commander.

Samer Abid Alwahaab, director of public relations at Iraq's Ministry of Defense, underlined the preference.

"As we plan our defensive capabilities for the future, we are very much aware of the need to invest in the most modern, most capable and most reliable systems," Samer said. "This is the reason many prefer to work with our American allies and American companies and benefit from the American experience."

Samer said modern air power capabilities are needed not only by the MoD and the Iraqi Armed Forces, but also by the Interior Ministry.

"Iraq faces multiple challenges: We need to control our open borders and defend against external aggression, while our counterparts must maintain internal security and overall law and order," he said.

Lt. Gen. Anwer Hamed Ahmed, inspector general of the Iraqi Army and head of the assessment department within the Iraqi MoD, said that the nation's biggest focus remains national reconciliation and strengthened internal security. But he also noted that Iraq must be able protect itself against neighboring threats and regional adventurism.

Speaking to government and industry representatives at the New-Fields' Iraq Security and Defense Summit, Ahmed said security challenges include terrorism, corruption, sectarian violence, organized crime and "regional and international interference in Iraqi affairs."

"In order to be able to handle all these challenges, we have to have a strong government and a strong capability of protecting Iraq from its neighbors," Ahmed said. "Our insurance policy vis-à-vis Iraqi security is the United States."

U.S. Lt. Col. Almarah Belk, a Pentagon public affairs officer, said the two governments are consulting regularly on ways to stand up Iraq's future air force as well as other military branches. As for specific military procurement plans, Belk said Washington operates a 32-member Security Assistance Office in Iraq and has also created an Iraq FMS task force to expedite Baghdad's equipment needs.

As for the F-16, Belk said the Pentagon received in late August an Iraqi government request for price and availability data on a potential 36-aircraft F-16 force. The so-called P&A request is being reviewed as part of the normal FMS process, and the two countries have not yet reached a point where Baghdad is ready to issue a formal letter of request for the aircraft.

"We look forward to continuing to work with Iraq as a long-term partner as it continues to modernize its forces using its own national funds," Belk said.

In addition to the prospective F-16 order, the Pentagon informed Congress in midsummer of several potential deals to enhance Iraqi airpower capabilities. They include a possible $2.4 billion sale of up to 24 Bell Armed 407 helicopters or 24 Boeing AH-6 helicopters, 120mm mortars, AGM-114M Hellfire missiles, 2.75-inch rockets and machine guns.

Yet another potential air power enhancement includes a potential $1.5 billion sale of six C-130J airlifters, missile warning systems, countermeasures, related training, maintenance and support systems.

[Siblesz]

Yes... just like Iran was a great U.S. ally too. And Venezuela.

Excuse me, but once this whole invasion deal's over and the troops are out of Iraq, I don't think there will be a single soul in the Iraq that matters the most (Sunni/Shi'ite Iraq) who will want to be an ally of America. They're just playing politics for now. Just wait until America is left without influence in the country, and you'll see just how fast these temporary alignments will change. Because Iraq's government is buying American weapons, that doesn't make Iraq a future U.S. ally. It just means Iraqis are keeping their traditional love of weaponry alive. Most Iraqis detest Americans. It won't change any time soon...

Funny argument you make... but completely out of touch from reality... Iran, for example, is still using some of the American planes leftover from the time the Shah was a close U.S. ally. So is Venezuela from the time Venezuela was a close U.S. ally. Today, Iraq's top government might pretend to be a close U.S. ally, but when push comes to shove, Iraq will show its true colors in the future.

Anyhow, unless something intrinsically changes in how U.S. foreign policy is held, I don't see any of the nations that are against the U.S., and their pertaining societies, tilt their allegiances for the U.S.

[Caelius]

Yes... just like Iran was a great U.S. ally too. And Venezuela.

Before they were overrun by either Theocratic Revolutionaries or Soapbox Dictators? Most assuredly.

Excuse me, but once this whole invasion deal's over and the troops are out of Iraq, I don't think there will be a single soul in the Iraq that matters the most (Sunni/Shi'ite Iraq) who will want to be an ally of America.

Then you're deluded. Point of fact.

They're just playing politics for now.

You don't play politics with long term geo-strategic policy. Period.

