sparten

Nasarullah's popularity can definatly be allueded to a certain extent (though not totally obviously) to the post-Lebanon situation. Nasurallah could say he stood up to Isreal and won (whether the latter is actually true or not is irrelevent).

Now history can definatly be buried other such "fear and loathing of the west", but the divisions are always there. If a detached observer was to view the situation he would probably come to the conclusion that playinng on historical divisions is the way to go, to curb Iran's influence.

__________________
"Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

AlpErTunga

Sparten is right. A Kurdish state in that region will be allienated and she will be a puppet state, not much more. Also a Shia state will be a positive step for Iranian politics. This action makes middle east worse...

Shek

A few thoughts.

1. Any path to Syria requires moving through Kurdistan or Sunniland.
2. All partitioning will do is make Kurdistan go from a de facto entity to a diplomatically recognized entity. Along with this will be relatively permanent US bases to secure the state (a trip wire deterrent rather than a true defense) and provide a forward projection point into the region. It will be in Turkey's interest to establish relations to keep the border quiet - whether that is on the hush or open is more the question. However, Kurdistan will definitely be no puppet state, as there is no need. They already pursue policies that co-align with US policy without any persuation.
3. I think the Shia card is overplayed in analysis. You still have the Persian-Arab divide, and so while there will be some cooperation, Iraqi Shia will not become puppets to any Tehranian master. Additionally, without any American troops to focus on, it will be Iranian interests in Iraq that becomes the target of Sunni insurgents. The price of intervention by Iran will only increase over time and potentially become an Iranian "quagmire."

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Ray

Shek

On the Shia Sunni divide and what could happen , the King of Jordan has made a statement which may be of interest.
An independent Kurdistan will require permanent US presence since it will be opposed by Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey.

Therefore, Kurdistan will be isolated and landlocked in a manner of speaking. How will the US maintain the independence of Kurdistan in a peaceful way since all four will ensure that there is problems in this area. It must be noted that many areas claimed by Kurds is also inhabited by a sizable Iraqi Sunni population. Will there have to be ethnic cleansing? If not, the Sunnis will not take it lying down!

In another thread, there was a report that Iran is already has plans to engage Iraq in defence and economic measures. If they can be so bold even with the US presence in Iraq, it would be more ingrained when the US leaves. Interestingly, none of the Iraqi govt has given any state mention it, for or against! Ambivalence is the most dangerous thing that could happen.

Just a stray thought.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Shek

Sir,

Maybe I am too prone to believe those from my alma mater, but here's an older article by Fouad Ajami that speaks of the Arab/Persian divide.

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

As far as Kurdistan, the "Green Line" provides a natural barrier for Kurdistan proper. Including Kirkuk, which will be contested, provides a strong fault line to be contested, and I agree that the Sunni would not go quietly into the night. However, a fractured Sunni effort against the Kurds is bound to fail IMO.

In terms of the geopolitics, I think that Turkey has too much to lose if they openly oppose a Kurdistan. EU membership? The economic benefits of trade with the prosperous Kurdistan? Overt opposition to the US? Now, brinksmanship wouldn't be good for either side, but there are enough benefits for both sides to accept a Kurdistan solution.

S-2

"Comments, please.

How far is this article on facts?"

It appeared that the analysis attempted to cherry-pick discrete events to advantage. I confess to having a hard time with the tone and timbre of the questionable conclusions. Further, it seemed hinting of dark conspiracies, etc.

The Indypendent's article reflects so much gnashing of teeth by a terminally disaffected element who would oppose any Bush-initiated/endorsed concept as a knee-jerk react, much less a considered response. Always entertaining, though, reading the New York media's more subjective thinking, if you can imagine that!:

How the Peshmerga brigades are used in Baghdad, and to what effect, will speak volumes for any emerging but unannounced strategy. All we really know is that 20,000 plus U.S. troops are "surging" and that the al-Maliki gov't has made a stand on all outlaws, directing three ethnically unbalanced brigades to Baghdad from other regions. Notably absent is the specific singling of Moqtadr Sadr and the Mahdi Army in this declaration. Who knows?

What is clear-the determination of Bush to defy American public sentiment, as expressed at the polls, in pursuit of this policy as a presidential perogative/imperative. He can, so he will devise and implement our foreign policy.

This is his electoral mandate and responsibility as POTUS and it's being manifested before our eyes in Iraq. I don't know what the latest polls say and, thus, may take a peek. My suspicion, though, is that the Democratic party is attempting to seize an undue perogative that more correctly resides with the President by leveraging the November elections towards an announced near-term withdrawal.

Disastrous unless to Kurdistan. And premature in any case, whether Kurdistan or back home.

Thanks again for the article, sir.

sparten

Sir, I must disagree with the last statement. The Turks would see this just as they saw Cyprus, and in this case they would see it as an existantial threat to their national integrity. They would be willing to sacrifice EU membership (something on which their population has noticably cooled) for this. And sir, despite diplomatic disapproval would the US really overtly oppose such a measure. I find it difficult to believe any US President would be willing to lose Turkey over Kurdistan.

