I really wish Bush would tell Turkey to "suck it."
Posted on 07/16/2007 10:03:02 AM PDT by Weeedley
Reality would be nice if it weren't so complicated.
Sure, let's just sit here like the "pirates who don't do anything" and say that three little Iraqs would be so much better.
Except that three little Iraqs might quickly turn into The Land Of Unintended Consequences.
1) Iran covertly or overtly annexes Shia-stan, occupies Basra and cuts off gulf access.
2) Sunni-stan devolves into a new hardcore Muslim Brotherhood terror training headquarters, unfettered by American military intervention.
3) Kurdistan becomes a success story just long enough to provide an example to Turkish Kurds that the best idea for them is to revolt against Turkish government and secede, bringing American troops into a hot war between the Kurds and the Turks.
Just because Iraq was an "artificial construct" of British imperialism doesn't automatically mean it's the worst option.
Exactly. Let the Sunni and Shia slaughter each other while we watch from our secure bases in "Kurdland". Since we don't have a culture that will allow us to deal directly with the islamic scourge we need to keep the islamic world at each other's throats instead of at ours. That was the Reagan doctrine and it worked reasonably well.
Bush is too nice a person to be President. He couldn't stomach the thought of the hell about to befall Iraq and tried to reform their culture on the cheap (only 1 trillion dollars spent!). But the sword comes regardless. Culture change in the ME might be well intentioned but it is naive.
Turkey wont do anything but squawk if we have several large bases in Kurdistan keeping an eye on the region. Screw Turkey - they are only marginally useful now anyway. The cold war is over.
The Turks are not going to take on the US. Period. Even if they did they would fare little better than the Iraq army did.
Your alternative apparently is to remain in Iraq, propping it up, for the next 50 years. No thanks. It was a stupid idea to begin with.
Turkey will be aligned with Iran (Persia), Russia and others soon when they attack Israel.
Thanks for the 20/20 hindsight! Real helpful in 2007 for a decision that had to be made years ago.
Sunni training camp? - poof it's gone. Persians crossing the border?, poof they're f******* gone.
I always get a kick out of this logic, usually coming from the Reid/Pelosi/Murtha Strategic CutnRun department.
I see your point....since we can't control/strike the bad guys while we're actually based in Baghdad, well, we'll be able to hit them much more effectively from farther away on Gulf carriers, or hey, why not Okinawa for the greatest effectiveness!!?
And of course, this strategy worked extemely well in Afghanistan, where we lobbed cruise missiles left and right at Al Qaeda training camps, only to have them strike back effectively on 9/11. Worked great, huh?
Oh. And the intelligence on WHERE and WHEN to strike some camp here or there, why, that will be so much better when we leave and all the locals learn to keep their heads down for fear of those left in control. What are they sposed to do, call USAF911? Tell their neighborhood Sunni police officer that there's a Sunni terror training camp in their neighbor's house?
There's no making your ilk happy. If, as I believe, bugging out is a worse option than staying for 50 years, then you will merely say in hindsight that we bugged out the wrong way, or you would've done it differently and of course, better.
Well it wasn't hindsight. I have held this position from day one (hoping I was wrong and Bush was right) and you can read back through my posts for confirmation. That opinion was based on 11 years as a former covert govt. intel weenie. I am painfully familiar with the ME and only a total ignoramus would think you going to change anything there unless you apply massive, brutal and completely socially unacceptable force.
What is wrong with my logic? Of course you actually have to execute but that depends on who is in power anyway.
Read and think before commenting. NO we can't effectively attack while in country. (Actually that isn't true but changing that reality requires changing the rules of engagement). If we pull out (to Kurdistan not completely - please try to retain this thought) we can sure let them kill each other pretty effectively though. Beyond that, if you can identify discrete targets you CAN take them out (if you have the will). Especially from land carriers (read airstrips) in Kurdistan. Large bases in Kurdistan would allow us to project force quickly anywhere in the region.
You are mixing apples and oranges. You are arguing that stupid and failed policies of the past (Clintoon and his cruise missiles for example) necessitates a new stupid (and failed) policy.
We are not going to change the culture in Iraq. We need to deal with reality and position ourselves as best we can. I'm NOT suggesting we "run away". I am suggesting we take a cold and ruthless approach. Hell if it was up to me I would really deal with the problem. "Reject islam and renounce your culture or I'll kill every man, woman and child in your sick nation." Then we would have culture change. You wouldn't want me as dictator.
I think that you will find that Turkey has been a trusted member of NATO for some time. The issue that Turkey has is the Kurds that are using northern Iraq as a base to launch terrorist attacks into Turkey.
Yes Turkey has been a member of NATO - for decades. They were brought into NATO because of the geography they control which was of serious significance during the cold war. That was then and this is now. They are somewhat useful at present as pseudo allies but their favor isn’t worth the Kurds or our ability to remain in the region. In my typically less than humble opinion.
TRUSTED member. Ummm... no.
The problem is that our fellow NATO member, Turkey, would never allow it.Screw Turkey.
However the Kurds are the best ally we have in that area.
Wow. I'm going to sift through your 4 year old posts to make sense of yours today?
I'm not trying to be rude, but did you read what you posted here?
"You have to follow my policy, but if it turns out it doesn't work, then it wasn't executed correctly, and since the current political landscape won't allow my policy, then that proves that my policy is the correct one."
Sir, Bush doesn't have the option of executing perfect strategy in a carte-blanche landscape.
Only armchair sunday quarterbacks have that luxury.
The Iraq Study Group floated it first but the administration called it a "non-starter." It should have been the plan going into Iraq.
The British Combined the three regions to create the artificial entitty.
The USA has been left to clean up the mess of the last vestiges of Empire.
Thanks for the info.
Were not cleaning up, just attempting to sweep it all under the rug. It is clearly not working.
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.