Just wait until America is left without influence in the country, and you'll see just how fast these temporary alignments will change.

Another examples of your delusion then.

America isn't just going to leave and willfully abdicate its influence in Iraq to Iran. That's why this development is so telling of the wider geo-strategic forces at play that you usually won't find in the headlines of the news.

Reasons why the largest US embassy in the world is being built in Baghdad, reasons why there are a number of US military bases in Iraq which are designed to have a few divisions of troops or more stationed there similar to the arrangements the US has with countries like Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, and S. Korea.

The time when the presence of frontline US forces were needed may be over because of the successes of the Surge, but that doesn't mean the US is just going to pack up and leave Iraq completely.

Because Iraq's government is buying American weapons, that doesn't make Iraq a future U.S. ally. It just means Iraqis are keeping their traditional love of weaponry alive. Most Iraqis detest Americans. It won't change any time soon...

Oh yes it does, most assuredly. Though, like some of the others on this board, I won't expect you to accept the reality of things until its literally hitting you across the head like a sledgehammer.

Funny argument you make... but completely out of touch from reality... Iran, for example, is still using some of the American planes leftover from the time the Shah was a close U.S. ally. So is Venezuela from the time Venezuela was a close U.S. ally.

Speaks loads about the reliability of American weapons then doesn't it?

Today, Iraq's top government might pretend to be a close U.S. ally, but when push comes to shove, Iraq will show its true colors in the future.

The only way this kind of statement will ever be proven true is when the present day Iraqi government is toppled and replaced with one that is overtly hostile to the United States, as what happened in countries like Iran and Venezuela (as you've so astutely pointed out)....not before.

Until and unless that happens, its nothing more than speculative fantasy.

[eddy_purpus]

Yes... just like Iran was a great U.S. ally too. And Venezuela.

Excuse me, but once this whole invasion deal's over and the troops are out of Iraq, I don't think there will be a single soul in the Iraq that matters the most (Sunni/Shi'ite Iraq) who will want to be an ally of America. They're just playing politics for now. Just wait until America is left without influence in the country, and you'll see just how fast these temporary alignments will change. Because Iraq's government is buying American weapons, that doesn't make Iraq a future U.S. ally. It just means Iraqis are keeping their traditional love of weaponry alive. Most Iraqis detest Americans. It won't change any time soon...

Funny argument you make... but completely out of touch from reality... Iran, for example, is still using some of the American planes leftover from the time the Shah was a close U.S. ally. So is Venezuela from the time Venezuela was a close U.S. ally. Today, Iraq's top government might pretend to be a close U.S. ally, but when push comes to shove, Iraq will show its true colors in the future.

Anyhow, unless something intrinsically changes in how U.S. foreign policy is held, I don't see any of the nations that are against the U.S., and their pertaining societies, tilt their allegiances for the U.S.

i agree with Sibblesz ...
its the truth...

[Exarch]

Yes... just like Iran was a great U.S. ally too. And Venezuela.

Excuse me, but once this whole invasion deal's over and the troops are out of Iraq, I don't think there will be a single soul in the Iraq that matters the most (Sunni/Shi'ite Iraq) who will want to be an ally of America. They're just playing politics for now. Just wait until America is left without influence in the country, and you'll see just how fast these temporary alignments will change. Because Iraq's government is buying American weapons, that doesn't make Iraq a future U.S. ally. It just means Iraqis are keeping their traditional love of weaponry alive. Most Iraqis detest Americans. It won't change any time soon...

Funny argument you make... but completely out of touch from reality... Iran, for example, is still using some of the American planes leftover from the time the Shah was a close U.S. ally. So is Venezuela from the time Venezuela was a close U.S. ally. Today, Iraq's top government might pretend to be a close U.S. ally, but when push comes to shove, Iraq will show its true colors in the future.

Anyhow, unless something intrinsically changes in how U.S. foreign policy is held, I don't see any of the nations that are against the U.S., and their pertaining societies, tilt their allegiances for the U.S.

what about them permanent superbases them yankees have built in irak?
seems to me, them yanks are planning on havign some sort of permanent presence in i-rak for a very long time. like until the oil runs out.

