S-2

"...As far as kurdistan, the one real problem i see with it is that it's 'land-locked'."

Thanks for the italicized "if"! This FORMER officer and current PFC (yup, proud ferkin' civilian too!) will do his best to make certain "if" doesn't become "when".

You're correct on the above. LANDLOCKED is something of a problem, particularly for moving heavy forces into Kurdistan at some later, unspecified date for reasons yet unclear. That would be good reason to make sure that the ground security element is a heavy brigade. Too, perhaps we could store a division set at one of these airfields. Finally, woe be the nation(s) that attempt to prevent an air-corridor to Kurdistan during a crisis. OTOH, should LANDLOCKED be mitigated by reasonable relations with Turkey, Kurdistan's location could be ideal.

Turkey should welcome the U.S. presence in Kurdistan in exchange for a cessation of PKK sanctuary and operations eminating from there. It would absolutely neuter the PKK and stabilize south-eastern Turkey. Without sanctuary, the PKK are subject to the tender ministrations of the Turkish Army. Not a good place for PKK to be, Turks to the front and yanks and PESHMERGA to the rear.

Most of all, though, this administration is emotionally wedded to success in Iraq at the expense of other options. The transparency of this inclination makes impossible using Kurdistan as leverage to jump-start the Iraqi government. I'm not holding my breath on this one, regardless of how sensible to seems. Thanks.

Anon

I have lost all faith in this admin.

They were handed a 'green light' to really clean house in the ME, in some morbid ways exactly the green light that the 'neo-cons' had always dreamed of being handed, and they totally dropped the ball.

I said in numerous posts both here, at my own forum, and at other boards still in 2003 that "we should have sent a half million men". I screamed it in typical "snipe fashion"(which means my protests were not subtle).

Rumsfeld- who is mostly responsible- should have his head served up to the American people on a plate. But apparently George Dubya really is as stupid as we've been told all along, because according to Woodward even his own wife Laura was unable to convince him to fire Rumsfeld. And why?

Cause Rove told him not to because it would make him look like he was "giving in".

It sickens me.

I still want a Repub successor, but i simply cannot wait until this idiotic admin has been cast from office in the disgrace it so richly deserves.

-{SpoonmaN}-

Man if I were you Sniper I'd be voting democrat at the congressional elections in the hope they try to impeach these morons.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

Ray

An independent Kurdistan will not be welcomed by Iraq, Turkey or Iran for reasons known.

It is also a moot point if the Kurds would like autonomy in a Turkey nation, now that they have got the 'taste' of independent governance in the Kurd area of Iraq. Turks, likewise, will not like an autonomous Kurdistan in her national boundary, since today it is autonomy, tomorrow it can be independence! And then it will be too late!!

Syria, too, will work in the background against a Kurdistan, since some parts are in Syria. Thus, a whole lot of nations are generally against the idea.

In the final analysis, it might make the Middle East a bigger mess than it is now.

In the current environment, it is better to ride the wave and not swim against it. One has to play by the ear.

__________________


"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

S-2

"An independent Kurdistan will not be welcomed by Iraq, Turkey or Iran for reasons known."

At first glance, brigadier, I would agree. I would agree regardless with Iran. Under no circumstance would the formation of a completely sovereign and national Kurdistan be viewed favorably by Iran. OTOH, I don't particularly care, so long as Iran doesn't require U.S. forces to defend Kurdish sovereignty from it's aggression.

That said, I'd suggest that the creation of Kurdistan probably includes the dissolution of Iraq. Not suggesting that this will occur- but if so, Kurdistan may have little choice. The dissolution of Iraq into full civil war would essentially partition the nation. Meanwhile, sir, President Talibani of Iraq has recently suggested that he believes the presence of U.S. forces in federated Kurdistan would be a good thing. So, it's almost as if we've been invited into Kurdistan by the Iraqi government. Sorta, kinda.

That leaves Turkey and Syria.

"Syria, too, will work in the background against a Kurdistan, since some parts are in Syria. Thus, a whole lot of nations are generally against the idea."

Doesn't mean that the idea is wrong. I guess my personal compass says that if Syria, Iran, and Turkey don't like my position, I might be on to something worthwhile. Syria's position should not matter if a nascent Kurdistan's security is guaranteed by the U.S. - two USAF air wings and a heavy brigade, as recently suggested by President Talabani. In fact, an American presence in Kurdistan SHOULD worry Syria. That's good, don't you think?Assad's government has already proved to be no friend of Iraq with it's support to the sunni insurgency. Further, it would be good if Kurds living within Iran or Syria now have a nation to which they can go when persecuted.

"It is also a moot point if the Kurds would like autonomy in a Turkey nation, now that they have got the 'taste' of independent governance in the Kurd area of Iraq. Turks, likewise, will not like an autonomous Kurdistan in her national boundary, since today it is autonomy, tomorrow it can be independence! And then it will be too late!!"

Brigadier, I fully concur with your point about Kurdish autonomy within Turkey. It is a core element of my premise. Only, however, should Kurdistan become a sovereign nation. The regional federation of Kurdistan, within the Iraqi government, has FAR less reason to be so cooperative with Turkey. As such, the Kurdish regional government willingly turns a blind eye to PKK activities for the present.

The PKK's efforts to create an autonomous region is the crux of Turkish fears. Our security guarantee to Kurdistan in exchange for elimination of Kurdish sanctuary to the PKK would remove that fear and impediment to progress. Or so it might be reasoned.

This nation would be the "final redoubt" to the global Kurdish diaspora. Kurdistan hardly needs the PKK to draw fire from Turkey, endangering the long-cherished dream of a sovereign nation. Without our security guarantee, Kurdistan doesn't exist. Not for a day, IMHO. Our security is offered in return for the Kurdish government's active participation in stopping PKK activities directed at Turkey from sanctuaries within Kurdistan.

