Iraq disintegrates

[Amazon 7]

If Kurdistan was ever to become a country of its own.. there would be great pressue on Turkey as well as Iran to give up some of their territory.. personally.. in that region.. I think its about time... separate the different ethnic peoples.... a Middle Eastern Balkanization that is just about the only way for there EVER to be any peace in the region.

Interesting map of what a Kurdistan based on where the current Kurdish population is.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/dist-kurdish.gif

[TheAnvil 0]

Interesting. I don't think the Turks would go for that, though. It would be a landlocked nation...interesting.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Interesting map of what a Kurdistan based on where the current Kurdish population is.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/dist-kurdish.gif

Interesting. I can see why Turkey wouldn't be happy...

We are all engines of karma

[mattaman 0]

You've lost your mind, make bagdad a green zone. Thats like saying make siagon a green zone, your crazy. In no way is this a solution. This whole things a shit pie. The only way out, is to stop maya, the world of illusion, and start unifying people instead of polarizing them. Bagdad, Iraq, these are all just symptoms of failed leadership, that doesn't have a clue how to accomplish freeing people, and does not have any credibility. You wait and see, this is not going anywhere except suckassville for those people dieing. the only way out is to start a real war to end all wars, otherwise, this is just a repeat of the old ones, and a prelude to the ones to come.

Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen.

[billvon 2,394]

>One of the reasons Baghdad is such a turd is that urban guerrila
>warfare so easy to execute & difficult to counter.

I agree. But I only see a few real options there:

1) Get out and let the Iraqis handle it as they see fit. It would certainly reduce violence (fewer occupiers to target) but not eliminate it; they'd have their hands full.

2) Use overwhelming force to purge the city. It would be a massacre in the long run, because the harder the US clamps down the more people will believe the anti-US propaganda. (If an Al Qaeda guy tells you that the US wants all arabs dead, and a US attack kills your family - that becomes pretty believable.)

And there's no question we could do it. If we sent 600,000 troops into Baghdad (one soldier for every 10 people) we could pacify just about anything. But it would be very bloody.

3) Stay the course until the violence gets so bad we have to pull out in a hurry.

I don't think the GOP will ever stand for 1); they will refer to it as "the cut and run option" (or choose your own denigrating name for it.) But it will eventually lead to a solution, one way or another.

2) isn't that palatable either, but it fits the current trend towards seeing all Iraqis who don't like the US as terrorists. You end up with a Baghdad full of people who have either been allies forever or who are now too afraid to stand up to an occupier. (Whether or not that's good in the long term is another question.)

3) is unfortunately the easiest option, and it's the one I see happening.

The one you hear most about from our leaders is "we stay until the Iraqis can handle it on their own; then we get out." That's six months in the future, apparently. It's been six months in the future for three years, and since the violence has continued to get worse I don't see that changing any time soon.

[mattaman 0]

I'm so glad you didn't take offense, I'm gonna start a new thread on this, war to end all wars.

Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen.

[TheAnvil 0]

I'm not sure if our departure would ease the violence at all. I think our departure would invite an Iranian invasion that the Iraqi's would be incapable of repelling. The Persians would love to have Basra as another port. Perhaps a sort of Balkanization plan for the country would do it some good...not sure. The whole thing is a turd.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 2,394]

>I think our departure would invite an Iranian invasion that the
>Iraqi's would be incapable of repelling.

?? Saddam repelled them with our assistance. I don't see why the new government couldn't do that as well. (Again, they'd be defending only Baghdad in my proposal.)

OTOH if the Iranians want to try to take over parts of the eastern provinces - let em try! In terms of human costs, there's not much difference in whether US soldiers or Iranian soldiers get blown up by insurgents - but personally I'd prefer that they not be US. Heck, in the long run, Iraq will bleed Iran dry a lot faster than it will bleed us dry.

[Tonto 1]

Quote

Could be interesting. Turkey declares war on Kurdistan. Then, while Turkey is engaged in former Iraq, Greece and the Republic of Cyprus recapture the Turkish half of Cyprus.

Are Turkey and Greece both NATO countries? That could throw a bit of a spanner in the works for the EU..

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Och, NATO ain't what it used to be, T.
Look at the enthusiasm for helping out in Afghanistan recently....

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Och, NATO ain't what it used to be, T.
Look at the enthusiasm for helping out in Afghanistan recently....

Um, yeah...since NATO increased its force strength there, still seems to be the healthiest international treaty in existence.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TheAnvil 0]

Completely different situation now than then.
Should the US withdraw completely from Iraq, Iran would be able to enter fairly easily and claim a lot of territory. Might be for the better - who knows?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[nathaniel 0]

Seeing as nobody recognizes the Turkish government in Cyprus besides Turkey, I bet it'd be easy for NATO to convince itself that Turkey hadn't been attacked at all.

Now, if Turkey were to fight back or if Greece were to strike the Turkish mainland...that could be problematic.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Och, NATO ain't what it used to be, T.
Look at the enthusiasm for helping out in Afghanistan recently....

Um, yeah...since NATO increased its force strength there, still seems to be the healthiest international treaty in existence.

Gawain, the keyword in this context was ENTHUSIASM

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Frenchy68 0]

I strongly believe that within 3 years after the creation of an independant Kurdish state, Turkey will go to war against "Kursdistan". They will not take the chance of losing the southern part of the country, which will try to be re-attached to a Kurdish state in a heart beat. The bulk of Turkey's oil fields are in Southern Turkey (Anatolia), so they will never let it go. Iran will more than likely be very supportive of Turkey, as it has to deal with a pretty active Kurdish minority of its own in the region.

