posted
To paraphrase Arlo Guthrie: "Remember Iraq? This is a song about Iraq."
If you read many of my posts (my sympathies,) you are probably aware of my low opinion of the vindictive, ignorant dolts who got us into Iraq in the first place.
What might be less clear is that I don't favor an immediate, unilateral withdrawl. I think the occupation was poorly planned, the reasons for it remain nebulous, and the tone that prevaded on the subject was counterproductive both to fully appreciating the task and to the ideals of basic democratic discourse.
However, it's our mess, and it's down to us to fix it, if we can, which no amount of rah-rah guarantees. If those who favor the invasion have one thing correct, it's this: the current state of affairs is such that if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, there most likely will indeed be a long and bloody civil war.
The tone that has been established refuses to even bring to the floor real questions, however: When can we consider withdrawl from Iraq? A certain number of trained police? Of trained infantry? A certain amount of time without anyone dying from an IED? A certain period of the elected government having remained in power?
As long as we remain in Iraq, an enormous portion of our military might is deployed that we might need elsewhere.
As long as we remain in Iraq, multiple billions of dollars will have to be budgeted for maintenance of our efforts there. Money that will not be available for things like disaster relief here.
As long as we remain in Iraq, there will be real questions around the world about the "reality" of an Iraqi democracy.
I believe we have a duty to be in Iraq now. But whenever we withdraw, some will call it a victory for terror. Some will point to objectives not completed. And we must withdraw some time.
Will it be because we have stated goals we can point to as accomplished? Or because the costs have finally become too much to bear?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I think an enormous portion of our military might is deployed in a fairly stragetic location.
I agree with many of the points you raised though. This morning on MSNBC they talked to a colonel who was discussing Iraqi security. He was very negative about the ability of the Iraqis to start to take charge of their own security, and I honestly didn't appreciate his attitude.
I think a gradual turn-over of security of various providences is ideal. By gradual I mean a little slower than the Iraqis think they're capable of, but quicker than the US thinks they are. Right now they are only in charge of one, and pretty much nobody lives there. I think as the US withdraws, the insurrgency would become less popular as they are only killing there own people without any occupiers there. But that's my armchair generaling for the day.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He was very negative about the ability of the Iraqis to start to take charge of their own security, and I honestly didn't appreciate his attitude.
This seems like a really weird thing to say. This guy's been there and seen their forces at work; you, even admit to "armchair generaling".
quote:By gradual I mean a little slower than the Iraqis think they're capable of, but quicker than the US thinks they are. Right now they are only in charge of one, and pretty much nobody lives there. I think as the US withdraws, the insurrgency would become less popular as they are only killing there own people without any occupiers there.
Um, they like to bomb us but it's mostly Iraqis who are dying. The "civil war" isn't really being caused by the 'foreign terrorists' - al Qaeda loyalists who come in from Syria and other places - who are fighting the U.S. Iraqi Sunni and Iraqi Shiite will continue to kill each other - perhaps in greater numbers than currently - if we leave now.
The Sunnis actually came out and said the other day that they want the US to stick around so they don't get slaughtered by the majority Shiite.
__ That said, I'm not sure I have a solution for this. Frankly, I think we're at the point where we're going to have to pull out gradually, running damage control at major oil facilities, and let the thing run its course. Or continue as we are and let our soldiers get shot up while no real progress is made.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually it was a colonel with a desk job here. He had an condescending tone whenever he spoke of Iraqi efforts, which I didn't appreciate. I don't see why you point out that it's weird of me to say, but okay.
quote: Iraqi Sunni and Iraqi Shiite will continue to kill each other - perhaps in greater numbers than currently - if we leave now.
The Sunnis actually came out and said the other day that they want the US to stick around so they don't get slaughtered by the majority Shiite.
Perhaps you can show me where I advocated withdrawing now?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has the colonel ever been to Iraq? Those military folks, they tend to rotate in and out of those desk jobs pretty quick.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't know. I have no doubt that he knows more about the situation than I. That's not the issue. It wasn't the accuracy of his assessment that bothered me, it was the way he was so dismissive of Iraqi efforts.
