Washington File

I feel that the creation of Kurdistan could benefit the US/Iraq situation in many ways. It could create a safe haven for US pullout. It might quickly succeed as an independent democratic entity: Kurds have long wanted it and they are probably the group most happy about the fall of Saddam and the US involvement to begin with.
Obviously the present plans of a "democratic Iraq" have not been working. The civil war between Sunni and Shiite might actually be thrown off balance by the creation of Kurdistan. Kurdistan would hopefully not be a safe haven for terrorists: the Kurds themselves would not allow it and would definitely cooperate with US forces in defeating terrorists.
Kurdish/Turkey relations may be at a point where Turkey would see the benefit of a stable buffer between itself and an unstable Iraq. If Kurdistan did succeed, at the very least our Iraq involvement will have accomplished something - the mess we are in now seems quite hopeless.

There are approximately 20 million Kurds in Turkey (25% of Turkey's pop), 4 times that in Iraq...it is not possible to uproot 20 million people in Turkey and have them relocated to Iraq.

Now that's a refugee situation no NGO would be able to handle.

Even if it was only a few thousand, it's a matter of Human rights...how would you feel if your city or town was all of the sudden given to another nation and you had to leave your history and identity behind to a new land and uncertain future?

I guess airstrikes are a pretty strong possibility, but with Russia and China NOT in favour of even sanctions, I don't think the US could pull it off...GWB (or more accurately D. Cheney, P. Wolfowitz, D Rumsfield, R. Pearl and so on) has one day left of absolute power, and once the Dems take over Congress and begin their investigations, his attention is finally going to be drawn inwards (Oh damn, did we really ignore that? OOOps, I guess we did leave the impression Saddam was in on 9/11. etc etc).

A friendly Kurdistan may be the place for the US to go to, but not without Turkish green-light. And Gary, I understand basic (very) history of greater-Kurdistan, but I do not see why a Kurdish nation in Iraq would automatically lead to civil strife in its neigbourhood. I see a wave of refugees fleeing to Kurdistan, and Turkey, Iran and Syria opening the doors saying,"So long". But again, that is just me, and I certainly am no expert.

I check out nationalreview.com a few times a week (It's most definately American Conservative, and "respected"). There are many contributors on that site CLAMOURING for a massive attack on Iran.
I have a feeling that this is more than freedom of speech. I'm beginning to think that it's even gone beyond testing the waters.
And I am NOT a conspiracy buff.
It would no longer surprise me at all if President George W Bush, as the parting shot of his presidency, takes out Iran's entire, nation-wide, nuclear and military capability with air stikes, whose accompanying videos - designed entirely for the American audience, though seen by the entire world - will make the First Gulf War's TV fodder look like Pac-Man compared to X-Box. (And not a single American soldier will tread one boot on Iranian soil!)
And he will be able to say that it was the right thing to do. And he will be able to back it up by borrowing from all the logical arguments put forth by so many intellegent, well-known people in print, on the radio, on TV, and on the web. And he will be immune. He already is. Years ago, Congress gave him carte blanche to conduct the war on terrorism.
The Middle East, however, has a logic all of its own.
I reckon the Bush administration knows that by know. They just don't care. They wanna go out with a bang! They wanna WIN! NO-ONE PUSHES DICK CHENEY AROUND! Oops, I meant George W Bush.
And whether Americans really do have a short memory or not, one thing is certain: Americans want their problems solved NOW!! This means that Bush can leave a big mess for his successor and not have to worry about getting any flack for it during his retirement; it'll ALL be on his successor!
I predict that Bush will bomb Iran massively, for a couple of weeks - throw everything he as at 'em - and then leave 50,000 troops in Kurdistan. And that will be his pesidency.
And then who knows what will happen next! You're all probably thinking that I'm stretching as it is!

What I think is terrific about this is that Bush and the Republications refused to let the last Presidential election to be about anything but Iraq, and now it is that same Iraq, going so badly, that is going to drag them down. Good riddance.