Swift Sword

Shek,

Sir,

Upon reflecting on the Baker piece you originally posted, I think that a plan for partition as articulated is going to be problematical at best.

First, the legitimization of the defacto Kurdistan would probably contribute to instability in neighboring countries with Kurdish populations by encouraging those--often repressed--Kurds to seek out enclaves of their own.

Secondly, there is the bit about oil revenues, how to divide them up and using them to pay for partition. This component is two fold:

1. All is not well with Iraq's oil infrastructure. How much investment and upgrading is it going to take to get it up to the point where the three states can subsist much less grow on the profits from oil production? Who is going to pay for it?

2. On paper, there are a few ways to get oil out of Iraq. However, in reality, only Basra appears to have the capability in any meaningful quantity at this point AFAIK. Too, there are costly infrastructure issues here as well.

Whoever gets Basra given the current state of Iraqi export capability is going to ultimately control the oil revenues of other areas of the country to a great extent until such point when other regions can develop alternate means of export. (This is assuming they can create a secure investment climate and attract the backing, which might not readily be forthcoming given the drop in the bucket aspect of Iraqi production viz rising global demand in the face of diversfication of supplies)

Thirdly, partioning is likely going to exasperate the forementioned infrastructure situation since the whole shebang was originally conceived and built to be an integrated system controlled and governed by a central authority.

Finally, is it such a wise idea to support dividing up Iraq now just to make it easier for someone else to conquer later? Too, was it not ill thought out, Western brokered attempts to carve up the Middle East into arbitrary divisions that caused much of our problems in the first place?

In a larger view, one could adopt the position that The Great Game is in full swing and it might not be such a wise idea to decrease the predictability of events by increasing the number of actors in the region.

It seems to me that partion of Iraq, even if the economic issues could be settled satisfactorily, poses more questions/problems than it might conceivably answer/solve.

$.02 regards,

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

S-2

"I find it difficult to believe any US President would be willing to lose Turkey over Kurdistan."

To whom or what would America lose Turkey? I find it equally difficult to imagine that Turkey would further jeopardize it's relationship with the United States over Kurdistan. Just how might this Turkish displeasure manifest itself with a U.S. AFB and ground security forces located in Kurdistan?

Please explain just how Kurdistan, enriched by oil but not enthralled with the notion of piping this fossilized largesse through Basra, might not materially assist Turkey? A rich trading partner to it's southeast, adjacent to the most economically depressed locale within Turkey and needing an alternate means of shipping it's product SHOULD provide an attractive opportunity for Turkey to reverse this inherantly de-stabilized region. Plenty of Turkish leverage, with America's assistance to remove Kurd support/sanctuary of the PKK from within Kurdistan. Afterall, product needs to be moved. Perhaps you prefer war unending?

A formal Kurdish state, fueled by an oil windfall, would provide Turkey just the opportunity and means to finally and irrevocably resolve the crisis along the southeastern borders that is provoked by the PKK. Without America, Kurdistan can't exist. Without Kurdish suppression of the PKK sanctuaries from within Kurdistan, Turkey cannot have peace, much less prosperity in this impoverished region. The clear quid pro quo, Sparten, is America's guarantee of Kurdish sovereignty against attack by Turkey, Syria, Iran, rump Iraq, singly or collectively in exchange for Kurdish suppression and elimination of Kurd nationalist movements directed against Turkey. Syria and Iran can fly a kite.

Turkey links the Kirkuk fields to it's ports and abets the Kurd oil distribution quandry for a tax/fee. Trade along the border would naturally improve as a dual function of a strong Kurdish mercantile instinct enhanced by a climate of security and cooperation. Kurds have, btw, a STRONG incentive against jeopardizing their long cherished dream of an independant nation by promoting nationalism within Turkey through the PKK. It needlessly endangers a Kurdish state at the expense of a never to be attained dream of a "greater Kurdistan". Lucid minds everywhere know that can't and won't happen.

America's leverage resides in bending the Kurds to our will. They can take their chances amidst the wolves, or embrace a U.S. security guarantee. However, if "yes", they must actively pursue the PKK within Kurdistan.

Turkey needs to seriously consider the merits of this scenario. For too long, southeastern Turkey has festered like an open wound. It needn't be that way. Sparten, you suggest that the Turkish populace increasingly is souring upon the notion of application to the E.U. Perhaps, or not. However, in the end, this is irrelevant as Turkey benefits regardless. It does, though, materially improve Turkey's case for E.U. admission should the ethnic Kurd issue be resolved peacefully.

Sparten, will Turkey miss an opportunity to functionally improve it's fundamental sovereignty and security while tangibly enhancing it's coffers? I suggest that Turks everywhere need to ask what their present course has gained and what it offers for the future. Further, consider again what a welcome U.S. presence means to Kurdistan.

