Post-U.S. Scenarios: The Bad, the Worse, and the Ugly
Scenarios for a post-occupation Iraq
Let's just get the wishful thinking out of the way first. Peace won't break out if and when the United States leaves Iraq; violence will continue, and possibly get worse. That's not a rationale for leaving the troops in place, just a hard reality. How bad, exactly, will it be? Here are four scenarios, ranging from the horrific to the somewhat hopeful.
1. Apocalypse Now
The feeble, feckless government collapses, and the militias go to war. Kurds seize Kirkuk and the northern oil fields; Sunni and Shiite Arabs fight back. Sunni forces try to take Baghdad, battling Shiite militias. In the south, competing Shiite forces battle it out for Basra while Al Qaeda in Iraq (
Who's Pushing It: Hawks who argue that the United States must stay in Iraq for many years, including the Weekly Standard's William Kristol.
How to Make It Happen: Pull out abruptly, without a solid international agreement in place. The resulting vacuum would empower extremists such as
The Odds: 10 percent. Not impossible, nor as likely as hawks would have you believe, in part because neighboring regimes know they could all go down if regional war breaks out.
2. Mad Max
Tens of thousands die as Sunnis and Shiites battle to control the country. But the regional powers agree not to intervene; after a time, the worst killing dies down, leaving a Somalia-style society run by gangs, warlords, and militias. To keep the slaughter contained within Iraq, U.S troops set up "catch basins" along the borders—armed buffer zones dotted with "refugee collection points," a.k.a. camps, for those trying to escape Iraq's hell.
Who's Pushing It: As a worst-case possibility, this has been embraced by some realists preoccupied with preserving American influence in the Middle East, such as the Brookings Institution's Kenneth Pollack and Daniel Byman.
How to Make It Happen: Keep supporting the ruling Shiite and Kurdish separatists, lowering the odds of reconciliation.
The Odds: 20 percent. Without outside backing, the factions will find it hard to keep up a full-scale war.
3. Partition
Iraq breaks up into Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Sunnistan, with the squabbling statelets struggling to control the country's oil. Michael O'Hanlon, coauthor of a Brookings report called "The Case for Soft Partition in Iraq," says up to 5 million Iraqis would be forcibly relocated; others have called it "a bad idea whose time has come."
Who's Pushing It: Much of Washington conventional wisdom outside the Bush administration has coalesced around partition; proponents include Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.), Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, Kurdish adviser Peter Galbraith, and Pauline Baker of the Fund for Peace.
How to Make It Happen: Keep arming Sunni tribes, Shiite-dominated security forces, and Kurdish militias, ensuring that each is just strong enough to hold at least a chunk of the country.
The Odds: 30 percent. The administration, the Iraqi government, and most Iraqi politicians except the Kurds oppose partition, but if no one forces the parties to the bargaining table, it's a real possibility.
4. Let's Make a Deal
The corrupt politicians who rode into Iraq on American helicopters—from Washington creatures such as Ahmed Chalabi to the Shiite clerics who spent their exile years in Iran—bail out as U.S. troops leave. (As Carter-administration national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski says, "The only Iraqis who want the United States to stay are the ones who will have to leave when we leave.") On the Sunni side, a nationalist constellation of insurgent groups, tribal forces, and the old Baath party elite works to seek a power-sharing arrangement with the Shiites; among Shiites, nationalists eclipse the separatists and Iranian hirelings and forge a compromise. The resulting government coalition is both anti-American and anti-Iranian. It ruthlessly crushes Al Qaeda in Iraq and persuades the Kurds to accept limited autonomy rather than independence.
Who's Pushing It: Minus the anti-Americanism, a version of this scenario is the administration's stated goal—though actual policy undermines it at every turn.
How to Make It Happen: Support the United Nations' effort to reengage in Iraq. Get it to convene peace talks with the support of Europe, Russia, and China, all of whom have their eyes on Iraq's oil. Stop arming various factions and begin an orderly withdrawal.
The Odds: 40 percent. If withdrawal is done right, chances for this outcome are fair, though it would still come with a great deal of bloodshed that could easily spiral into one of the grimmer scenarios.
Fixing Iraq, though, cannot be America's task. The United States has zero credibility to put the country back together, as do its Iraqi allies, including the current government. That leaves the rest of the world. Since 2003, Washington has treated Iraq as an American preserve. But when the troops leave, the United States will have to plead with the United Nations, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to mediate among Iraq's warring parties and lean hard on their outside supporters. If an accord can be reached, the OIC would have to marshal peacekeeping forces from Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Egypt—an unprecedented task at the scale needed in Iraq.