The reason for having pieces of Turkish and maybe even Syrian and Iranian territory is that the traditional Kurdistan exists in part of those countries. Carving a Kurdistan out of the Iraqi portion will foment separatist pressures in the other three areas, most notably the part in Turkey. Buying out that chunk is necessary to ensure peace in the the western world (e.g., EU ascension, setting Cyprus, etc.) or else we lose Turkey in the Kurdish conflagaration that will ensue.

Why the need for Turkish land? I agree with Jeff...there undoubtledly the possibility that an agreement with the Kurdish nationalists within Turkey and those in Iraq, Iran and Syria could be made to re-populate Kurdish Iraq..it would be a win-win-win-win situation...what is the total Kurdish population anyways...I met a few Kurdish refugees in Ukraine years ago, so I guess there is that element as well...

Turkish agreement to setting up a Kurdistan will not happen for one key showstopper: giving up territory. The US and G8 or even NATO countries cannot pony up enough funds to purchase a chunk of eastern Turkey since a free Kurdistan carved out of Iraq will fuel separatism rather than attract people to relocate. There will also be disruptions for Syria and Iran.

Turkey might not be as opposed to the creation of Kurdistan as you think.

Consider this: An independant Kurdistan would be a magnet that would draw Kurd nationalists, so-called "trouble-makers" and freedom-fighters (or terrorists, depending on your point of view) out of Turkey to an independant Kurdistan. I think the Turks would like less Kurd nationalists, "trouble-makers" and terrorists in Turkey. In fact, I think the Turks would like to get rid of them all! Therefore, the Turks would be very happy if all the Kurds left Turkey!

The one problem I can see the Turks having is border security; the Turks would definately NOT want Kurdistan to be a safe haven for Kurd "terrorists" fighting against Turkey. But if we consider that the Kurd fighters are fighting for an independant Kurdistan, they may very well be happy to put down their arms once they have an independant Kurdistan, even one that does not contain any Turkish territory! I'll think Kurds would be happy to compromise on territory after such a long history of subjugation, stuggle, and death.

And clearly America would consult with Turkey and I'm sure the two would work out a border security arrangement to the point of an actual peace treaty between Turkey and Kurdistan; an agreement that puts American soldiers on the border between the two. Remember: America WANTS American soldiers in the region!

And as for what Syria and Iran want, I'm sure the Americans would be ever so happy to do the EXACT opposite! I'm sure America wouldn't mind American soldiers "protecting" Kurdistan by having American soldiers on the borders of Syria and Iran!

The more I think about it, the more I think an independant Kurdistan to be a not so far of reality!

Never say never...touche.

I understand what you are saying...all I was trying to say that no invansion of Iraqi Kurdistan (the new nation) will take place, because this new nation won't go forward UNLESS the Turks are clearly on side (via significant incentives) before its inception...America has learned one lesson from this and that is you cannot unilateraly force your view of the Middle East on the Middle East...

But be careful of the word "never"...remember those smug Canadians you were referring to before (we never will be part of America???)

:)

Steve...I have to disagree, the Turks are paralysed by their 19th century nationalism which would never allow them to accept a Kurdish State no matter the consequences or incentives offered.

Witness their refusal to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, the illegal Cyprus occupation and the continuous human rights violations against their citizens, especially writers and journalists that criticise the nation.

All these work against their aspirations to join the western club, I can't see them changing their tune for the Kurds.

TH...American insentives to Turkey for leaving Kurdistan alone will be huge, and will be part and parcel of any deal to create a greater Kurdistan...Turkey will leave the new nation alone if the Americans tell them to, or otherwise risk exclusion from the Western nation club.

Contrary to some comments made, the Kurds were never free citizens of Iraq, nor would they be in the future. Their desire has always been to create a nation for themselves and being a puppet of the US is tolerable if it would lead to that end.