[James Cook]

what about them permanent superbases them yankees have built in irak?
seems to me, them yanks are planning on havign some sort of permanent presence in i-rak for a very long time. like until the oil runs out.

offcurse they plan on hanging around, the saudis dont want them the kuwait
dont want then.

hell No one whats them around, its like having a bad cock on the high seas

[Siblesz]

what about them permanent superbases them yankees have built in irak?
seems to me, them yanks are planning on havign some sort of permanent presence in i-rak for a very long time. like until the oil runs out.

I think the U.S. won't be able to hold on to Iraq for too long. Perhaps they'll leave one or two bases in the country, but that's about all that they'll probably hold on to. Let's see the results. I could of course be wrong. But, as we are seeing...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/me...ent/index.html

[motiv-8]

I think the U.S. won't be able to hold on to Iraq for too long. Perhaps they'll leave one or two bases in the country, but that's about all that they'll probably hold on to. Let's see the results. I could of course be wrong. But, as we are seeing...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/me...ent/index.html

The long-term goal of the US is to firmly establish Iraq as its primary base of operations in the theater. It's due to that decision that bases elsewhere in the Mideast have been dismantled or largely down-scaled.

It's highly unlikely that we'll become insignificant in-country any time soon. Men like Obama can talk all they want, but when they actually sit in the chair and hear what the generals have to say, they'll sing a different tune.

[Caelius]

Americans are people who leave in the Americas for me you are a USAer.

Americans are citizens of the United States of America. The only country in the Western Hemisphere with "America" in its official name.

Considering that the United States was also the first freely independent and sovereign nation in this part of the world, Americans pretty much have first claim to call themselves whatever they like.

We might as well end this "debate" on this subject here, since i'm simply not going to acquiesce to your ridiculous political correctness.

Then next don't assume you have the best toys and i know what i'm talking about.

I'm not assuming anything. As plenty of others here can provide, I do know what i'm talking about, you don't.

As evidenced by your claim that the Leopard 2A6 has a 140mm gun.

The real question is that you can let your pride at home and talk with people without looking from above?

Can you?

Especially when it comes to accepting the reality of certain things as fact?

Because of large cost overruns, Germany withdrew from the project in 1969 and later a German prototype of Leopard 2 was given to you is what you call ''exchange''?

The Abrams wasn't developed from a German prototype. I would consider the MBT-70 program to have been one though.

Tell me, were even honestly aware of the MBT-70 program before yesterday or are you simply stating what you've been able to read up on since then?

You had?And how on Earth could you say you have better weapons?

Because they usually are? Thanks for agreeing to stop though, i'm done too.

@Cealius

That is not farnan's quote but its mine!
(I don't care...)

My bad.

And it was before the invasion as well, what changed?

Um....Alot?

So basically the surge "fixes" what we messed up in the first place, judging from your argument?

The Surge brought about the conditions the US has always sought. Conditions it had the opportunity to capitalize on following the invasion, but squandered initially after several policy decisions.

Because if they do anything the american government doesn't want, like vote that we leave their country immediately, we ignore them and change their leadership.

And where has this been done?

Nothing ever impresses overzealous nationalists other than how their own nation kicks ass.

I pity you for being foolish enough to view me as an overzealous nationlist then.

I'm not afraid of admitting America's shortcomings as a military power, the problem is that all too often there are too many people who misinterpret or underestimate an American strength as a weakness. Or who base their arguments for military success against the US on a false or incorrect assumption.

Historically this has pretty much always been the case for enemies of the United States.

That's the diplomatic way of saying it...but the prime minister wants them out. As in out, out.

Not really.

Maliki just has to keep up appearances for the sake of domestic political stability. He knows just as well as others in the Iraqi Govt. do that the US and Iraq are going to be dealing with each other for a pretty long time.

Its precisely what I was talking about regarding the events in the OP. If what you were saying were true, then how do you explain them?

Really? You mean Iran defying the west, threatening Israel, occupying Arab land, arresting Royal Navy personnel, building nuclear reactors and a several million man army....is cool ?

I wouldn't define it as cool, but I would say that the geo-political situation in the Middle East will be markedly better in the long term now that Saddam Hussein and his regime have been removed from the picture.