The one positive thing he said about their efforts was that they were in charge of security for one of the provinces-but then he said that it was just given to them as a token gesture and nobody really lived there anyway. While it may be true, it seems to me that it kind of defeats the purpose of a token action if you point out that it's just a token.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
President Talabani said he figured we'd be out by December of THIS YEAR, and his forces would take over security of the nation.
The violence against the civilians isn't going away when we leave. It will only get worse. That nation is poised to explode, but it's being held together by the US military. Whether we leave today, six months, six years, or a decade, it will STILL be a powder keg, depending on the world situation around it.
The problem is that this really isn't our mess. It's Saddam's. The situation there was cracked open by us, but we didn't create it, but we've still been pinned with the responsibility for it. I think the Kurdish north would likely come out of the ensuing conflict alright. The southern part of the nation would be too busy, and Kurdish security forces have been in place for a decade, they know what they are doing.
But what do we do? Wait forever? We're the dam holding back a civil war, and I don't think we have the ability to create a lasting peace there by ourselves. We need the help of regional neighbors, who thus far have given us a very tepid reception. Also consider that everything that happens there is effected by, and effects, the nations around it. We can't just solve Iraq, especially when Iran is right next door making power plays, and Syria is on another side carrying out Iraq's whims, and Saudi Arabia is nervously watching a rise in Shi'a power, and the teeny gulf states around Kuwait are being tossed in the wind.
So what do we do? Stay there forever? Leave now and let them figure it out? Lord knows it won't be JUST them that figures it out, Iraq will become an international plaything to regional powers. At what point do we admit we're in over our heads?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The problem is that this really isn't our mess. It's Saddam's. The situation there was cracked open by us, but we didn't create it, but we've still been pinned with the responsibility for it. I think the Kurdish north would likely come out of the ensuing conflict alright. The southern part of the nation would be too busy, and Kurdish security forces have been in place for a decade, they know what they are doing.
I disagree, Lyr. It is our problem. Saddam kept the lid on centuries of regional hatreds for decades, through brutal totalitarian methods. When he was deposed, there was a huge power vaccum, and chaos ensued. Given that Bush didn't know the basic difference between Shia and Sunni in the run-up to war, I'd say his ignorance is the cause of a large part of that chaos. There's a good recent example that's very similar: Yugoslavia. President for life Tito kept the country's different ethnic regions welded together (using repressive means), but after his death Yugoslavia's break-up was inevitable.
quote: After Tito's death on May 4th 1980, ethnic tensions grew in Yugoslavia. [...] There was thus a focused and co-ordinated coalition involving Austria, Germany, Hungary and the Vatican all pushing for the same goal: Yugoslavia's break up. [...] The only European states which did have a strategic interest in the Yugoslav theatre tended to want to break it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia#Breakup I didn't realize all those countries were pushing for it's breakup. Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,. . . --Yeats
I'm sure Iran would love to see an independant Shia portion of Iraq, and I assume they are working for this.
The Turks, on the other hand, have stated repeatedly they don't want an independant Kurdish portion of Iraq, to prevent the formation of the mythical Kurdistan. They might invade northern Iraq if it breaks up.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT: I could consider the presence of our troops a strategic boon if not for my suspicion that the longer they remain there and the longer their terms of service become the less ready they will be if called to action either nearby (say, Iran or Syria) or farther (God forbid, North Korea).
Morbo: While I don't doubt the assertions that have been made regarding Bush's ignorance to the Shia/Sunni divisions in Iraq, there were certainly people beneath him who were aware of those conflicts. Either they felt cowed into silence, or they didn't care.
Lyr: Part of my fear is that the very act of admitting we're in over our heads may be beyond our leadership. That we could remain until strategic and humanitarian interests are completely overshadowed by ego and doctrine.