However having said that, the creation of a Kurdish state would not be an easy road.

A Kurdish state in the north would inevitably bring the US into conflict with its top muslim ally Turkey. Turkey would not stand idly by while a Kurdish state was formed on its border (given their decades long civil war with their own indigenous Kurdish independence movement) and would very likely invade such a state to stop its creation.

This would make the region more unstable not to mention it would end the long standing triad of cooperation between the US, Turkey and Israel which work together to further their mutual interests in the region.

It could also lead rival powers in the region to occupy parts of Iraq to offset the encroachment of the Turkish army, most notably Iran and Russia.

Unforetunately this war based on lies and mismanagement cannot be ended with a free Iraq but only with the imposition of another brutal dictator that would be able to hold the nation together by force.

That is the greatest fear...that the "empire" will not go quietly...the hope is that the US accepts its new place in the new world order, much as the British did after WWII and, to some extent, the Russians have done since the collapse of the USSR.

Personally, I get the feeling that there will be a clash of some sorts between the US & China...it won't be over Iraq, but at some point soon, China and India's demand for crude will spark a supply shortage (can the world really expect to be generating 3 times current production within the next generation?) Hopefully, the whole "world domination" thing doesnt' get lit by that spark.

For the US to back out of Iraq now would be an unthinkable security and political disaster especially given that China's economy will continue to grow exponentially as will their need for all those oil reserves currently controlled by the US. Already identified as the next major rival to US strategic interest, all that remains is for China to become the next target of US military power; not so unbelievable when you consider that the last Asian power to challenge US supremacy was Japan and we all know how that one turned out. Unfortunately, this is a mess based on the clear headed and sober realisation that without a strong military presence in the region, oil reserves, a wavering Saudi Arabia and an adventuresome Iran would eventually spell disaster for American power and prestige in the world - especially at home where US politicians are defeated or elected depending on the amount of oil available to the masses. That's why the invasion of Iraq was so necessary.

No empire dies quietly and the death of the US empire will be no exception. Given their nuclear capability I wonder if it wouldn't be prudent to discover a new planet to cultivate before the US and China come to their inevitable blows and kill us all in the process - no doubt to "protect our way of live" and "our family values" or some other such horse manure of an excuse to wage the unthinkable.

Catharina Summers and Paul Cachia have made a questionable comparison between Afghanistan and Iraq. Invading Iraq was a mistake, but primarily because necessary troops were diverted from our morally defensible liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban.

Even Bill and Hillary Clinton have gone on record as saying the United States' invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the necessary task of stabilizing Afghanistan.

To tie the two missions together as morally equivalent (which they most certainly are not) demonstrates either dogmatic pacifism, or ignorance of the conflicts' histories.

" I don't think there's any question about that, there will be a change in the U.S. strategy in Iraq after next month's elections."

Oh my ..... does that ever sound like Pres. Nixon who "had a plan to end the Vietnam conflict".

And a good plan it was to ... it just meant humiliation for the American fighting forces after bombing the ---- out of two countries not involved in the War.

That it took 7 years to happen - is only a side advantage.

Does the world need any more plans like that?

In WWII, the continent of Europe was destroyed and unthinkable tragedies occurred but from an American military perspective, the goal was clear. Drive back the invaders, establish a forced peace with the Nazi government, return occupied nations to their people, write a few new constitutions, send the soldiers home and rebuild. Allied military bases remained but mostly to counter the threat of the USSR and no active combat occurred until they were mainly dismantled decades later.

While Americans often long for a return to this sort of situation, the nation continuously puts itself into combat that bears no resemblance at all to the near mythical wars of the past and then seemingly has an identity crisis surrounding them as the years roll on. It was clear from the outset that Iraq had huge potential to turn into a quagmire but because of blind patriotism, hard right-wing beliefs and dishonest leaders, America is now faced with a war without a clear goal, no true opposing government to deal with at all and no acceptable exit strategy. Sound familiar to anyone?