Kurdistan immediately acquires economic viability through it's oil. Moreover, the Kurds seem industrious. So there's every reason to believe that they could build an economically sound nation with a fairly high sense of identity and cohesiveness. Not completely, mind you, as both the KDP and PUK will continue to compete politically within the Federation. However, to date, they have shown a remarkable ability to work together. Who knows, perhaps the neo-cons might find their model for "democratic transformation" in Kurdistan!

Sir, it's a win-win. Most of all, for Turkey, of all affected nations. Instead of a rebellion in it's southeast, Turkey would have a security partner interested in supporting regional commerce. Shipping kurdish oil through turkish pipelines would further close the relationship between these two nations.

"In the final analysis, it might make the Middle East a bigger mess than it is now."

Brigadier, that may be. OTOH, it's a helluva mess already. This Kurdistan gambit, surprisingly, offers an avenue to some stability at least with Turkey. Further, it mitigates some of the geo-strategic consequences to America that may befall us should Iraq have already collapsed.

"In the current environment, it is better to ride the wave and not swim against it. One has to play by the ear."

America should be prepared if Iraq collapses. Kurdistan represents a viable option. It's location is adequate. It's cohesive, possesses a national character and identity, institutions of governance, and a ready economy. We'd be welcomed as a necessary and continuing part of their security and independance. Importantly, I've yet to hear how America's presence in Kurdistan, under the conditions that I've suggested, wouldn't actually improve Turkey's lot in life-considerably.

Finally, it's deserved. I'd submit that the U.S. has already defined it's opinion on an independant Kurdistan should Iraq dissolve. Operations PROVIDE COMFORT and NORTHERN WATCH largely established that precedent in 1991. Nothing has since changed to diminish that relevance. Thanks.

Anon

No chance in hell.

I'll just hold my nose and pull the "R" lever again, if for no other reasons than Dems are gun-grabbing socialist morons.

abu afak

S2 and M21Sniper...
Good Discussion!

I am for at least an autonomous Kurdistan within Iraq, but preferrably for the Three countries.

The problem/Original sin being the British screw-up in creating Iraq from it's constituent parts in the first place. Taking incompatible provinces of the Ottoman Empire, combining them and handing then to a Sunni/Saudi prince as Spoils for help in WWI.

IMO, the soulution and yes, an opportunity to redress now, would be to create those three countries that should never have been one.

Just as x-Yugoslavia was only kept together by Strongman/Czar Tito, Iraq was by Saddam... only.
These people, once given any free will are not meant to be together.

Turkey, whose been our cold war ally and where we've had bases for many years, must be re-educated or just Muscled into accepting Kurdistan. The Turkish problem with the Kurds isn't just the PKK though. The Turks have tried to ethnically cleanse, kill, or absorb the Kurds.
As to the Armenians and Greeks before them, the Turks are not Islamist but they are Ultranationalists/Intolerant cleansers as good as any of the 20th century.

and hello to all!

abu afak

S-2

Hello to you also! Thank you for the interesting article.

"I am for at least an autonomous Kurdistan within Iraq, but preferrably for the Three countries."

Do you mean Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Sunnistan?

As am I, at least for an autonomous Kurdistan-at a minimum. Unfortunately, the legacy of Saddam Hussein required the creation of a semi-independant, autonomous Kurdistan by the United States. We recognized the unique and distinct separation that Kurdistan's security required back in 1991. In addition, a national Kurdistan has been the central objective of these peoples for far longer than the Palestinians-with greater justification to boot. It's difficult not to imagine that significant portions of the sunni/shia communities might feel similarly. There IS tremendous impetus to fracturing the nation into threes.

Oil holds Iraq together, for now. Or at least it holds the sunnis to the premise of an Iraqi nation. Without access to those revenues, the western provinces might be utterly impoverished, or so Sunnis think. Personally, I've always thought that an independant Sunnistan, comprised of Iraq's western provinces, could make a hellacious living acting as the arab world's confrontation state with Shia expansionism, turning the southern two-thirds of Iraq into a perpetual state of sunni-shia conflict.

But that's just me.

Anon

Y'know, had we paid any attention at all to global events we'd have seen the utter stupidity in forced de-segregation efforts BEFORE we forced it on our kids in our schools(who are now paying a horrible price for that particular socialist-liberal dream).

Desegregation seems to not work very well at all...and quite frankly, is 100% diametrically opposed to nature, which ensures that people or any other species will gravitate to those most like themselves.

But oh no...the liberals cant have that...

astralis

oh come on m21,

where does this segregation stop and end? are we to seperate the west europeans from the east europeans from the south europeans from the east asians from the southeast asians from the blacks from the hispanics?

the latter part of "seperate but equal" was nothing more than BS.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Ray

With this happening, which Choice is Operative?

Julie

Is it really?

Isn't that the major point of most wars is dominance and superiority? If we considered ourselves as equals, there would be no point in a "jihad" now would there? Or the Holocaust?

astralis

julie,

i was referring to segregation in american schools, not state-state actions.

Anon

We should ALLOW people to gravitate into groups they are comfortable with, not FORCE them down each others throats, which merely causes resentment, friction, hatred, and ultimately..........violence.

Lots of it.

astralis

m21,

meh, my public school days were quite normal and not particularly violent, despite the presence of asians, hispanics, blacks, and whites. no one "forced" me to make friends with anyone i didn't like.

in any case, i think r lee ermey's little quote is pretty good on the subject.

"I do not look down on ******s, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless". - DI Hartman