A RISK & CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS OF IRAQ

The bottom line on the Iraq debate boils down to the risks and consequences of retreat from Iraq.  One side feels that retreat from Iraq will result in no serious consequences to the USA.  That notion is apparently grounded in the belief that:

• The death and chaos that will follow America's withdrawal is not the USA's problem or concern.  It is okay to abandon all of America's friends in Iraq and the greater Middle East to their destruction.  America's invasion has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis so America should withdraw.  There is no reason for concern that more Iraqis might be killed after America departs.  Iraqis will peacefully sort everything out themselves if the USA leaves.
• America is not at war with radical Islam, and it is not a serious threat to the USA.  It is a law enforcement matter just as it was before 9/11.
• Al Qaeda is no a big factor in Iraq.  There is no reason to be concerned that Iraq might become one big Fallujah.
• American soldiers should not be risking their lives in an Iraqi civil war that has been going on for centuries and that the USA cannot hope to resolve.  It is fine to allow Iraq to become a chaotic failed state and unchecked breeding ground for terrorists. 
• It is okay for Iran to get nuclear weapons.  There is nothing we can do to stop them so just let it happen.
• America does not need a large ground force in Iraq because a few special forces along with USA's air and naval forces can easily deter Al Qaeda ambitions and Iranian aggression against the Middle East oilfields which contain 2/3 of the world's oil reserves.  Iran is militarily weak compared to the USA which has no serious vulnerabilities.  Iran would not dare challenge America's interests.
• America imports over 60% of its daily oil consumption, but if oil is cut off from the Middle East, all the USA has to do is flip a switch to replace the oil with wind, solar and fuel cell power.
• There is no reason to be concerned that America's capitulation in Iraq might trigger radical Islamic factions in Pakistan to topple the government in Pakistan,  and possibly permit radical Islam to seize its nuclear weapons. 
• From America's position of political and military weakness, the whole situation can be magically resolved to America's advantage if we just remove our forces and negotiate a settlement with the tyrants in Iran and Syria who are committed to the USA's destruction.  After all, the USA created this problem by invading Muslim soil and we can simply resolve the conflict and protect America's interests by leaving the region to their control.
• The cost in lives and dollars in Iraq is not worth the benefit of maintaining a credible ground force deterrent in Iraq to protect America's national security. 
• All the concerns below are not worth considering because they are nothing more than alarmism designed to keep America in an unjust war it cannot win.  America's defeat is the necessary path to peace.
• Forcing a withdrawal from Iraq is a way to discredit Republicans permanently and allow Democrats to seize total power in the  2008 elections.  Domestic political considerations are far more important than national security threats.

The other side is very concerned that all of the above is a naive, reckless and delusional fantasy, and that there could be very severe consequences of retreat from Iraq as follows: 

• The exit of American forces from Iraq would risk the unleashing of a full scale civil war that would radically escalate the civilian death toll in Iraq and create an enormous humanitarian and refugee crisis.
• A full scale civil war in Iraq would likely curtail almost  all of Iraq's oil exports.  Loss of those shipments and the war itself would likely cause global oil prices to rise dramatically and could have very negative and extended global economic effect.  Loss of the revenues from oil exports would severely exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.
• The USA's geo-strategic, military, political, moral and economic capitulation to IEDS, suicide bombers and radical Islamic forces in Iraq would expose the USA as a military and political "paper tiger" that abandons its friends and innocent civilians in Iraq to their destruction and will not defend its vital strategic interests.
• America's defeat in Iraq would be trumpeted as a huge victory by Al Qaeda that would turbo charge  their recruiting and fund raising efforts and their determination to pursue attacks against the vulnerable Gulf Arab states and in the USA.
• Retreat from Iraq will leave no credible way to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Nukes could give Iran the defensive cover they need to pursue aggression in the Middle East, and it would set off a nuclear arms race in the region.
• There is a very real possibility that the USA's retreat from Iraq will position Iran to add Iraq to its military alliance with Syria to create an over 1 million man army that could overrun the Middle East oilfields because America has neither the political will nor the military power to stop them.  Those forces could be ideally positioned on the Saudi/Kuwaiti borders where they could intimidate, undermine or possibly attack the Arab Gulf State regimes.
• Signs that Middle East nations are mobilizing to confront each other after America's departure are a grave concern.  There is a possibility that the militarily weak Sunni nations might ultimately join in an Islamic common cause with Iran against the USA as part of a settlement to protect themselves from destruction. 
• America's airbases and ground force installations in the Middle East are vulnerable to ground attacks or political ejections after the USA's ground forces are removed.  America might find it impossible to convince other nations in the region to house the huge build up of American forces that would be required to overcome Iranian aggression.
• America's navy may be highly vulnerable to attack by Russian made "Sizzler" anti-ship missiles that attack below radar and at Mach 3.  The U.S. Navy has no proven countermeasure for these missiles that Iran may possess in large quantities.  A successful attack on even one US carrier could eliminate the deterrent effect of the US Navy in the region. Iran has the "Sizzler" missiles, and the Persian Gulf could be the ideal place to use them.
  