It's no small wonder that US generals are worried. Military men prefer clarity in their job and Iraq is about as unclear as it comes right now. I truly wonder what this "new strategic direction" for Iraq operations will be because truthfully, without a major change in the hard facts, I cannot see an easy way out.

The US ha a serious problem on its hands. They should be VERY afraid- not of the terrorists (granted they are a serious TACTICAL threat). The President (George W.Bush) is a man of faith which means he doesn't trust to data or to what he sees with own eyes. When a man says he's going to pray on a decision and that man has a little red button connected to 15,000 nuclear warheads, he sleeps easily with his convictions. This man believes God is on his side and no one can shake him from that or thereby what he sees as his course of action. Like Hitler and Stalin- he is a weak man who has bumbled through most of the things he did in life until he retained power.

It's amazing that the two members of the US Federal Government who were in the Nixon Whitehouse didn't remember that it wasn't until a generation or two after the end of the Vietnam war that the nation of Vietnam stood up for itself. It did not stand up and say ready aye ready under US occupation. It stood up because the folks with the politcial strength of character (the Vietnamese north) took power. The south was ambivalent about fighting. THe American government frequently supported the same style of political power brokers as they did in South America- the thugs, the political bullies and the despots.
In Iraq when the politicians said thank you very much for liberating our country now GO HOME- the Bush cabinet ignored them and while the one reason was about a nation that couldn't stand up yet- it was touted as the most important voice to listen to. Typical of political conservatives.
Everytime they make a step to get their troops out - their financial interests force them to stay a little more. It's the perfect trap- much like Afghanistan was to the Soviet union. They bit off more than they could chew and it will cost them. If they really want to leave- it's time to count their blessing and leave while they can still walk out. In Vietnam when Siagon fell, they left running.

When is George Bush finally going to realize that it's a no win sitution in Iraq. How many more young American soldiers have to die before the message gets thru. Iraq is now in the midst of a civil war and it now time to let them settle their own differences. Did't the American Civil war do just that.

The end of American world domination is crashing to an end, as it did with the Romans, the Persians, the Ottomans, the Spanish, the French, the Russians, the Germans, the British, etc. at various points in history.
The classic sign is there: blind and near-maniacal overextension of the military to support selfish interests. It's amazing that modern societies, far smarter and larger than those of centuries ago, still cannot grasp this well understood and documented concept.
It just shows how little the human brain has changed genetically in the last three thousand years and how still a small number of the ruling class can cajole, force, and ignore their way through this final thrashing.
The American public would best be served studying the impact of the end of their power era and change their policies to adapt sooner than later. But this would require swallowing a pill few others have had the guts to do, and especially a change in leadership to a new policial group that understands this. Based on the way our southern neighbours have been voting lately, this appears to be a stretch to ask of them at this turning point in their history.

What Paul Cachia and Catharina Summers have to say is known to many. It should be remebered as well that George Bush pledged before sending US troops to Iraq, that he would not see it partitioned into 3 separate states. He will, in all likelihood, go back on his word and do just that. This will ensure his original intentions: U.S. control of the oil fields in the Kurdish-held north. The Kurds, it seems, would rather be rich puppets of American imperialism than citizens of a free, independent Iraq. And therein, lies the dilemna facing the Iraqis people. Nationalistic Sunnis and Shiites are resisting as best they can in fighting a three-pronged battle - break-away Kurds, the US army, and Shiite collaborators. To-day's Iraq has all the ear-marks of Vichy France: a puppet government that foresook it's citizenry to collaborate with a shameless invader. It took friend and foe alike came together to vanquish Hitler amd his Nazis. It seems more evident than ever that the same will be required to ouster Bush Inc.
The pity is that such an event appears unlikely to happen as China, the eventual power of the 21st century, lets Washington have its way...at least for the present! It would seem that greed and complicity knows no borders!