It has been suggested, perhaps not entirely inaccurately, that a withdrawl timetable could cause insurgents to accelerate their efforts, feeling that they had been successful. Such comments ignore the possibility of withdrawl based on hard goals which can be defined as accomplished or unaccomplishable, an idea which seems to remain out of reach amidst the rhetoric and vitriol. To withdraw without accomplishment might be seen as a sign of weakness, but I think a refusal to define achievable goals is definitely a sign of weakness, as well as uncertainty, lack of coordination, and lack of competence.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You pretty much stated it for me, it's not a problem of our creation, it's always been there. We removed the wall that was keeping it pent up, but we didn't make it to begin with. When Saddam would have eventually died, assuming his sons didn't fill the void, the problem would have always been there, though I don't think Iran would have allowed it to continue forever.
This would have boiled over eventually, but we made it happen much sooner, and more chaotically than it probably would have. The fact that Bush seemed to have little knowledge of the regional problems doesn't erase the fact that there ARE PREEXISTING REGIONAL PROBLEMS. I think we owe them some responsibility, but how big a price must we pay to fix their problem?
quote:I'm sure Iran would love to see an independant Shia portion of Iraq, and I assume they are working for this.
The Turks, on the other hand, have stated repeatedly they don't want an independant Kurdish portion of Iraq, to prevent the formation of the mythical Kurdistan. They might invade northern Iraq if it breaks up.
I'm positive that Iran is cheering away at the prospect of Shi'a power in Iraq. We're a few short steps away from a Shi'a cresecent in the Middle East vs. a small Sunni bulwark in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
As for the possibility of a free Kurdistan...
What does NATO do? What does the EU do? What does the US do? What does the rest of the arab world do?...when Turkey denies self-determination to a people the US had previously turned their backs on and left for dead. It's the fault of the US that they are in the present situation anyway, how could we possibly allow them to be invaded? To say nothing of the rest of Europe.
Can the EU honestly consider Turkish entry after they conquer a smaller neighbor? It flat out brings forward the issue they are most criticised for in the EU, and I think it would evaporate any chance they have for membership. Would they risk that?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of interest, how do people here feel about the prospect of dividing Iraq into two states, one Shiite, one Sunni? Logistics aside, is there any reason to maintain the borders of Iraq as a single country?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr and Sterling, it is our problem. Sure, there were pre-existing problems. Yes, there were people in the DoD and State departments who had a better grasp of the regional problems, but it is the responsiblity of the Commander-in-Chief to be prepared for those problems, and he certainly was not. As a result, there was little post-invasion planning done, and Iraq is the mess it is today. If Saddam had died and similar problems boiled up, that would not be our problem or responsibility.
Lalo, at this point I think it's inevitable that Iraq will split into 3 parts--you left off the Kurds. The forces tearing it apart are greater than the forces holding it together. I hope it does so with a minimum of bloodshed, but that seems unlikely wishful thinking. Things will get worse in Iraq before they get better.
As for what Turkey will do when that happens, and what the EU/US/NATO will do in response, I don't know.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it's our problem and our responsibility, though, like Lyrhawn (if I interpret your comments correctly, Lyr) I wonder just how far that responsibility takes us if we ultimately decide Iraq is a problem for which we have no solutions.
Though arguably, even if we had never invaded Iraq, Saddam had left power in the course of things, and civil war errupted, it would still be our problem: we have significant interests in the region and likely the only military force with a chance of calming the region, at least alone.
And, yes, the initial post-invasion planning (or lack thereof) was a disaster.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, Sterling, I was using problem and responsibility almost interchangably--even if we had never invaded, chaos in the Persian Gulf region would still be a US problem.
Britain's outgoing ambassador in Iraq has a very negative view about Iraq's future prospects.
quote:Iraq civil war warning for Blair Civil war is a more likely outcome in Iraq than democracy, Britain's outgoing ambassador in Baghdad has warned Tony Blair in a confidential memo. [...] Mr Patey wrote: "The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy.
"Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq - a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror - must remain in doubt."
posted
Iraq could never be split into two states, Shi'a and Sunni. While it works geographically, with them being divided mostly on north and south boundaries, there is zero chance that the Kurds in the north, who are mostly (but not wholly) Sunni would ever join in a government with the Sunnis in Baghdad, who were responsible for the genocide that took place in the Kurdish north, and for much repression there over the years.
Besides, how pissed would you be if you'd wanted your own country for literally hundreds of years but weren't able to bring it off, then the Shiites in the south get their own because they managed to kill enough Sunnis in Baghdad to the point where the US and the rest of the World finally said "Fine! Have your own country."
I think at that point I'd refuse to settle for anything less than autonomy, and if that wasn't an option, then I guess it's time to start killing Sunnis. At that point they'd already know how well it works. It might take three or four years, but they've waited centuries, I think they could handle it. It's 1, or it's 3, but it'll never be 2. And with the way things are going, I think 1 is hopeful at best at the moment.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Out of interest, how do people here feel about the prospect of dividing Iraq into two states, one Shiite, one Sunni? Logistics aside, is there any reason to maintain the borders of Iraq as a single country?
Lalo: Keep in mind that there is already one split which is practically guaranteed. The northern section will become Kurdistan. There's absolutely almost no doubt. It's only a question of when.
Really, the question that you are asking is whether there will be one split, or two.
The 'second' split, should it finally come down to it, will be gnarly, and it won't be arranged as a polite affair. It will involve war over land, and killing over oil fields. It will also leave the middle east with two wholly fractured and fully brain-drained states (the white-collar professionals and affluents in non-Kurdish Iraq, e.g. 'the folks with enough money to get the hell out of there,' have practically all split by now) congealed via militia with ties to existant states. If it happens, the southern end of former Iraqi land will be transformed into Theocraticislamichotbedofamericahatestan. Yay! Go us!
Unsurprisingly, we're averse to the whole splitting up idea.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the new state, which I'd be surprised if it ended in a -stan, would automaticlaly be anti-US. I think much would depend on how their state is formed, and who is in charge of it. It won't matter much at all if they are absorbed into Iran, and Baghdad and central Iraq is merely absorbed into Saudi Arabia. Lord knows they could use the free labor.
I also don't think a free Kurdistan is guaranteed, at least not any time soon. Like I said before, they've been waiting for centuries, and they've been closer in the past than they are now. Iran and Turkey still brutally oppress uprisings, and I'm still pretty sure that Kurdish is illegal to even be spoken in Turkey. I remember reading a story about a Kurdish woman taking a vow of loyalty or some such to the Turkish parliament in Turkish, and then switching to Kurdish to say she would dedicate her service to seeing Kurds and Turks live together democratically in peace. She was arrested, amidst screams of "Traitor" and "Terrorist."
And if they are invaded by either Turkey or Iran, who is going to help them?
If the Sunni center of the nation is partitioned off, they will cease to exist for all intents and purposes, they will have no oil, no real economy to speak of, and a broken nation with ravaged infrastructure. They'll either fall to the first nation that pushes really hard, or will themselves break into another civil war.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What astonishes me is that any of this is a surprise to people. Your average man in the street (by which I mean literally in the street - protesters) knew all of this/predicted all of this before the invasion. I'm not all that informed and I knew it. The guys I hang out with in the pubs knew it.
How is it that the people who have access to "intelligence" are surprised by this?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe they aren't. But tell me this, if you had to choose between two leaders, the guy who says he didn't know and is shocked by the outcome, and the guy who says he totally knew and did it anyway, which one would you choose?
One's a willful idiot, the other is an ignorant idiot, but at least he can claim he wouldn't have done it if he knew.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also don't think a free Kurdistan is guaranteed, at least not any time soon.
For the record, here's why I talk very confidently about the certainty of a Kurdistan:
quote:ERBIL, IRAQ – Iraq may not survive in one piece. The overwhelming majority of Iraqi Kurds are packing their bags. Most have already said goodbye. Erbil (Hawler in Kurdish) is the capital of the de-facto sovereign Kurdistan Regional Government. Baghdad is thought of as the capital of a deranged foreign country.