The analogy with the creation of the US is, IMO, historically impossible. Unlike the US, which is a country made of immigrants having the will to come together and live together, most countries in the Middle East are made of ethnic and religious groups who were forced to live together and given various national denominations based on foreign decision makers. Some of the groups, some of them still under a tribla system which has kept them together for centuries, if given a voice, will show no intention of sharing a state with other groups.
The options are to either give them the choice, and end up with an hyper fragmented region, made of city-states, tribes, emirates, etc..., or do what has been done for a 150 years or so, and force a strong regime upon these groups to "bind" them together (by force).
Hard one...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

If Kurdistan is still officially part of Iraq at that point - do we defend them?

Can't answer that but the way the Iraqi constitution is written the Kurdish reason has the LEGAL RIGHT to succeed. That means they MUST be recognized by the UN. The UN would then have a compelling legal reason to defend them.

Quote

Massoud Barzani, the Kurdish leader, recently prohibited the display of the Iraqi flag within Kurdistan.

NOT TRUE! He prohibited the Iraqi flag flying at GOVERNMENT installations only. They fly the Kurdish flag. At the recent business expo in Erbil the Iraqi flag was flying out front along with MANY others.

Quote

And the Kurds will want the oil that the rest of the country has.

Once again............NOT TRUE. What the Kurds want is the city of Kirkuk. It was taken from them by Saddam through both military action as well as the forced relocating of arabs to the city. It has all the oil Kurdistan needs.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Gawain, the keyword in this context was ENTHUSIASM "

Yeppers.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[likearock 1]

Quote

The city of Baghdad itself would likely become a Shi'a stronghold, controlled implicitly or explicitly by the US. That's important to many military types, because the last thing they want is a Shi'a country willing to ally with Iran (another Shi'a country.)

I agree that Baghdad will become a Shiite stronghold, but seriously doubt that the US can maintain a presence there for domestic political reasons. Look for Iraq, at least in the Shiite areas, to become more and more like Iran each year. Good work, Bush!

[billvon 2,394]

Now this is scary.

An article from the Armed Forces Journal talks about exactly the same sort of division of Iraq. Iraq becomes:

Sunni Iraq
Free Kurdistan
Arab Shi'a State
Baghdad city-state

It also talks about some other 'redistrictings' of the Middle East. The article itself is here:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

Sort of a scary article, since he talks about 'ethnic cleansing' as a workable solution.

Maps of old and new Iraq are attached below.

[Amazon 7]

Eventually the after map is going to be a reality....the people there just have to decide how many millions will die in the process before that happens.

They can't live with one another now so eventually they will Balkanize the Middle East.

[Skyrad 0]

Independant Kurdistan = War with Turkey and maybe Iran & Syria

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 2,394]

> Independant Kurdistan = War with Turkey and maybe Iran & Syria

We've got a de facto independent Kurdistan now. Heck, the leader of Kurdistan recently ordered Iraqi flags removed from their buildings. The only question is - whose side will we be on? Turkey/Iran/Syria or Kurdistan, where our troops currently are?

[billvon 2,394]

It was just a suggestion! I didn't know anyone would take it seriously: (j/k)

-------------------------------------------------
Parliament Approves Measure Allowing Autonomous Regions

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 12, 2006; Page A21

BAGHDAD, Oct. 11 -- Parliament on Wednesday approved a controversial law that will allow Iraq to be carved into a federation of autonomous regions, after Sunni Arabs and some Shiite Muslims stormed out of the session in protest.

The bill passed the 275-member parliament by a vote of 141 to 0, despite a nearly successful attempt by opponents to prevent a quorum by walking out, said Mohanned Abdul Jabbar, an aide to parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani.

The measure, introduced by a powerful Shiite group last month, creates a mechanism that many believe will lead to a predominantly Shiite zone in southern Iraq that would parallel the semiautonomous Kurdish region in the north. Sunnis vehemently oppose such a division, which would leave them with an area in central Iraq that lacks the vast oil wealth of the north and south.
--------------------------------------------------

Might be good news, eh? Apparently not:

--------------------------------------------------
Bush Says any Partitioning of Iraq Would Lead to More Violence

By Brendan Murray and Roger Runningen

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said he would reject any recommendation to partition Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines, and he reaffirmed his confidence in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ability to unify the country.

Bush, in an interview on the Fox News Channel, said Maliki agrees that creating semi-autonomous states for Kurds and Shiite and Sunni Muslims would worsen divisions in Iraq, which has been suffering a surge of sectarian violence. The president also said the U.S. wouldn't impose any deadlines on Maliki.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Might be good news, eh? Apparently not:

--------------------------------------------------
Bush Says any Partitioning of Iraq Would Lead to More Violence

By Brendan Murray and Roger Runningen

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said he would reject any recommendation to partition Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines, and he reaffirmed his confidence in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ability to unify the country.

Bush, in an interview on the Fox News Channel, said Maliki agrees that creating semi-autonomous states for Kurds and Shiite and Sunni Muslims would worsen divisions in Iraq, which has been suffering a surge of sectarian violence. The president also said the U.S. wouldn't impose any deadlines on Maliki.

I fail to see the logic of your comment. Bush has been wrong on almost every count in Iraq, so why would you think he's correct now?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,394]

>Bush has been wrong on almost every count in Iraq, so why would you think he's correct now?

Whether he's right or wrong, the idea of the US simultaneously fighting insurgents in Iraq _and_ fighting the new government of Iraq (or even fighting without their support) is worse than what we have now.

Imagine, for example, the Baghdad government pulling Iraqi troops out of the worst sectarian hotspots as a result of this new proclamation. If we decide that's unacceptable (Bush's favorite word recently) and we stay in the hotspots, we're going to see even more US soldier deaths than we're seeing now.

I suppose we could institute another regime change . . .