The man was a clear and persistent threat to US regional interests. WMDs or not, with him gone the US now only has to deal with Iran, which can be contained, pressured, and more or less bottled up until US geo-strategic commitments in Iraq are resolved.

They wouldn't have done any of that if they were still surrounded by their enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than their puppets.

They were doing pretty much all of that since before either the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Isolating them and pushing them into a corner is not good. At all.

Yes it is. The trick is in balancing the pressure exerted on them to the point where they don't have to get desparate enough to choose armed conflict in order to reach their objectives.

The US played this game very well with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and with Iraq in the years after the First Gulf War. Iran is no different.

Besides, if the Iranians do get desperate enough to the point where they feel their only Endgame option is to start a war in the region, then the casus belli to respond to their aggression will be firmly within the US and its allies ballcourt. Advantage defaults to the US in that scenario.

Ok, i wanna cross check this. Do you think the new autonomous regions of Abkhazia and Ossetia are puppets of Russia?

Considering that their "independence" has only been recognized by two countries in the whole world, one of them Russia, what do you think my answer is going to be?

Its a misnomer to try and compare them to Iraq.

Are they not puppets because we said they could vote on a system we pushed on them down the barrel of a gun?

That makes them proxies/partners, not puppets, there's a difference.

What you described is pretty much the "Russian Way" of securing its sphere of influence and interests in the international arena.

The United States has a far more nuanced and less heavy handed approach. One where its allies and client states are able to retain their right to self-determination after a military conflict with the US is over (with strings attached of course), but one that is, all things considered, less resource intensive and ultimately counter-productive on the US' part when it comes to trying to directly run another country itself.

Just as the British, French, and most recently the Russians how well that sort of thing worked out for them. What the US is doing in Iraq is no different then what it has done in Germany, Japan, S. Korea, the Phillipines, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and dozens of other countries that are still strong US allies to this day.

It's highly unlikely that we'll become insignificant in-country any time soon. Men like Obama can talk all they want, but when they actually sit in the chair and hear what the generals have to say, they'll sing a different tune.

Man you'd be surprised how many times i've said this and posters on this board have responded with nothing more than sheer denial.

Its a good thing that most people simply don't know or understand the reality of how foreign policy in the US (to say the least of other countries) really works behind closed doors.

Name one thing that the Iraqi government has done that has gone against U.S. interests in the region and has not been reversed.

That's not a legitimate claim for evidence.

Just because they cooperate with the US and don't disagree with it all the time doesn't make them puppets.

If you want to make the claim that the current Iraqi Govt. is directly run by the United States then you need to start looking at where the Iraqi Govt. gets its internal revenues from, who runs its different institutions and agencies, and what groups have access to the reins of power domestically within the country outside of the US Military. Do all that and then come back and try to claim that the Iraqi Govt. is illegitimate, or not sovereign.

The UN says they are, are they wrong?

Once more, can Iraq try U.S. soldiers for crimes against Iraqi civilians, independent of the United States? The answer is no.

The American Servicemembers' Protection Act passed by the US Congress prohibits (aside from making it an act of war) for any foreign government outside of NATO and major non-NATO US allies to try US Military personnel.

Until Iraq is made one of those then, as you say....the answer is no.

Although i'm sure that given enough time Iraq will be made a MNNA once frontline US troops are withdrawn.

Its called sovereignty.

Sovereignty is a relative. International relations 101.

Considering that what the US is presently doing in Iraq has been deemed as legal (and mandated) under both the UN and the Iraqi Govt., then its not a breach of Iraq's sovereignty.

Read up on diplomacy the next time before making such statements.

You missed the point entirely.

On the contrary i'll be fair and defend him on this one.

He just misinterpreted the point.

Uh, I'm pretty sure the U.S. has attempted to strong army Iraq on the SOFA.

Diplomacy is nothing but strong-arming.

Have you been there? Have you even met an Iraqi? Do you know what you're talking about?

These are some questions you should ask yourself before you start talking about how a whole other country's people feel about Americans.

Don't bother man, I can answer all three of those questions for him.

The answers are all no, especially the last one.

No.

But there would be no theocracy. Meaning things would be a lot better now because the US would have a strong democratic ally to sell weapons to AND help in wars.