In January 2005 the Iraqi Kurds held an informal referendum. More than 80 percent turned out to vote. 98.7 percent of those voted to secede from Iraq. Not only have the Kurds long dreamed of independence, when they look south they see only Islamism, Baathism, blood, fire, and mayhem.
"Our Jerusalem"
quote:Not one Iraqi flag is flown in Kurdistan’s capital of Erbil, which doubles as the stronghold of Barzani’s KDP. Only maps will tell you that Erbil is part of Iraq. The Iraqi flag is flown on government buildings in Suleimaniya, the stronghold of the PUK. But it’s the old Iraqi flag, the pre-Saddam Iraqi flag, the one that doesn’t have Allahu Akbar scrawled across the middle of it.
The Kurdistan Regional Government has its own ministers. They report to no one in Baghdad. The Kurds have their own military. They have their own economy. They have their own internal border, and they are its only policemen. The Kurds even have their own foreign policy. Their government is internationally recognized. When Masoud Barzani travels to foreign capitals he is recognized as the President of Iraqi Kurdistan. The only thing the Kurds don’t have is Kirkuk.
The city of Kirkuk sits bang on top of one of Iraq’s biggest oil fields. It was always a Kurdish-majority city until Saddam Hussein ethnically-cleansed a good portion of the people who refused to change their ethnicity to “Arab.” When Kurds were forced out, Saddam moved Arabs, Stalinist-style, into the Kurds’ former homes.
Today the city is approximately 40 percent Kurdish, 30 percent Arab, and 20 percent Turkmen. The remaining 10 percent are composed of smaller minority groups. It’s a little Lebanon, in other words, where no one makes up the majority. It’s one of the worst tinderboxes in all of Iraq. Two violent incidents, from terrorism to kidnapping to sniping, occur every day in that city. And it’s getting worse.
The Kurds want it back. They don’t want to leave Iraq without the city they call “Our Jerusalem.” Nor will they tolerate a federal Iraq that doesn’t include Kirkuk in their autonomous region.
I asked KDP Minister Falah Bakir what “Our Jerusalem” was all about. Is Kirkuk some kind of cultural capital? Is there a historic significance to the city that I’m not aware of?
“No,” he said. “Kirkuk is part of Kurdistan. But it isn’t ‘Jerusalem.’ Kirkuk is Kirkuk, just as Erbil is Erbil and Mosul is Mosul.” It’s just another Kurdish city, in other words. It was dubbed “Our Jerusalem” by Jalal Talabani as part of a PR campaign.
The Peshmerga can militarily take Kirkuk any time the order is given. But they’re holding back. The Kurds want to take the city peacefully and with honor.
The Peshmerga-controlled regions represent the most stable faction in all of Iraq. Since deus unum, they sat back, claimed their land, refused to dismantle their autonomy or its militias, refused to be subjected to the 'watchful oversight' of the Provisional Coalition, and not waded into the blossoming sectarian warfare in the rest of Iraq.
Since the first day of the overthrow, their strategy and civic mind has been of a single mentality: ____ that noise, fellas, here's our line in the sand.
They view their secessionism as being the smartest move anyone's ever made ever ever. It's a natural progression in the election of nonsecular, separatist factions in the last 'full' election.
They're already essentially separate. Completely.
So, there's nothing left to do but see how messy or formal the secession proper goes.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, I believe their nationalistic fervor will get them a state eventually, but I don't think it will be very soon.
I hope that it is soon. But there are a ton of factors yet to be accounted for, not the least of which is, will the US let them? Will Turkey? Will Iran? Will the rest of Iraq?
Doubtful ALL of them will let it happen, which means it's fight night. And who do you think will win?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You mean ever? or in the near future? Never say never my friend, they've managed to retain a separate national identity even though they are split between three different nations, and have (with the exception of a couple minor hiccups) never had their own nation to begin with. And that is over the course of more than a century. Their nationalistic fervor is stronger now than ever. Saying they will never be autonomous is speaking too soon I think. A lot can happen in these coming years, it's impossible to predict.