They say hindsight is always 20/20, but the same can be said for foresight in this instance as well. This is as much a "duh" conclusion as I've ever seen.

That it takes a coterie of generals to arrive at this conclusion after much military-expert analysis suggests rather convincingly that the American military establishment never learned its lessons from Vietnam.

It would be laughable if so many soldiers weren't being sacrificed in the interim in support of a conflict that was mis-sold to the American people and mismanaged from day 1.

Carmi
http://writteninc.blogspot.com/

I think one of the results of this horrible mess will be the formation of the independant nation of Kurdistan.

- Things are quite peaceful in the Kurd held areas.
- There is oil.
- The Kurds actually like Americans!
- The new Kurdistan would strategicly border Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria,

If the Americans do quit Iraq, they may very well move north to protect the oil fields in the new and ever-so-grateful nation of Kurdistan, as well as move south to protect the oil fields of Kuwait.

The insurgents in Irag wreak havoc in the cities. When the Americans leave the cities the insurgents will have to meet the Americans on an open field of battle. The insurgents totaly lack the organization and equipment for an invasion of another country, and even if they didn't, the insurgents are no match for the Americans in open war-fare. Both the new Kurdistan and Kuwait could very easily be defended by less American forces than are in Iraq now.

Also, once the Americans leave, the insurgents will probably turn all their attention on each other.

If there really was a hidden agenda to create a permanent American military presence in the Middle East, and if the powers that be in America still want to have one, then the new and independant nation of Kurdistan would logicaly be the perfect place!

As Catharina points out the original reasons for this war were false. What she does not continue to say is that Bush and his cabinet never believed their own lies. This war was never about extending freedom to Iraq. What it is, is an attempt to extend American power into a region rich with oil. Bush's war cabinet consisted of Richard Pearl and Paul Wolfowitz along with others from the American Enterprise Institute in combination with Cheney and Rumsfeld who all saw this as a perfect opportunity to create a base for the American military in the region. It also presented a moment in time when US military support for Isreal could be crystalized. Together they could police the region and mutually defend thier own interests. I don't believe for a moment that the US forces would have been pulled out completely from this area. Recently the US has floated the idea of retreating to the relative safety of US friendly Kuwait to stand guard over thier prized oil fields while the Iraqis sort themselves out. America is learning a lesson that the British, French and the Russians have been taught over the decades....this area of the world operates very differently from Europe and America. We may not understand it and it is brutal but until the natives want it to change it will not. The generals of the American ground forces in Iraq are finally in revolt and Congress and the Senate are now listening since some of thier jobs are on the line on November 7. Too bad all those soldiers lay molding in thier graves for nothing. Think about it Canada. The next time you hear that more Canadians have died in Afghanistan stop and ask yourself why we are sending these people there to die.

"We're constantly going back in and doing clearing operations."

This is also applicaple to OPERATION MEDUSA's outcome, n'est cepas?

i am appalled at the us government desions over the last 6 years iraq katrina the backward steps on the environment. it seems this government would screw up the lord's prayer given the chance.

When the United States started making its case to invade Iraq the CBC very diligently presented its listeners and viewers expert opinions which presented alternative viewpoints. Prominent among those views presented was the argument that it was highly unlikely the Iraqis possessed Weapons of Mass Destructions and also arguments were made that entering Iraq and removing Saddam Hussien from power might very well unleash sectarian violence. Both of these assertions were eventually proven to be correct.

This raises the question, if the average CBC listener and viewer was aware of these possible outcomes why were they not on the radar of President Bush? President Bush must obviously operate wearing blinders resulting in him seeing and hearing only what he wants to support his narrow view of the world and American's role.

America's foreign policy has proven that might does not make right. Now if only President Bush could come to this realization, then the world would become a better place. In the meantime, we are left with daily reports of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan living in a state of constant turmoil and devastation. It is sad.