Causation doesn't equate to correlation.

AFAIK there aren't any time machines that can be used to change what happened in the past. All you can do is try to learn from it.

America's invasion caused the complete collapse of the country and resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

That's called war Siblesz. Just picked up on that reality?

It doesn't take a genius to understand that a majority of Iraqis hate the U.S.

Another false assumption, wonderful.

Siblesz, you do realize that until the insurgency kicked into high gear in late 2003 that most Iraqis were overtly grateful to the US for toppling Saddam?

Of course, they probably don't hate Americans, per say... what they hate is the U.S. government. Denying the fact won't change the reality.

You're out of touch with reality.

Many Iraqi children have been stunted severely by this war. Many are at least missing a parent now.

...Wait till they grow up.

I think they'll pretty much have an eternal aversion and hatred of terrorism in all its forms for pretty much the rest of their lives to be honest.

Something which will go in stark contrast to US soldiers who for the most part were generally very friendly and outgoing with them.

I'll wait for the Iraqi's to start claiming that theirs is the best country on earth, and begin watching 25 camel riders in a race to see who can make the most left turns first, before I believe were friends.

The BBC already did a story on how Iraqi teenagers have fallen in love with American motorcycle culture. Drag races aren't all that common on Baghdad's streets these days.

You might not have to wait that long.

That conjecture is rock hard evidence, ladies and gentlemen, ROCK HARD.

You're being sarcastic right? Its complete and utter crap, not that i've grown used to it with Sibs. He continually astounds with me the new heights he'll reach to when it comes to claiming something that's irrefutably disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

He's alot like Seymour Hersh in that respect, so i'll give him props in that department.

[Каие]

Not really.
Maliki just has to keep up appearances for the sake of domestic political stability. He knows just as well as others in the Iraqi Govt. do that the US and Iraq are going to be dealing with each other for a pretty long time.
Its precisely what I was talking about regarding the events in the OP. If what you were saying were true, then how do you explain them?

How do I explain what? That Maliki and the Iraqis want the Americans out? With a simple quote from Maliki himself.

I wouldn't define it as cool, but I would say that the geo-political situation in the Middle East will be markedly better in the long term now that Saddam Hussein and his regime have been removed from the picture.

"Those who forget History are doomed to repeat it."

This is not the first time we, in the western world, have physically interfered in the Middle East making changes to suit us and 'the people', and claimed it will all be better in the long run. It's not the first time. For gods sake we in Britain drew the map. The USA once supported Saddam Hussein, you supported the Sha, you support the Kings of Arabia. The only thing that will change is American interest, not the interest of the region.

If Iraq is no longer in Americas interest, say if they got into a conflict with Saudi Arabia or another of Americans allies then Iraq will be sold down the drain again. Saddam Hussein himself said upon the eve of the war in 2003 "I wish Reagan was still President".

So enough of this long term talk...it always changes. In accordance with American will. Watch what happens if Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Afghanistan elect anti-American leaders.

The man was a clear and persistent threat to US regional interests.

What were those interests? Total domination of Arabs? or the support of Israel? Oil?

WMDs or not, with him gone the US now only has to deal with Iran, which can be contained, pressured, and more or less bottled up until US geo-strategic commitments in Iraq are resolved.

Nonsense, as we can see. While the US is 'bottling up' Iraq missions, Iran has been busy making a puppet out of the ruling party of Iraq the Dawa Party [former Iranian backed,and still backed, terrorist group...another example of the USA standing up for 'American Interests']

They were doing pretty much all of that since before either the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Yep...and Saddam invaded them. Are you ready to go? with Israel?

Yes it is. The trick is in balancing the pressure exerted on them to the point where they don't have to get desparate enough to choose armed conflict in order to reach their objectives.

Of course not, that's your job.

The US played this game very well with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and with Iraq in the years after the First Gulf War. Iran is no different.

The USSR situation = mutual nukes. I'm sure that's not what you want with Iran.
Iraq....you got bored of doing that and just invaded them. If that's is a prediction as to how this strategy will play out with Iran...then it proves it is even more stupid.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results". - Albert Einstein.