The Cheney/Lieberman stuff is nothing new at all. Republicans/People running against Democrats have been using the whole "A vote for ______ is a vote to embolden terrorists" thing for years now. I'm maybe the slightest bit surprised that they are still harping on it so much. I think it's a lot more transparent now, and makes them look desperate and partisan. Does anyone HONESTLY thing that Iraqis are at home right now, watching CNN, fingers crossed, waiting to see who wins the freaking Connecticut senate primary?
The idea that voting for "so and so" is going to support terrorism is laughable, especially considering it came out a year or few months ago that Osama bin Laden was actually rooting for Bush to win, and it makes total sense why he would do that. Bush's policies have made Anti-US hatred the new fad of the world. The longer he's in power, the more those feelings will cement themselves in the mindset of the world population. But now whenever Democrats come back and try to use that argument, Republicans cry foul and scream "partisan politics!" and generally I think it works, whereas when Democrats try to do it, they come off as weak and unfocused.
Both parties are useless as all hell right now. Makes me want to chuck them all and start from scratch.
edit to add: I should add that, the idea that in general that who you vote for, for what they stand for symbolically and not for what they might actually do as an elected official, has any effect at all on world terrorism is so riduculous as to be laughable. Terrorists will fight on if the entire nation is united against them, or if we all united decide to dig our heads in the sand. It doesn't matter who we vote for in the sense of THEIR morale. They don't send out newsletters with "Lamont has been elected! This is a great victory for our people!" And even if they did, which sounds ridiculous, it also wouldn't matter. For three reasons:
1. Silly as this too sounds, because I hate using this argument, but letting terrorists control who you vote for is a victory for them. We shouldn't let fear control who we vote for.
2. Even if we didn't vote for the "Pro-Al Qaeda Morale" candidate, they will STILL keep fighting. You can elect a 100% Republican congress that supports the president entirely and they will STILL be there with their ragged determination, I suspect even more so. Israel launched a massive offensive against a terrorist organization last month, did their resolve deter or embolden Hezbollah? The morale of the enemy in this sense (but not in all senses) shouldn't matter to us when we go to the ballot box.
3. The good that the RIGHT candidate would do as an elected official far outweighs whatever imaginary or guessed at damage their being elected would have done symbolically. It's more important to have the right men and women in office making the right decisions than to have symbols in office that make stupid decisions but portray a certain image or another.
quote:I also don't think a free Kurdistan is guaranteed, at least not any time soon.
For the record, here's why I talk very confidently about the certainty of a Kurdistan:
quote:ERBIL, IRAQ – Iraq may not survive in one piece. The overwhelming majority of Iraqi Kurds are packing their bags. Most have already said goodbye. Erbil (Hawler in Kurdish) is the capital of the de-facto sovereign Kurdistan Regional Government. Baghdad is thought of as the capital of a deranged foreign country.
In January 2005 the Iraqi Kurds held an informal referendum. More than 80 percent turned out to vote. 98.7 percent of those voted to secede from Iraq. Not only have the Kurds long dreamed of independence, when they look south they see only Islamism, Baathism, blood, fire, and mayhem.
"Our Jerusalem"
quote:Not one Iraqi flag is flown in Kurdistan’s capital of Erbil, which doubles as the stronghold of Barzani’s KDP. Only maps will tell you that Erbil is part of Iraq. The Iraqi flag is flown on government buildings in Suleimaniya, the stronghold of the PUK. But it’s the old Iraqi flag, the pre-Saddam Iraqi flag, the one that doesn’t have Allahu Akbar scrawled across the middle of it.
The Kurdistan Regional Government has its own ministers. They report to no one in Baghdad. The Kurds have their own military. They have their own economy. They have their own internal border, and they are its only policemen. The Kurds even have their own foreign policy. Their government is internationally recognized. When Masoud Barzani travels to foreign capitals he is recognized as the President of Iraqi Kurdistan. The only thing the Kurds don’t have is Kirkuk.