There will be a price to pay for all concerned, starting with massive aid from the nations interested in Iraq's oil, including China and Japan. Iraq's neighbors will also demand their pound of flesh, and they ought to get it: Turkey will want economic aid, E.U. membership, and security guarantees about the Kurds. The Arab states will expect a serious U.S. commitment to an Israeli-Palestinian accord, perhaps the only problem harder to crack than Iraq. Iran will want elements of the grand bargain that has so far eluded it—economic incentives and security guarantees, perhaps in exchange for limits on its nuclear research.
Even if all this can be lined up, Iraqis will be left with the tough job of hammering out a new constitution and electing a government—a process for which current U.S. policy is hardly preparing them. The counterinsurgency war has prevented the development of broad-based Sunni parties, while among the Shiites the United States has supported the most sectarian and pro-Iranian blocs, including the secretive Islamic formation of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. If this continues, even a moderately optimistic scenario will begin to look like wishful thinking.
Click on an image below to see related charts and maps:
Page 1 of 1 
I am an Iraqi and I don't want the Ba'athist again in Iraq. You people in the west are so selfish. Can you allow the Nazis back in germany? You can't but when it comes to the poor iraqis who cares because we are not the hot white Europeans. The writer who wrote this can take the deal he talk about and shove it up his... racists!
"Gas hits $10 a gallon."
Sounds good to me!
I don't get why after the US screws up in Iraq, Turkey should be allowed into the EU? Turkey has obviously made it clear that they want to get in the EU, but Europe doesn't want an influx of 70 million muslims any more than the US wants an open border policy with, say, Egypt... Who came up with the idea that just because the US owes Turkey a favor for keeping military bases there, Europe must repay the debt and allow Turkey free access to their territory.
Ridiculous, and it ain't gonna happen. I have a better idea, why doesn't the US practice what it preaches, and create a free-trade and travel agreement to include all its friends? This way, Turks can travel and live freely in the US. I'm sure Mexico would also like to be part of a new North American Union without travel restrictions... The US has plenty of room,.and it will help stimulate the economy. At least that's how Rice tries to sell the plan to Europe.
There's only one kicker here; it's the intent of the Bush administration to maintain a sizable force in Iraq forever (protection of U.S. strategic interests in the Persian Gulf). The only question is the means through which to effect this strategy. Bush is busy making this plan palatable to his successor, the Clinton administration. We ain't leaving.
Has anyone tried the crazy idea of asking the Iraqi's what THEY want?The US is never going to willingly going to pull out because of control of the oil.
I second what Scott said. Never mind
the think-tankers and their tea leaves,
they've had 5 years to work their
'magic', only this toad hasn't changed,
ergo, ask the people that live there
what they want. Oh, that's right, darnit, I forgot, they already did that,
and the Iraqis voted our troops out.
What was that, 2 years ago, something
like that?
Bush wants oil, his friends want the
oil, they sent the military to GET
the oil, the rest is a sideshow, as
far as I'm concerned.
Further, the headline, 'bush broke it,
we own it', I didn't sign anything,
did you? Um, no. And, since he's the
'decider', he's also the 'responsibilityer', meaning when
the chickens come home to roost from
this mess, they go to HIS house...but
that's what he gets for bitch-slapping
Congress around(not that they don't
entirely deserve it), it's him and
his supporters who get the glory or
the blame, and increasingly, it looks
like blame. Any way you look at it,
it's a really messed up deal, even
Cheney said 'bad idea' over a decade
ago, I think it was, and they sent
the Army in to make good in a bad
situation, but the point of it all is,
they never should have gone in the
first place. You can't unmake an
omelet, but you can put out the fire
in the kitchen that you started...
And, since in my view it can't be
said too often, here I go again:
http://www.impeachbush.org
What a great present day representation of 1984.
We must wage war to create peace- war is peace!! We can't end the war because if we did- it would start the war!!! So we must never stop fighting the war for fear the war may break out!!!
Imbeciles- the same 1 dimensional assmonkeys that brought us Viet Nam.
We already lost Iraq- the dumb ones don't realize it yet.
I am an American and I too do not want the Ba'athist again in Iraq. This Administration's true motives, in my opinion, became clear once Saddam Hussein was removed from power. Our troops do not want to be in Iraq away from home and family any more than the Iraqis want us there, or for that matter, any more than all of the Middle East. We are in their backyard so to speak. How comfortable would we be if Iran had a military presence the size of ours in say Mexico, right? I am surely naive but aware that throughout history the Arab nations have demonstrated difficulty in standing together, yes? And, knowing this Administration has gotten us into a hopeless situation for which the Iraqi people will suffer, I have a question. What do the Middle East countries think should be done? Do we know?