Besides, if the Iranians do get desperate enough to the point where they feel their only Endgame option is to start a war in the region, then the casus belli to respond to their aggression will be firmly within the US and its allies ballcourt. Advantage defaults to the US in that scenario.

Nah, mate. You don't have any more allies. [and by allies you mean the UK and Poland] Israel won't get into a war far from home against a regional power, so you'll be all on your own.

Besides Iran will not attack first, but will retaliate to an Israeli/American attack [which if watching the Israeli side is very very likely, especially if Likud wins the next election], upon which it would be their right to retaliate.

Good luck.

[Major.Stupidity]

The man was a clear and persistent threat to US regional interests. WMDs or not, with him gone the US now only has to deal with Iran, which can be contained, pressured, and more or less bottled up until US geo-strategic commitments in Iraq are resolved.

Care to elaborate that one?

Just as the British, French, and most recently the Russians how well that sort of thing worked out for them. What the US is doing in Iraq is no different then what it has done in Germany, Japan, S. Korea, the Phillipines, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and dozens of other countries that are still strong US allies to this day.

Wait, how is the U.S. relations with the Mubarak regime nuanced?

Just because they cooperate with the US and don't disagree with it all the time doesn't make them puppets.

Then what does it make them, really, really, really acquiescent allies?

The American Servicemembers' Protection Act passed by the US Congress prohibits (aside from making it an act of war) for any foreign government outside of NATO and major non-NATO US allies to try US Military personnel.

Yay for Ottoman Empire-like capitulations!

Considering that what the US is presently doing in Iraq has been deemed as legal (and mandated) under both the UN and the Iraqi Govt., then its not a breach of Iraq's sovereignty.

Aside from your asinine remark on its being IR 101, you care to elaborate your point on how its not a violation of Iraqi sovereignty to have a system of extra-territoriality in place?

[Captain Jin]

Most Iraqis detest Americans. It won't change any time soon....

I love this. Where the did you get that information? Jesus christ. Generalizing the entire nation huh? How many have you talked to? Have you been there? No. Weird. I wonder why that argument doesnt carry any ing weight then.

Apologies for the language, but c'mon. Most Iraqis detest Americans? WTF? That's a knee slapper.

As far as Iraqis want American equipment. I'm not that surprised. I remember when working with the Iraqi army they loved our M16s and used to talk nothing but about their AKs and we would talk about our M16 (mostly cause we hate 5.56) and be down the for the AK cause. But considering how enamored they were with our gear I'm not at all surprised the government is going that direction. The G36 may be a better weapon comparitively but someday people have to realize that it's about having a good balance between quality and quantity. G36 is expensive, the Iraqis can get a ton of prime M16A2s for much less and the performance differences will be too minor to matter.

[Siblesz]

Until and unless that happens, its nothing more than speculative fantasy.

I'll just answer this little gem, since your whole argument is based upon that belief.

Iraq is decidedly anti-American. Polls taken reveal that 95% of Iraqis want a timetable for the removal of U.S. troops within the next year. Obama is likely to be elected. The U.S. financial crisis is tumbling down America's house of cards and revealing a country deep in debt crisis of which definitely be made worse if the U.S. continues funding the misguided war on terror. The Iraq coalition is a scam and over 95% of all coalition troops are American. The Brits have all but withdrawn. The Iraqi government is working out a deal for troop removal as we speak and keep pressing the U.S. government for a timetable for withdrawal.

All of this means that the odds are quite likely for a coming U.S. troop withdrawal.

And once that happens,

It's probably game over for the U.S.-Iraqi "alliance". Any Iraqi government after U.S. troop withdrawal will have to be decidedly anti-American if they wish to maintain the support of the people and the unity of Iraq.

But who knows... perhaps Mr. Obama will surprise us all and become just as belligerent as Mr. Bush, and perhaps Iraq will indeed remain the central castle in America's enterprise... but as Mr. Hendrix once said, all castles made of sand will wash into the sea.

[Каие]

@OP

Don't kid yourself, the Dawa Party [the incumbent ruling party] has always been supported by Iran's shia Islamic revolution. Always, and still now. Iran controls Iraq, as soon as the USA leaves, that will become evident. As you can see that is the exact opposite of what the USA actually wants.