The city of Kirkuk sits bang on top of one of Iraq’s biggest oil fields. It was always a Kurdish-majority city until Saddam Hussein ethnically-cleansed a good portion of the people who refused to change their ethnicity to “Arab.” When Kurds were forced out, Saddam moved Arabs, Stalinist-style, into the Kurds’ former homes.
Today the city is approximately 40 percent Kurdish, 30 percent Arab, and 20 percent Turkmen. The remaining 10 percent are composed of smaller minority groups. It’s a little Lebanon, in other words, where no one makes up the majority. It’s one of the worst tinderboxes in all of Iraq. Two violent incidents, from terrorism to kidnapping to sniping, occur every day in that city. And it’s getting worse.
The Kurds want it back. They don’t want to leave Iraq without the city they call “Our Jerusalem.” Nor will they tolerate a federal Iraq that doesn’t include Kirkuk in their autonomous region.
I asked KDP Minister Falah Bakir what “Our Jerusalem” was all about. Is Kirkuk some kind of cultural capital? Is there a historic significance to the city that I’m not aware of?
“No,” he said. “Kirkuk is part of Kurdistan. But it isn’t ‘Jerusalem.’ Kirkuk is Kirkuk, just as Erbil is Erbil and Mosul is Mosul.” It’s just another Kurdish city, in other words. It was dubbed “Our Jerusalem” by Jalal Talabani as part of a PR campaign.
The Peshmerga can militarily take Kirkuk any time the order is given. But they’re holding back. The Kurds want to take the city peacefully and with honor.
The Peshmerga-controlled regions represent the most stable faction in all of Iraq. Since deus unum, they sat back, claimed their land, refused to dismantle their autonomy or its militias, refused to be subjected to the 'watchful oversight' of the Provisional Coalition, and not waded into the blossoming sectarian warfare in the rest of Iraq.
Since the first day of the overthrow, their strategy and civic mind has been of a single mentality: ____ that noise, fellas, here's our line in the sand.
They view their secessionism as being the smartest move anyone's ever made ever ever. It's a natural progression in the election of nonsecular, separatist factions in the last 'full' election.
They're already essentially separate. Completely.
So, there's nothing left to do but see how messy or formal the secession proper goes.
Interesting points Sam. What do you think of Turkeys declaration that it would never tolerate an independant Kurdish state? Do you see this as a possible obstacle to a Kurdistan?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you think of Turkeys declaration that it would never tolerate an independent Kurdish state? Do you see this as a possible obstacle to a Kurdistan?
Turkey's being wishy-washy over the whole affair, policy-wise: Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, wobbles in and out of a hardliner stance against the new Kurdish 'region,' expecting it to become a mainstay and a refuge for the PKK; by all accounts, this is for show against Erdogan's own military, which is overweening and jumping at the chance to default on power against civic functions of Turkey's government.
Turkey's internal diplomatic situation is intensely complicated, but it mostly comes down to the president having to take a hardliner stance against the Kurds, to sate the nationalist interests that are growing out of his control. This includes 'retaliation' into northern Iraq -- he ordered the military to prepare for an invasion into U.S. held Kurdish territory in Iraq as a response to Kurdish terror attacks in Turkey's borders.
The United States emphatically doesn't want this sort of thing to take place, since it would infringe upon their 'protective holding,' and it would cock up the last quiet and successful part of Iraq. Lastly, it would be a hideous embarrassment to our administration to have Turkey invading a nation that we are presently trying to contain complete civil war within -- it doesn't exactly suggest that things are going ducky. Iraqi Kurdistan is filled of people who genuinely and surprisingly like the United States, and they continue to appeal to the United States, and U.S. pressure has successfully evaporated all of the Turkish tough-talking.
Which is the critical element. The United States can still sit down with Turkey (President Bush has done so twice, recently) and say 'hey, man -- do you want to get into the European Union in your lifetime? Know a great way to make sure that never happens?"