The bad gamble the Bush administration has gotten us (The US and the rest of the worlds.) into is a situation that is going to be a mess no matter what.
Bush failed as a businessman in every enterprise where he was anything burt a figurehead spokesman-- a greeter if you like or the head waiter. In those roles, including the governor of Texas, his ability to get the enterprise in too deeply was always limited to a greater or lesser degree. He was superb at the greeter role and also that of being the spokesman from the "bully pulpit",and at organizing the public and keeping it in line.
Unfortunately his eminence grise' was the Vice President, who was accustomed to make decisions not to throw up options and advise on them. He was more fixed in his opinions then Bush,which made precipitous removal of Bush the almost certain installation of a worse successor.
Bush is not stupid, he is a public relations, sales, or political genius-- but unfortunately he is also lazy. Or perhaps he was ruined by the Harvard Business School philosophy that makes the chief executive (of anything) a decision maker of options thrown up by underlings. Unfortunately both his natural disinclination to consider options once he had formed an opinion, and a highly opiniated gatekeeper in the vice president, made Bush truly vunerable to a coterie offering bad advice.
Nixon and Johnson, to name just two chief executives who also used the Business School style of management, avoided a similar trap (To some extent.) by deliberatly seeking advice from beyond their immediate circle. They were both obsessed with the need to get wider information and wider options for actions to the point of obsession. But they had their problems too-- no chief executive can make the right decision all the time. Vide Churchill,Roosevelt,Kennedy,etal.
All these scenarios depend on a cost benefit analysis. How much control over the oil trade will the west get out of these wars? The more the west stands to gain, the more it will invest. The less it stands to gain, the less it will invest.
Who knows what the future holds though?
And how reliable are expectations for the future?
How exactly are you coming up with these odds? Does Vegas have a line or something going?
Thank you Mother Jones, for putting together this outstanding report. It shed light on the critical issues Americans need to start facing up to, in a manner that was both comprehensive
and moving.
There's no easy answer to any of this. Regardless of whether you supported the initial invasion or were against it, an increasingly occupied Iraq combined with the lack of political dialogue is getting us nowhere.
Americans have become entangled in the banal rhetoric over who's to blame. We as a society stood by as our president-elect initiated a pre-emptive war based on fear and watched as Congress authorized it. If you want to see the real culprit, go find a mirror.
We neglect to consider those directly suffering as a result of our actions. How many Iraqis died today? Are their lives somehow less important than the American troops sent to Iraq to fight in our name?
One thing is certain: the occupation is unsustainable. We have a long road ahead of us and "winning" is relative to what you consider victory.
It's all well and good when we can recognize ourselves as the problem, but what can the American people do to be part of the solution?
I'm with Amy and Max: I consider this four-scenario breakdown of what is likely to happen when US occupation forces withdraw to be one of the best analyses I've ever read, and I'm really intrigued at how Richard Dreyfuss pegs the probabilities at 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% respectively. I think he very well may be right. I'm just mystified how he computed the odds.
Two other things are striking about the four scenario breakdown.
First, what about the 80% solution, with Moktada and the Shia nationalists solidifying their power in the south and Baghdad and eventually unifying the country under a Shia strongman - perhaps Moktada or Sistani? Certainly that's a fifth scenario that's very much on the mind of all the sectarian players jockeying for position within Iraq today.
Second, it is self-evident to me that tinkering with current US policies (arming Sunni tribal sheiks, stirring up ethnic unrest in Iranian border areas, backing or turning our backs on Maliki, etc.) are things that can have a significant impact upon making things deteriorate from bad to worse, ie., spiraling away from compromise towards Hobbesian Armageddon. But the converse is not true. There's little if anything that US occupation policy makers can do that will encourage creation of a stable, even reasonably responsible central Iraqi government. Whoever succeeds George Bush thus can easily do more harm, but is unlikely to achieve anything positive.
Bill from Saginaw
To Mohammed, the first commenter: Nearly all Nazis were allowed back in Germany. Only 185 Nazis were tried for war crimes. 142 were found guilty. Only 13 were executed. Many of those sentenced to life in prison had their sentences reduced in 1951. In the same year many were released.
Your point, about white europeans, is well put, though perhaps not how you meant it. Most of the People killed by the Nazis were Russians and Poles, i.e., People not considered European. And Russian and Polish Jews were certainly not considered white or european. No country in Europe allowed them to immigrate. Neither did the United States. The West cries a lot about the Holocaust now - with good reason, it was terrible - but didn't really give a damn when it happened.