• The loss of airbases and carrier deterrence in the region would cause the loss of air superiority and render the strategic bomber fleet ineffective. This would open the door to a huge ground assault that could result in Iran, Russia and Venezuela controlling two thirds of the world's oil reserves. 
• Any attacks on Iran could trigger retaliatory attacks on the oil infrastructure in the Middle East that is needed to drive the world economy.  Even if Iranian aggression was ultimately overcome, the economic and human costs would be exponentially higher than maintaining a credible ground deterrent force in Iraq.
• There is a very plausible danger that increasingly  totalitarian Russia might support Iranian aggression in the Middle East.  Putin's repression at home and belligerent posturing about the USA could be part of a scheme to set the stage for supporting Iranian aggression against the Middle East oilfields after the USA retreats.  Putin's actions in Russia today are disturbingly similar to Hitler's actions in Germany in the 1930s build up to war.
• Russia could provide Iran with satellite access, weaponry, refined products and other logistical/ economic support as a means, 1) to dramatically increase the value of Russia's oil exports, 2) to help wreck the USA's economy, 3) to reduce America's ability to project power in the world, and 4) to obtain huge oil development concessions from Iran as compensation for Russia's support.  Russia obtained similar concessions from Saddam in exchange for Russia's support to end UN sanctions and later to stop UN approval of the American led invasion in 2003. 
• Russia might also elect to join a military alliance with Iran as a deterrent to retaliation against Iran.  This scenario would offer Russia the perfect opportunity to destroy America's economic and military primacy in the world, and enrich itself, and become the lone superpower without firing a shot. This possibility should not be ignored in our mad rush to get out of Iraq.   
• Control of the Middle East oilfields would allow Iran and Russia to devastate the American economy by withholding access to Middle East oil.  America's loss of access to oil at current prices has the potential to shatter the financial well being of almost every American and that risk alone is a compelling reason to stay in Iraq in the long term.
• It is grave cause for concern that Iran, Venezuela and Russia would control of over 80% of the world's oil reserves and all of them would benefit from dramatically higher oil prices and the destruction of the American economy and its ability to project power in the world.
• It would realistically take at least a generation to eliminate America's dependence on foreign oil and the American way of life would be long gone before then.
• Retreat from Iraq could trigger the fall of Musharraf in Pakistan for his support of our failed mission to destroy radical Islam that was ultimately defeated by a few IEDS, a few suicide bombers and America's political suicide led by Democrats.  There are 160 million muslims in Pakistan that will no longer be deterred by America's military might, and the fall of Musharraf could allow radical Islam to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and convey weapons to Al Qaeda which happens to have its headquarters in Pakistan!
• Al Qaeda and Iran say their strategy is to destroy America, and an American retreat from Iraq would offer them the means and the opportunity to do it.
• There is serious reason for concern that surrender in Iraq might expose America's military and political weaknesses for all the world to see, and encourage terrorists and tyrants all over the world to challenge the USA. 
• America's abject capitulation in Iraq might trigger a huge upheaval of Islamic people that have been long suppressed by their belief in America's military invincibility that will have been shattered by our  de facto surrender to a few suicide bombers and IEDs.
• The full consequences of retreat are impossible to project with certainty, but the risks of catastrophe are far too high to rely on a strategic surrender premise that is nothing more than wishful thinking.  Surrender in Iraq is not a national security strategy, it is a political strategy for Democrats.   
• The $125 billion annual cost of the war is justified to protect the USA's $14 trillion annual economy from the devastation that would occur if America loses access to Middle East oil.   It is also a small fraction of the radically increased costs Americans would pay for oil based products if America abandons Iraq to chaos and domination by enemies of the USA.
  
• The $8 per month per person that the average American in the bottom 75% of wage earners is investing in Iraq is a small price to insure their financial well being against the economic catastrophe that could realistically unfold if America abandons Iraq.
  
• The grievous loss of American soldiers lives is justified to protect the America way of life from economic catastrophe and terror attacks in the USA homeland.  
• This is a very long fight with very determined enemies and victory can only come through resolve to stand and fight radical Islam for as long as it takes for America to destroy them and protect the USA's national security interests.  You cannot define winning in conventional terms in an unconventional war.  We need a credible, long term ground force deterrent just as we maintained in Europe after WWII and in Korea after 1952.
• The Democrats care more about their political ambitions than America's national security. 

Summary

Both Democrat presidential candidate supports a unilateral surrender and withdrawal of America's forces from Iraq, but no democrat has offered a credible and comprehensive national security strategy that includes a retreat from Iraq.  Until they offer a credible alternative  that protects America's most vital interests, their criticisms of Bush's current policy will remain self-serving demagoguery.

Any serious national security strategy must consider all of the risks and threats above and provide for means to address them or deter them from happening.  No credible national security strategy can conveniently assume that all of these plausible threats and consequences will magically resolve themselves to America's advantage if only America will surrender and withdraw from Iraq.  So far, the Democrat's plan for Iraq is not a serious national security strategy, it is a political strategy designed to deceive  Americans into voting for democrats with no regard for the USA's national interests.  

In truth, phony conspiracy theories, Bush & Cheney, anything that has happened in the past, left vs right, liberal vs conservative, republican vs democrat do not matter in this analysis.  Each American has to decide whether or not they feel comfortable removing America's ground force deterrent from Iraq and exposing themselves and their families to the severe risks and potentially devastating consequences.

Radical Islamists all over the world are praying four times a day that a majority of Americans will decide that there will be no significant consequences to retreat from Iraq.