Since the United States holds a lot of strings in this affair (among them the fact that we're essentially taking the slack over Iraq defaulting on payments for petroleum supply from Turkey), we may yet keep the separation amicable; Kurdistan would willingly consent to American stewardship, making it greatly unlike about the entire rest of the region.
Really, the wrangling over Kirkuk has more of a potential to flare things up.
Iraq's present official government is practically fugitive in its own nation. All officials are targets of assassination, and even the lowliest clerks beg never to be named by news officials when not strictly necessary. It has to hide in its own nation, and it is suffering from increasingly waning influence. In the event of total overload or collapse, the Kurds may simply take Kirkuk from them. Even in the present state, with the central government ostensibly operational, Barzani has declared that Kurdistan simply cannot be ruled by a central Iraqi government.
Turkey as a whole is an obstacle to Kurdistan. It could go badly, just like a million other things that seem poised to imperil the manifest destiny of Iraqi Kurdistan. I've no assurances that things will work well (or at all!) for an independent Kurdistan, I'm just assured of their intent to gun for independence already. For all practical intents and purposes, the Kurds are divorced from Iraq.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I wonder though, what Iran does. I can easily see Turkey being neutralized by threatening them with EU membership. I don't know how well it will work, I don't know how willing the EU leadership will be to use that as a chip in negotiations. But it might not matter if Iran decides THEY want a piece of the action too. I would doubt it, but remember Iran isn't going to be cajoled or convinced like Turkey might. Iran doesn't give a damn one way or the other about the US or EU.
You make a fantastic case for why a free Kurdistan is possible, and I think they WOULD seize Kirkuk outright, and would probably get away with it in the long run. But like I said before, there's just way too much that has to happen, and way too much that can happen to stop it, before we can make any kind of guess on when it would happen. I think we won't see anything happen until the US troops leave. But as soon as they ARE gone, all bets are off.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Of cognition and dissonance: summary of new points from the same crowd from '04: [...] - He is the "Al-Qaeda" nominee.
This comment was from a CNN anchor, Chuck Roberts, who has since apologized to Lamont personally for saying it. Lamont certainly deserved an apology.
Excellent and interesting summary of the Turks' views on an Iraqi Kurdistan, Sam.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the general theme that I'm working with, based on the situation as it presently stands, is that Kurdistan is working as an autonomous entity that could be described as being a de facto independent state.
For all practical intents and purposes, it is a separate and greatly federalized entity, primarily self-governance and all. The nature of the situation makes it look like the Kurds will remain a free faction from this point on. There's no official divorce filing, but Kurdistan has her own condo in town and doesn't talk to Iraq much.
And Iraq provides absolutely zero incentive to keep the Kurds attached, no appeal, nothing. Iraq is presently a flaming tire pile. In fact, it's such a flaming tire pile, that the erstwhile Iraqi war championers and armchair generalissimos -- the very people who used to object to my calling it a 'flaming tire pile,' and who were previously inclined to correct me with rosy cognitive-dissonance (theme of the day) claims of corner turning -- have been keeping embarrassingly mute about it for months. None of the Kurds feel any attachment to Iraq. Quite the opposite, in fact: they are repulsed by it, for need of their own safety. Interior ministry death squads, the immediate looting and pillaging of 'transferred' U.S. bases, and the subversion of power from the central government to Baathist death squads and other elements that mirror feudal, secular warlordism; there's really nothing that doesn't immediately scream 'you don't want to be a part of this.'
quote:This comment was from a CNN anchor, Chuck Roberts, who has since apologized to Lamont personally for saying it. Lamont certainly deserved an apology.
Yay :)
Unfortunately, Mr. Cheney himself is back on the bandwagon and doing the same thing, having apparently decided that guilt-by-association is a perfect standby to use to try to stem this election's approaching G.O.P. enervation.
For the right people, credibility is like taffy. This is an election year, and the Republicans are in a bit of a bind. I think that now is about the time that everything starts getting really retarded in American politics.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
