# News The benifits for coalition forces for staying in iraq

1. Jul 2, 2007

### devil-fire

there are some obvious short term benefits for leaving Iraq for most coalition forces such as money, political popularity (as spineless as it may look like in the distant future) and stopping the casualties among soldiers.

but what about the benefits for staying there? given that the current objective, or orientation of force, is to simply stabilize the area, what are the benefits for coalition nations for pursuing this objective? please consider that stabilization may be achieved with varying levels of success and that humanitarian benefits are well... historical footnotes and often over looked (i mean to say that humanitarian goals are typically not valuable to most nations). I'm mostly interested in the potential benefits so if there is something that is conceivable although unlikely, it would be great to hear about that too. it would also be interesting to hear some opinions about the likelihood of how these points could turn out

the first and most popular reason that comes to my mind that some of you might want to expand on is that the region will be less likely to become an area where the least desired but strong groups of the middle east could congregate (aka Islamic extremists and any other radical group)

secondly, the area could become much more pro-western if western nations helped solve their problems, such as Turkey having their issues with the Kurds in northern Iraq solved, and Shia-Sunni groups being grateful for not having a genocidal situation happening around them

another thing is that the region could become more economically friendly for reliable resource exploitation.

lastly, people may give credit to anyone who bled for the sake of providing sustainable physical security for others.

2. Jul 4, 2007

### Staff: Mentor

Those might be benefits - assuming that Iraq and the local region can be stabilized. But if the current occupation is only deferring the inevitable conflicts and deteriortation, then there is absolutely no benefit.

Unlikely. It is precisely the presence of US troops that is attracting extremist groups.

The west cannot solve the problems between the Turks and Kurds, and between Shii and Sunni. Only those involved can. Those who feel compelled to used violence against others have to change their mindset, i.e. it requires a change of human nature. I'm not sure that's possible at this time or anytime in the near future. Bush and his people blew it big time when they resorted to violence as a means to change Iraq.

Again, it requires a change of human nature.

Some Iraqis are grateful to the US and the troops who got rid of Hussein and his regime. Many more, however, resent the US and the troops for the occupation and subsequent deterioration of Iraq.

3. Jul 4, 2007

### Staff: Mentor

http://www.pojonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070704/NEWS01/707040321
Physics major was soccer star

Stupid d*** war!

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
4. Jul 4, 2007

### devil-fire

yeah, im talking about if things were going favorably for the coalition forces. in theory, if coalition objectives suddenly started being achieved according to optimistic expectations then what would the rewards be for coalition forces?

perhaps coalition forces could be helpful if they provided physical security while negotiations take place?

what i have in mind here is just assessing the potential gains for coalition nations in iraq. basicly, if everything goes as well for the coaltion as anyone could imagine, then how good is that really for the coalition nations? if everything going well adds only vary small gains, i think it would be interesting to see it all layed out.

the trouble im having here is that i dont think i see a reason for the coalition to be there that is worth the expense, ignoring for a moment that even the limited value of this effort is not being achieved because of what sounds like many huge failures. it looks like the coalition is playing a lotery with 1:100 odds of winning a jackpot of $10 while spending$100 per ticket and they just keep buying tickets.

5. Jul 4, 2007

### Staff: Mentor

That's the key to the problem.

Are negotiations being conducted in 'good faith'?

Are Shii groups or individuals willing to share political power and resources with Sunnis, and vice versa, and then add the Kurds.

There is apparently much animosity, suspicion and mistrust among various groups.

I think there are many egos and self-interested parties involved.

6. Jul 5, 2007

### Smurf

I don't get all the fuss about Iraq. It seems like a really simple problem to me. The problem started when the USA ignored the centuries old advice of Machiavelli and didn't completely crush all resistance in Iraq. They went in with fewer forces and did a half-ass job. What did they expect to happen? I dunno, but now they have to leave, or go all in. Going all in, unfortunately, isn't really an option for the US at this time, it would require certain heavy-handed actions (especially since they've drawn it out so long) that the international and domestic communities just wouldn't tolerate, and what do they get out of it? Increased control of oil? Only a small segment of the US population cares about that and the rest of the world is opposed to it.

7. Jul 5, 2007

### siddharth

But, even if they did enter with all the forces, IMO, they wouldn't completely "crush" all resistance. The opinion in my country is that by entering the war, they've shot themselves in the foot and increased the resistance to their occupation.

I agree completely.

8. Jul 5, 2007

### Staff: Mentor

Much of the resistance developed in response to the Paul Bremer's actions regarding de-Baathification and dismal of the Iraqi army.

To crush all resistance would have meant killing a lot of innocent people because one could not tell a would-be insurgent from one who is not prone to violence.

Too fewer forces and the wrong decisions.