Scott: IF you read th papers, you will need to dig. BUT, it's there... There were elections. several. They have spoken! Reports also say that recently discovered death and torture chambers and mass graves in and around Baghdad were operated by Al Q. These were in place to terrorize th Iraqi citizens so they would be afraid to rat out th true invaders. (foreign terrorists from Iran, saudi, palestine, syria, Pakistan, Jordan). Much like the Stalininst regime during the slaughter in russia's history, or Mao tse in China's. Only on a smaller scale. Millions were butchered on a scale that defies our ability to comprehend. In addition, All th Ba'athist torture chambers, mass graves, and intimidation techniques that have come to light over th years are something that hollywood couldnt even dream up in their worst slasher flick. The whole abu grabe "torture" crap was a college hazing by comparison to Nick Berg and So many others! Do we drag their dead or dying bodies thru the streets chanting and praising our God? Do we hide behind our women, children, Churches, Shrines? No. We are not the bully! We are the "big brother" on the playground that steps in when the little kids keep getting their Butts handed to them. When did the good guys stop getting the benefit of the doubt and the terrorists who chop peoples heads off on TV, kill thousands of innocent people with cowardly IED's car bombs, and the like. No, we are not perfect... Mistakes HAVE been made! But, If it was truly for oil, occupation, or selfish reasons, there are much more effective ways to dominate a reigion. Why are we not blowing the entire country up like was done in WWII, WWI, and other conflicts? Instead, we are surgically, carefully, methodically cleaning out the garbage. At a huge cost to our country. These people want you dead just because you exist. Not because you are american, but because you are breathing. The Mosques, holy places, shrines are off limits to our forces. The respect our soldiers must show to their religion is NOT returned. We may not send anything christian items to our troops! Politicians, talk show hosts, media flunkies, "experts" all profess to defend "tolerance"... As long as it agrees with their point of view. Or if it is against their political enemy's thinking. Other points of view are ridiculed, scoffed at, or dismissed outright. To say that we are losing is to ignore reality. The citizens of Iraq ARE standing up, they ARE believing that they CAN have freedom! How do I know this? I know because my son is in Iraq! HE tells me what he sees every day! The iraqis are beginning to believe. It's time we started as well! Our soldiers deserve a chance to be winners in the minds of all the people of this nation! Agree or not with the policies of the Pentagon or the whitehouse! All that being said, I cannot imagine myself visiting this website again. Reply if you wish to, I will probably not see it. I choose to support my soldier. And all who are with him and those who served in the past! I will not be caught up in the conspiracy, scheming mindset that just hates Bush. And suggests that whatever he touches is evil. They all say Bush is the dumbest guy ever... Maybe... If he's so dumb, How the hell can he have all these elaborate plans, schemes, and not be outed? Ya cant have it both ways... Anyway... Decide to be miserable if you must... I chose to believe that the truth about Iraq can be as simple and innocent as wanting to spread freedom to God's children. Whichever God you Pray to. May your God Bless you this holiday season. Merry RamadanaChristmaHanuQuanzakka.. And to all a good life!
It is a little known fact that after the second world war, the nazis- German army was gone through with a fine tooth comb in its camps in Germany, and both Canada and the United States brought the German War criminals back to Canada and the United States. What for?? Anti-communist purposes. They hoped that the endoctrinated troops of Nazis Germany would suppress the rising communism that was becomming mass popular in both countries. In the U.S. there was over six million communists and active sympathizers organizing for a workers state and socialism which provides free education and medical, and work for all so that poverty, war, gender discrimination would be over with, and the new society emerge without exploitation. Werner von Braun, who headed Hitlers missle programe, a dedicated Nazis, was put in charge of the U.S. Missle program and did put the nuke warheads on the missles. Guess who first gave the world that order in practice, none other than Hitler himself. There were thousands of other less known nazis who were hired by the U.S. state department to obtain their secret files lists,and addresses of known traitors to the Russian people (pro-nazis sympathizers) inside the Soviet Union so that sabotage and destruction of the new socialism could take place. That kind of organizing was not done in full open view of the American people, but in a hidden way that is still going on today, and with the end goal of re-newing the anti-communist offensive thoughout the world so the workers, peasants and students could not stabilize their very large victories over the dictatorship that is nazis military rule. The captured nazis soldiers were not put in prison for their war crimes, but rather given well paying jobs and allowed the freedom of their discredited beliefs on the media and in other ways to discredit the liberation side and to promote the ideas that you see Bushco implementing today, such as the Patriot Act, which does away with habeous corpus and trials, courts and due process with lawyers and judges and juries, but most of all of censoring