I would be one of the first to agree that it is imperative that we have an understanding of the likely scenarios that would occur if we leave Iraq. Unfortunately, I do not think that is possible.

Iraq is already a bloodbath. It has been a bloodbath for a long time now. Even by the Iraq government's own estimate, over a hundred thousand people are dead.

Will there be a greater bloodbath if we stay? I think that Bush, Cheney and the neocons are doing everything in their power to force open war with Iran, even if it requires using Israel as a proxy to initiate the conflict. That will result in a bloodbath much greater than the bloodbath we are already facing. It could quickly escalate to engulf the entire region in war.

If we leave Iraq, there will undoubtedly be conflict among the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds. Countries such as Saudi Arabia will support the Sunni. Iran will try to take sides with the Shia whether Sistani wants it or not. Turkey has the Kurds to worry about. There will be open war over control of the oil fields.

Why do I say these things? Because every day I read Juan Cole. I track his references and his links. He makes more sense where Iraq is concerned than anyone else I know of. He lists the bombings, the U.S. dead, the Iraqi dead, and the conflicts by location on a daily basis. He links to U.S. government reports on his web site. He enlists the opinions of experts whenever possible. He backs up everything he says with facts.

Back in 2005, Juan Cole had this to say about an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq:

During the course of the guerrilla war, the daily number of dead has fluctuated, between about 20 and about 60. But in a real civil war, it could easily be 10 times that. Some estimates of the number of Afghans killed during their long set of civil wars put the number at 2.5 million, along with 5 million displaced abroad and more millions displaced internally. Iraq is Malibu Beach compared to Afghanistan in its darkest hours. The US has a responsibility to get out of Iraq responsibly and to not allow it to fall into that kind of genocidal civil conflict.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-in-2005-iraq.html

We may have a large memory hole in the U.S. but the Iraqis do not. They are killing each other by the dozens on a daily basis and will continue to do so whether or not we are there. Their retributions are likely to continue for years. There will be a bloodbath either way. If we go to war with Iran, there is no telling how far things will go. Nuclear weapons are a possibility. On the other hand, when we leave Iraq, (not if, but when), we may see a full-scale civil war despite our best efforts.

Given Iraq's oil wealth, I personally don't think we have any intention of leaving voluntarily. But it may not be up to us.

We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to give their country back. The problem is, I don't think we intend to. I think we actually intend to use Iraq as a jumping off point into Iran. That's why we need to leave and to turn Iraq over to an international peacekeeping force (like that's going to happen) while that scenario remains a possibility.

Like Colin Powell told the president, "You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all."

So now we own it all. So now what?

In real life, I came to realize that the war was both immoral and unwinnable a few months later than that, when the Buddhist monk Thích Quảng Ðức burned himself to death at a busy Saigon intersection on June 11, 1963. (I was 13 at the time.) 20% Catholic. 80% Buddhist. I knew my Thoreau, and I knew my 2nd grade math. Case closed.

I was 11 when I saw that at my next door neighbor's house. I didn't know much, but I knew that Buddhists were supposed to be the most peaceful and non-violent people on earth. And here he was killing himself in protest just so people would know he knew it was wrong. So it had to be wrong. I went home and just sat in my room.

That is why I very simply don't trust anyone who tries to rationalize the war with Iraq. Even though they know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 they still want to make a case for it. It's dishonest. It's a lie. There's no way around it. The well of their words is already poisoned as far as I am concerned.

If you showed the Iraqi dead to Americans day in and day out, the hundreds and thousand of them; showed them crying, showed them orphaned, showed them homeless, showed them bleeding under sheets in hospitals, even a child would know it was wrong, and immoral and unwinnable.

Thanks. Only after I was well into it did I remember having read it before. The reference to the Buddhists monks was not something that jumped to mind.

The thing that struck a chord was the need on the part of Orwell to maintain face with his peers, even if he had to shoot an elephant to do it. Sort of like what Bush is doing with the Congress and with Iraq.

The job being to stand like a human shield in front of Rove, Cheney and the President to make sure they don't get impeached.