Posted on 10/15/2007 9:21:43 PM PDT by humint
[EXCERPT] Turkish artillery hit the northern villages, while Iranian gunners hit the southern ones.
Iranian troops attempted to cross into Iraq through the mountain passes, but PJAK fighters held the line.
"The goal of the Iranians is to drive us from the border area," rebel leader Biryar Gabar told Newsmax. "They want to turn this area into a no-man's land, so they can use it to smuggle weapons and Islamist guerillas into Iraq to fight the Americans."
(Excerpt) Read more at aina.org ...
In my reply #23 there are links to current news items that quote Barzani's current thoughts vis-a-vis PKK. Of course he says that he wants a non-military solution.
What else could he say? But I cannot keep from remembering that his PUK was fighting his fellow Kurd's KDP in a civil war just a few years ago; and prior to 2003 Turkey had crossed to the Iraqi side of the border 14 times to get at the PKK. This sudden polish and elegance of a politician is B.S.
I think that it is "a matter of seizing [the] opportunity to get rid of [the PKK]." However, I believe that the PKK/KADEK/KGK has extensive connections in socialist Europe. So they will likely remain a factor for a long time.
I got friends stationed in Iraq and Turkey. This little spitting match doesn’t make me feel good.
“here are many more layers and wheels than that. My question of Do you think the dems thought that far ahead? Was more along the lines of Do you think the dems are smart enough to actually understand how far their childish play could muddy the waters or where the just trying to get our overflight access stopped.
I cant see them being smart enough to see all the moves and players this would invite.”
I think it was a short sighted belief that they could hinder President Bush’s ability to conduct war in Iraq. Since they are not willing to deauthorize(don’t know if that is even a word) military action in Iraq, then they will snipe at the heels to make the continuation of the mission useless. Beyond that who cares, because to their thinking all Americans will be home.
"The goal of the Iranians is to drive us from the border area," rebel leader Biryar Gabar told Newsmax. "They want to turn this area into a no-man's land, so they can use it to smuggle weapons and Islamist guerillas into Iraq to fight the Americans."
Aren’t both reasons good enough?
Arent both reasons good enough?
***Democracy is enough, oil supplies probably isn’t. As I said, if we let a NATO ally knock out a budding democracy, [the other Iraqis] know this whole thing isnt really about building a democracy, its about securing oil supplies.
Everyone here in Iraqi Kurdistan, every liberation movement in Iranian Kurdistan, hates the PKK. Originally set up by KGB agent Yevgeni Primakov in the 1970s and sponsored by the Soviets to destabilize NATO-member Turkey, the PKK is now sponsored by the Mullacracy of Iran. The main base of the PKK with several thousand PKK guerrillas, is near Urumia in Iran near the Turkish Border.
http://www.kurdistandailynews.com/ingilizi/Nuce_Inglizi/THE_KURDISH_KEY_TO_THE_MIDDLE_EAST.htm
But PUK and KDP can not officially destroy PKK and their offspring as that would be seen as a betrayal of the “Kurdish cause” by their electorate.
The Turks and Kurds have a common problem with the killing of Armenians:
After the loss of the European part of its empire in the Balkans, in the midst of World War I, the Ottoman Empire feared for its hold upon Anatolia itself, and decided to settle the long-unfinished business of conquest with a conscious act of genocide. But the Turks lacked the resources to do so in the midst of war, and Turkey’s military leaders enlisted Kurdish tribes to do most of the actual killing in return for Armenian land. That is why Kurds dominate eastern Turkey, which used to be called, “Western Armenia”. The Armenian genocide, in short, gave rise to what today is Turkey’s Kurdish problem.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1912187/posts?page=13#13
In order to solve this an external factor is required.
Thanks for pointing out that section of the article in that thread, why Kurds dominate eastern Turkey.
So we find some way to get the Armenians & Turks lined up against whoever stays with the PKK and let all 3 of these groups fight it out. The winner can have a buffer zone between Kurdish Iraq & Turkey. The Kurds get to keep most of eastern Turkey, northern Iran (assuming future successful engagements there) and northern Iraq. They should be happy, and there’s a new democracy in the middle east, one that’s even allied with the US. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Heres my usual post regarding this area.
Maybe my tagline will come true.
We should withdraw from Iraq through Tehran. Heres how I think we should pull out of Iraq. Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. Its the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we dont want to play that role, Iraqs civil war will end with A or B.
Lets say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a withdrawal from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when were all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldnt really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
.
.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who dont mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that dont secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they dont engage with Turkey. But that doesnt say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesnt relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isnt our problem, its 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), theyre fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didnt allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
Its time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your friend when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldnt be a wise move for them, theyd get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. Its time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, its a messy situation. If Turkey goes into the war on Irans side then they aint really our allies and thats the end of that.
I agree that its hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the 15 rules for understanding the Middle East
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that dont agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant allies like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that wed need as many folks in police and nurses uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didnt follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just havent won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, theyve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when theyre done with that, we can help negotiate with our other allies, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up whats left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
That leaves Damascus for round II. The whole deal could be circumvented by Syria if they simply allow real inspections of the WOMD sites. And when I say real, I mean real the inspectors would have a small armor division that they could call on whenever they get held up by some local yocal who didnt get this months bribe. Hussein was an idiot to dismantle all of his WOMDs and then not let the inspectors in. If he had done so, hed still be in power, pulling Bushs chain.
OOps, I intended to put my standard post over at that other thread.
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.