the bringing into being of worker controlled communes instead of prisons. It is the basis of Buschco legalizing torture, through the appointed attourney- generals such as Gonzales and now Mukasy and the U.S. Military and the C.I.A and other mercenary bands that are there to terrorize the populations into submitting to their dictates. All at the expense of the progressive side of the U.S. Constitution, and the anti-fascist covenants such as the international law which America, and Canada are signed on to, and sworn to uphold. These covenants include the Nuremburg Trials, Geneva Conventions, world court of the Hague ( the Israeli Apartheid Wall is illegal), the United Nations Charter, the international criminal court, and the international war crimes tribunal (Bertrand Russell style). The fact that the anti-fascist side supports the liberation of the planet, and sets the goals of liberation as the ending of aggressive war as foreign policy, and insists on negotiation and collective agree as the new way forward for relations between nations, makes them eturnally worthwhile documents for national and international law study regarding this planets liberation, and as tools to abolish the method or reconquoring wars that pollute and destroy the planets ecological green balances, such as the nazis-axis methods of useless harmfull unjustifiable violence. Yet Bush choseses these methods of lies, deceit and hidden agendas to bamboozal the unsuspecting peoples. Central to the axis powers military methods is these three discredited methods, 1)might makes right, 2)Unilateralism, 3) Pre-emptive strikes all of which lead to a misinformed public and end to open democracy as progressive and enlightened state craft such as the new millenium needs and deserves for a non-polluted liberation future with a concious mass that changes the world favorably for the plants, animals, and peoples. Solar energy could and should replace coal, gas, oil, and atomic energy in this regard so the old polluting system is replaced with a new non-polluting way. Workers of the world,unite!!
I believe that there is a secret agenda to create an violent unstable IRAQ becuae that will depopulate it by death and migration to Syria and Iran which in turn will cause havoc in those countries. If the Arabs want to kill each other in the name of Allah I say let them do it. The displaced people will continue to move into Jordan and Saudi Arabia The US will be reluctant to take even the Iraqis who have worked for the US government, media and contractors, even though they will be killed if they remain in Iraq. If Suadis do not want these good people, then it must build a gas pipline to Aman and provide along term lease for 1,000 to 2000 square miles in the area south of Jordan along the Gulf of Aquaba to the United Nations to provide sanctury and a free trade zone and the ban of wahabi funding / religious operations and permit full complance with Declation of Human Rights. If they remain in Saudi Arabia the current social order will be destroyed.
Egypt needs to have a similar lease with the UN for peace loving Palestinians which will becoming . At some point the Hamas's war of attriction is going to prompt a total war reponse which destroy the GAZA despite what the world trys to do to gain a cease fire. Demographic trends make a single state option impossible, A two state solution will not be possible as long as it includes GAZA.
Let it be a 3 state solution This will make possible to sablize the West Bank
Perhaps, when the West Bank has on going economic growth, the politics of GAZA will change from the current no win nilist policy.
The worst place for the Palestinians to put ther campital is in Jeruslem. It should located in New capital district in the heart of the West Bank because that would be a massive econmic development senario. Every nation will need to build an embassy as would the government of the West Bank plus housing for those who will move to the new capital all built to the highet green standards to minimize the impact on global warming
This capital district can play a role in the resettlement residents of the refugee camps and mainstreaming them into the economy.
Army Dad said: "I chose to believe that the truth about Iraq can be as simple and innocent as wanting to spread freedom to God's children."
Well thats convenient for you to choose to believe that, but if that were true then why are we not 'spreading freedom' in Zimbabwe, Darfur, or any of the other many 3rd world areas across the globe with long running histories of oppression and human rights violations? The solution to the mess in Iraq will be no happier than it was under Saddam. I support your son as a human being and hope he makes it home to you safely, just as I hope Iraqi's are able to find peace one day. I will not prescribe to your patriotic rah rah spreading democracy bull[deleted] however - patriotism has a long history of causing nothing but anger, fear and death. I pray for and support the life of any human from any nation as they earned the right to dignity and respect just by being born, according to God, no matter what country it took place in.
All the polls show that the vast majority of Iraqis want all troops out now. Contrary to the previous writer's opinion, it is actually racist to deny Iraqis this democratic right of self-determination. This means a free Iraq without interference by the UN and its member nations who are rightly seen as little better than the U.S. due to their involvement in the '91 war on Iraq and the subsequent sanctions that killed millions.
Yes, reparations must be made, but they must be made to an independent Iraq free of foreign occupation.
