quietfan 233 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 http://www.nbcnews.c...er-isis-n303481 ... The U.S. military has a special alliance with Iraq's Kurds. Unlike the Arabs — both Sunni and Shiite — the Kurds have never raised arms against U.S. troops. In fact, even before the U.S. invasion in 2003, the Kurds have been unabashedly pro-American. Erbil — the Kurdish capital — is unique in being an Iraqi city where you can see American flags hanging behind the cash registers at shops and restaurants. The Kurds believe that a strong relationship with the U.S. is key to achieving their ultimate goal of independence. Kurds, who make up about 17 percent of Iraq's population, are members of an ethnic group often referred to as "the largest stateless nation." Their historical homeland is divided between Syria, Iran, Iraq and Turkey. Kurds spent the past century demanding, fighting and dying for the right to a free and independent homeland. Now, at last, that dream seems within reach. During the U.S. war in Iraq, the Kurds were constructive partners in a fragile three-way government with their Sunni and Shiite neighbors. But the Americans have gone and ISIS has ended the illusion of Iraqi unity, leaving the Kurds free to declare their lands as their own. As ISIS fighters marched through one Iraqi city after another last summer, Iraq's army withdrew in advance of their arrival. While Iraqi forces ran away, the Kurdish forces — known as Peshmerga — grabbed the city of Kirkuk and its vast oil fields. It was a hugely important moment. Now that they have the city, they have no intention of giving it back to the central government in Baghdad, which they see as corrupt and sectarian. The Kurds believe Kirkuk's oil will make the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq an economically viable, even wealthy, state. Control of Kirkuk is the key to nationhood that Kurds have always sought. There is a formal referendum coming on the fate of Iraqi Kurdistan. Before ISIS came along, Kurds might have seen the benefit of keeping their uneasy alliance with the Iraqi state. They needed the money that the central government was sending north and the Iraqi army, with its superior, American-provided weapons was a better guarantee of safety in a volatile region than the lightly-armed Peshmerga. All that has changed now. And the referendum, originally scheduled to take place last year, is almost guaranteed to show that Iraqi Kurds are ready to break away. All of this puts two key elements of the U.S. policy in the region on a collision course. "The United States not only has to worry about the Islamic State, but it also needs to worry about the future unity of Iraq," says Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East specialist at Washington's Center for Strategic Studies. ... Honest opinions or discussion please (hopefully objective, without irrelevant attacks on Obama or other posters):Assuming ISIS is neutralized/destroyed and out of the equation, 1. What is the most favorable option for stability in the region, and 2. What is most likely to happen, best scenario or not: A united Iraq, or an Iraq divided into three independent states for Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites? Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Assuming ISIS is neutralized/destroyed and out of the equation, 1. What is the most favorable option for stability in the region, and 2. What is most likely to happen, best scenario or not: A united Iraq, or an Iraq divided into three independent states for Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites? Thoughts? If only a huge land grab could be taken from Syria and Assad then I absolutely think a 3 state solution would have the best chance to last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Assuming ISIS is neutralized/destroyed and out of the equation, 1. What is the most favorable option for stability in the region, and 2. What is most likely to happen, best scenario or not: A united Iraq, or an Iraq divided into three independent states for Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites? Thoughts? If only a huge land grab could be taken from Syria and Assad then I absolutely think a 3 state solution would have the best chance to last. I tend to agree but man is this a tough situation. The 'Kurdistan' boundary reaches into four countries and Turkey is none too happy about recent Kurd actions. Least path of resistance is to ensure a unified country with fair representation in parliment. Easier said than done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,796 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Turkey, a NATO ally, might declare war. They would almost certainly be ongoing skirmishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,560 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Turkey needs to suck it up for the team (not much of a team player at times). I think a three state solution is a best case scenario, but I don't know if the region will allow it. The Kurds should be priority #1 for the United States, but our bases in Turkey keep us from being an exceptional partner. They have been at our side every time we get involved, right or not, in that region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Let us not forget that Turkey would LOVE the nod to be officially part of the EU. Just a little incentive to be a team player IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctoritas 2,826 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Personally, I think the Kurds are the only "country" in between India and Germany that have their ish together. All they want is to be left the hell alone. I think that this ISIS thing will be the final stage of them getting to carve out the northern third of Iraq as a country. Turkey can go hang, as far as I am concerned - Erdogan has started to become awfully dictatorial and they are badly in need of a major slap on the wrist. I bet that if it came down to it, Turkey would let it happen if the Kurds agreed to cede claims within Turkey in exchange for recognition as a state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 On the surface the plan/agreement looks good but the thing I don't understand is why we continue to tell ISIS what we plan to do in advance. I saw both retired generals Keene and McInery on TV this morning blasting the WH for announcing it. They said this just gives ISIS advanced warning and time to develop their own plan and strengthen their defenses. Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Great thread topic. As depressing as it may be, even after the radical terrorists are defeated, there will still be many unresolved conflicts in the region. Peace and stability are a long way away for the Middle East. In my opinion, there is almost nothing we can do, peacefully or militarily, that will resolve these conflicts (short of occupation). We can help but, we can not do it for them. There is an abundance of grievances and no shortage of people willing to kill or die for them. It can not be our army or, our development programs, or our diplomats that bring about peace and prosperity. Arab and Islamic leaders have to do it for themselves. If the borders of Iraq are going to be changed, I hope that the people of Iraq have more to say about the division of the country than U.S. State Department does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctoritas 2,826 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 On the surface the plan/agreement looks good but the thing I don't understand is why we continue to tell ISIS what we plan to do in advance. I saw both retired generals Keene and McInery on TV this morning blasting the WH for announcing it. They said this just gives ISIS advanced warning and time to develop their own plan and strengthen their defenses. Makes sense to me. I'm right with you on this one. The only thing I can think of is that it gives the Iraqi army a definite time to be ready by- they are woefully underprepared, and there is some thinking that part of that is lack of a target date. Either way, don't telegraph your throws, amirite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 On the surface the plan/agreement looks good but the thing I don't understand is why we continue to tell ISIS what we plan to do in advance. I saw both retired generals Keene and McInery on TV this morning blasting the WH for announcing it. They said this just gives ISIS advanced warning and time to develop their own plan and strengthen their defenses. Makes sense to me. I think it is an attempt to draw ISIS into a major battle in which air power can play a decisive role. I also believe it is an attempt to test the theory that the Sunni population of Mosul has become less than happy with life under ISIS rule. I would guess there are at least two strategies. One for the contingency that ISIS heavily reinforces Mosul and, one for the contingency that they do not. It will be interesting to see whether the plan looks more like a siege or an assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 You are right Aucto. To me it's kind of like when the WH announced our plan to withdraw our troop from Afghanistan. The Taliban just said fine, we will stock up and wait until you leave. I wonder what Ike would have thought about announcing our D-Day plans a few months ahead of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 You are right Aucto. To me it's kind of like when the WH announced our plan to withdraw our troop from Afghanistan. The Taliban just said fine, we will stock up and wait until you leave. I wonder what Ike would have thought about announcing our D-Day plans a few months ahead of time. He did,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,at Calais. I would be reluctant to think that our military strategist are really as dumb as you seem to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 You are right Aucto. To me it's kind of like when the WH announced our plan to withdraw our troop from Afghanistan. The Taliban just said fine, we will stock up and wait until you leave. I wonder what Ike would have thought about announcing our D-Day plans a few months ahead of time. He did,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,at Calais. I would be reluctant to think that our military strategist are really as dumb as you seem to believe. He loves to group the military in with his criticisms of the President and his administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 You are right Aucto. To me it's kind of like when the WH announced our plan to withdraw our troop from Afghanistan. The Taliban just said fine, we will stock up and wait until you leave. I wonder what Ike would have thought about announcing our D-Day plans a few months ahead of time. He did,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,at Calais. I would be reluctant to think that our military strategist are really as dumb as you seem to believe. He loves to group the military in with his criticisms of the President and his administration. Everything is fair game in his book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 I didn't criticize the "Turkish" plan, Generals Keene and McInery did. So send them an e-mal with your expert advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 I didn't criticize the "Turkish" plan, Generals Keene and McInery did. So send them an e-mal with your expert advice. How disingenuous and predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 It's funny that anyone would even insinuate that I lump any criticism of the military in with my criticism of this administration. First, I rarely criticize our military. Secondly., I would note that my accuser(s) are quite hypocritical since they often show no respect for our retired military officers saying they are now just pawns for contractors. My opinion is that these guys, along with civilians like Leon Paneta, are just free to tell the truth now that the are retired. I highly respect their opinions, certainly a heck of a more than some here I could mention. Having said, I would note that the military is not perfect. It seems that a current "military official" splled he beans on the "Kurdish Plan." http://video.foxnews.com/v/4072106340001/military-official-outlines-plan-to-retake-mosul-from-isis/?#sp=show-clips And some folks aren't happy about it. http://www.foxnews.c...ission-details/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.