Kurdistan will exist. America's presence will assure that it does. It's society is cohesive. It's terrain defensible. Turkey won't make war on U.S. soldiers committed to defending Kurdistan. The cost of doing so is unimaginable. The benefits of forebearance by Turkey, on the other hand, are very attainable.

Sparten, if one thing is clear about this region it is the universal failure to think anew the problems of old. High time that Turkey lead the way in reversing that self-defeating paradigm.

Ray

S2

If the US can make the Kurds drop the idea of a Kurdistan (comprising of all regions having Kurds apart from Iraq), then and then alone possibly Turkey could be made to agree. True, it will be hugely beneficial for Turkey if the Kurd oil is pipelined through Turkey.

However, there will always be the worry that should Kurdistan clamour for a Greater Kurdistan at a later date.

The issue, to my mind, is on the Big 'If'.

In international geopolitics, anything is possible.

Tronic

S-2, The Kurdish Kurdistan incorporates parts of Iraq, Turkey and Iran... Kurdistan will not only carve out of Iraq...

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

thejester

I haven't read the report yet, but there seems to be massive problem with partition - the fact that ethnic communities are intermingled. How, for example, would partion be undertaken in Baghdad? Build a giant wall seperating all the Sunni and Shia communities? The Partition plan seems to have 'Yugoslavia' (or, to remove the niceties, 'ethnic cleansing') written all over it.

S-2

"If the US can make the Kurds drop the idea of a Kurdistan (comprising of all regions having Kurds apart from Iraq), then and then alone possibly Turkey could be made to agree."

Brigadier,

I cannot imagine a Kurdistan existing in any form without the presence, much less assistance of the United States. That said, our guarantee of Kurdish security and sovereignty absolutely must be contingent upon the aggressive elimination of the PKK sanctuaries by the Peshmerga, with our assistance if invited.

Sir, I'm sure that you'd agree that it is only through the elimination of the PKK's threat that a reluctant and embittered Turkey can be transformed into a regional partner for peace. In my small mind the quid pro quo for Turkey, the U.S., and Kurdistan seems heaven-sent, if seen in the proper context. Turkey gains a secure, stabilized and economically revitalized southeastern corner. Kurdistan gains it's long-sought nation. Best for America aside from these significant if residual benefits is the convenient removal of our troops from the cross-hairs of southern Iraq while retaining all the previous geo-strategic advantages (read Iran and Syria) afforded by forward-basing of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Brigadier, I'm still looking for the fly in the ointment-but not finding it. At a minimum, this leverage possessed by both Kurdistan and the U.S. should be compelling to any shia or sunni representatives of the gov't/parliament who think that they can play both sides of the equation indefinitely, bilking the U.S. while diverting the wrath of the populace upon us. Sir, the Kurds, even the sunnis, are voracious consumers of alcohol-OoE is probably aware that they've a distinct preference for scotch! No downsides that I can see. Even the weather is better.

Our guys deserve a drink and some cooler weather.

Ray

Check this out of Turkey's resurgence even if off topic

Turkey warns Lebanon and Egypt on drilling rights at sea - International Herald Tribune

Ray

THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: RISING TENSIONS IN THE NORTH


Northern Iraq seen as next front in war
As a vote looms on the future of oil-rich Kirkuk, rising violence prompts fear that a third conflict will be ignited in Iraq.
By Louise Roug, Times Staff Writer
February 1, 2007

KIRKUK, IRAQ — American officials, regional leaders and residents are increasingly worried that this northern oil-rich city could develop into a third front in the country's civil war just as additional U.S. troops arrive in Baghdad and Al Anbar province as reinforcements for battles there.

Al Qaeda-linked fighters recently have surfaced here, launching a wave of lethal attacks, U.S. and Iraqi officials say. The attacks come amid a rise in communal tensions in the months before a referendum on the status of the city and the surrounding province.

Elsewhere in Iraq, Shiite and Sunni Arab Muslims are locked in a bitter civil war. Here, the two groups have a common cause against the Kurds, a non-Arab minority that dominates Iraq's far-northern provinces............

Neighboring countries, especially Turkey and Iran, fear that if the Kurds do gain control of Kirkuk, Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdish region would have the confidence and economic power to move toward independence. That could embolden Kurdish militants in the surrounding countries and further destabilize the region. Turkish officials recently have threatened to intervene if the Kurds take over Kirkuk and have warned against efforts to change the city's population balance.

"Turkey cannot stand idly by, watching the efforts to change the demographic structure of Kirkuk," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said last month, according to the Cihan News Agency.

Turkish officials recently hosted a conference in Ankara, the Turkish capital, on the future of Kirkuk. Participants included Sunni Arab and Turkmen parties as well as the political party affiliated with radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, all of whom oppose Kirkuk's inclusion in Kurdistan. None of the main Kurdish parties were invited, and Kurdish lawmakers responded angrily, denouncing what they described as Turkish interference.

More at:
Sign Up