Posted on 10/17/2017 1:19:13 PM PDT by TBP
If President Trump wants to stop Iran from making the entire country of Iraq a subsidiary of the Revolutionary Guard, he’ll need to intervene in the burgeoning crisis in Kurdistan — and fast.
On Monday, Iraqi forces trounced Kurdish fighters and emerged victorious in a short fight for control of the oil-rich northern Iraqi town of Kirkuk.
And they couldn’t have done it without us.
When ISIS stormed Iraq in 2014, the demoralized Iraqi army collapsed, its troops deserted and fled. Baghdad was utterly humiliated. Then Kurdish fighters, known as Peshmerga, entered Kirkuk, secured the key city and kept it jihadi-free.
Problem is, the Iraqi army wasn’t alone in defeating the Kurds. Much of the fighting was done by Iraqi Shiite militias — many of which swear allegiance to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Tehran’s vanguard, even as they, too, get American arms.
On Friday, President Trump declared the IRGC a terror organization. The Treasury Department hit the group with new sanctions to confront its growing global influence.
“It was the natural outcome of ousting Saddam. Just like ISIS”.
Yes, ousting Saddam was a big, stupid mistake.
How? Nuke them? We dont have enough military free to invade.
I forgot to add Obama squelched the Israeli [ln. Not in treated in what w have now. He has his hands full ISIS and NK. We are losing the proliferation of nukes battle and some day we will all suffer. I would make some strong demands on Iran and attack targets in NK. Then if Iran is still dwaddling around go after them with the Israelis of whoever will join us. There’s your plan for the next 3 years.
not interested
Well said.
This is nonsense. The neocons and their allies are trying to use this non-issue to gin up some kind of military confrontation with Iran.
If keeping Iranian influence out of Iraq was so important, we shouldn’t have invaded the darn country and installed Iranian backed militias as the new government. But that’s exactly what we did. Too late.
Again, this is a non-issue. The territory that the Kurds just returned to Iraqi government control was land the the government controlled before the ISIS attack. The result of this latest series of events is simply a return to the status quo from the before the ISIS war.
Totally agree.
“This is like Russia supporting Texas leaving the United States with the promise of military support.”
Love the analogy, but I’d switch California for Texas.
Britain opted not to give us independence. We took it, with the help of allies.
The world is a much more complex place than it was in the mid 1770s and 80s. There are compelling competing interests in the region of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the area in which the Kird's now live.
At the present time we have a working relationship with Iraq. It seems advantageous to pursue keeping that relationship. At the same time, we have had a working relationship with the Kurds, and we want to keep that relationship, and more importantly them safe too.
Going in and offending Turkey and Iraq is not wise > IMO. If we can maintain a relationship with Iraq and return to the time when Iraq allowed pretty good autonomy to the Kurds, that seems like the best outcome > again IMO.
Joining the Kurds would most certainly alienate Turkey. It has a claim to self-determination, running their nation as they see fit. It would also alienate Iraq which also has a right to self-determination, running their nation as they see fit.
It makes sense to me to defend the Kurds from abuse at the hand of Turkey and Iraq diplomatically.
Leave the status quo as is, and do not drive Iraq and Turkey further into the arms of Iran.
I respect the Kurd people. I do not want to see them abused. If push came to shove and it looked like Turky and Iraq were going to attack them, seek to destroy them, we might have to escalate our support for the Kurds.
That is how I could play it for now, and hope things returned to a stable status quo which would work for all three parties, the Kurds, Turkey, and Iraq.
It isn’t black and white.
And they each have their issues, so it’s not simple situation. IMHO which is far from scholarly, the more hands off the US is the better, while being sort of nice to everyone. Except less nice to Turkey. Maybe some tsk tsk sounds too. Firmly taking any sides here would be a big mistake, again IMHO.
I chose Texas because I considered Texas to be more of a positive force, more like the Kurds in this instance.
The Kurds are a positive force in Iraq.
This wasn’t meant to be a jab at Texas.
I think you’re stance of trying not to have to take sides, seems like the best option.
I appreciate the mention.
Kurds have their issues too. Of course imho Turkey is a very bad country because of Erdogan so I don’t want him to feel encouraged...
Good thing I have no influence, power or position.
I agree about Erdogan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.