You know you can't oppose anyone. It's a fact the only person keeping the Iranians at bay from the middle East was the Taliban on one side and Saddam Hussein on the other. Both of those are gone now. "You reap what you sow". You want war? Heres you war, it's going to be going on for a long time.

[Farnan]

@OP

Don't kid yourself, the Dawa Party [the incumbent ruling party] has always been supported by Iran's shia Islamic revolution. Always, and still now. Iran controls Iraq, as soon as the USA leaves, that will become evident. As you can see that is the exact opposite of what the USA actually wants.

You know you can't oppose anyone. It's a fact the only person keeping the Iranians at bay from the middle East was the Taliban on one side and Saddam Hussein on the other. Both of those are gone now. "You reap what you sow". You want war? Heres you war, it's going to be going on for a long time.

The question is however whether the Dawa Party will remain in power after the next national elections. From what I read they are not very popular even among the Shi'ites, especially among the Anti-Iranian Stay Behinds (those who stayed in Iraq during the rule of Saddam).

[Каие]

The question is however whether the Dawa Party will remain in power after the next national elections. From what I read they are not very popular even among the Shi'ites, especially among the Anti-Iranian Stay Behinds (those who stayed in Iraq during the rule of Saddam).

We can only hope, but they have managed to run an $80 billion surplus, they are not completely stupid, but maybe after the Sunnis vote, as they boycotted last time, the parties may be more representative.

[Farnan]

We can only hope, but they have managed to run an $80 billion surplus, they are not completely stupid, but maybe after the Sunnis vote, as they boycotted last time, the parties may be more representative.

The reason they have such a surplus is they failed to develop the infastructure neccessary to provide services to the people, thus they can't spend all the money they get which is why they have their surplus. Many Iraqis, especially Sunnis and tribal Shi'ites believe the Dawa party to be incompetent and overly influenced by Iran (Sunnis and tribal Shi'ites don't like Iran).

The reasons the exile parties did so well has to do with the fact they were organized while the stay behind's leadership was gutted and killed by Saddam.

[Каие]

The reason they have such a surplus is they failed to develop the infastructure neccessary to provide services to the people, thus they can't spend all the money they get which is why they have their surplus. Many Iraqis, especially Sunnis and tribal Shi'ites believe the Dawa party to be incompetent and overly influenced by Iran (Sunnis and tribal Shi'ites don't like Iran).

The reasons the exile parties did so well has to do with the fact they were organized while the stay behind's leadership was gutted and killed by Saddam.

I'm having difficulty understanding the Iraqi election system. I believe their is a local/district election in January 2009? When is the next General Election? Is the President directly elected?

[Big War Bird]

You are both wrong and you are both right.

Iraq won't be a loving ally, but its not going to throw a US friendship out the window at the first opportunity either. If a country is in need of a 'big friend' like Iraq does you don't end the friendship until you have another 'big friend.'

And yes equiping an army largely with major weapons systems from one country does signal that you are making some sort of commitment. Jets and tanks and missles break down rather frequently and a country like Iraq certainly does not have the infrastructure to maintain these systems without US assistance.

Iraq will play its own diplomatc game and chart its own path, but for now and for the foreseeable, Iraq is an ally of the USA, unhappily maybe, that does not have any better options.

And if some guy in Atlanta behind a keyboard can figure that out, leaders in the USA and Iraq have figured that out too.

[alhoon]

You are both wrong and you are both right.

Iraq won't be a loving ally, but its not going to throw a US friendship out the window at the first opportunity either. If a country is in need of a 'big friend' like Iraq does you don't end the friendship until you have another 'big friend.'

And yes equiping an army largely with major weapons systems from one country does signal that you are making some sort of commitment. Jets and tanks and missles break down rather frequently and a country like Iraq certainly does not have the infrastructure to maintain these systems without US assistance.

Iraq will play its own diplomatc game and chart its own path, but for now and for the foreseeable, Iraq is an ally of the USA, unhappily maybe, that does not have any better options.

And if some guy in Atlanta behind a keyboard can figure that out, leaders in the USA and Iraq have figured that out too.

I totally agree with this post. Except the part of a certain person in USA goverment figuring that out. But I guess he has been told.