Mod edit: This sort of rubbish will not be tolerated. You've been warned in the past. There won't be another. AD
Last edited by a moderator:
Withdrawal from Iraq and the possibility of Middle East Regional War
- Thread starter Izzy1
- Start date
Some big posts here..
So now that we know kurts standing, and hope that he is not inside the White House, perhaps we should go back to the topic...
If a Democratic president is elected in the near future, and dictates a wtihdrawal, what could be the fate of Iraq? and what could be the changes afecting US strategy in the area? the partitioning of Iraq in 3 distinct areas?
.pt
So now that we know kurts standing, and hope that he is not inside the White House, perhaps we should go back to the topic...
If a Democratic president is elected in the near future, and dictates a wtihdrawal, what could be the fate of Iraq? and what could be the changes afecting US strategy in the area? the partitioning of Iraq in 3 distinct areas?
.pt
Isn't Balkanization the only way to gain security for the people? The death squads don't have far to go and have no particular border that can be defended to cross to commit their genocide. Having closed off areas for particular ethnic groups with clearly demarcated lines is the only way order will be restored. It will make Al-Quedas attempt to bring disorder to Iraq futile as it will be obvious they are the one doing the killing and make sentiment turn against them. It is alot to ask of people to leave their homes but when it is the only way to gaurantee their safety must be done.
I think the nature of the withdrawal is very important here. In Southeast Asia in the 70's we yanked our personnel and financial support in 1975 pretty much ensuring an outcome favorable to the communists. Will this approach be repeated?
If I'm reading the political tea leaves correctly the Democratic party will be very careful not to withdraw too quickly. Much was made of the phrase "cut and run" in the last campaign and they were very careful not to leave the impression that this is the path that they want to take. In reality both sides want to draw down as quickly as possible but both also realize that to do so too quickly would lead to failure. The Democrats tried hard to differentiate themselves from the Republicans on Iraq policy to take advantage of the anti-war sentiment in the country. In practical terms I don't see them actually behaving any differently.
The Democratic party has always struggled with their credibility on security issues. They are attempting to remake their image in this area. If Iraq blows up because of a premature withdrawal by the US they can forget about that idea for another decade or more. They were just starting to recover from their bad rep after the end of the Cold War.
As with many other issues in the US, both parties talk about how different they are but end up governing the same way.
No matter what the US does now except sprinkle fairy dust over Iraq the situation is beyond repair. Our lives who live in the region have been me made worse. What the war has done is it has created or made stronger all it had aimed to destroy.
The more short term effe4ct will be a Shia vs Sunni conflict. One of the biggest problems in the region "Iran" has just been emboldened and their heads are out of control. In order to spread their control they are supporting the different shia groups in the region. In Iraq the situation lies in front of us but the conflict in making is in the Shia areas of the kingdom of Saud. Having knowledge about these events the Saudis are actively funding anti-shia forces in both Iraq and believe it or not A-stan. Once the conflict actively hits KSA then be prepared for one in Syria & A-stan as well.
Those who think that the Kurds will ride it out are wrong or at least I believe so. Turkey, Syria & Iran will try to take benefit of the turmoil and try to suppress the small insurgencies that are ongoing or the Kurds might take it as an opportunity to start their campaign for an independent country that would provoke their neighbour in to action.
As for Iraq splitting, it would only come because of fatigue. At present most Iraqis do not support division but if the killings continew then fatigue will set in and all means to end it will be supported by the ppl, which might be a breakup. Which Ironically lead to even more conflict.
The more short term effe4ct will be a Shia vs Sunni conflict. One of the biggest problems in the region "Iran" has just been emboldened and their heads are out of control. In order to spread their control they are supporting the different shia groups in the region. In Iraq the situation lies in front of us but the conflict in making is in the Shia areas of the kingdom of Saud. Having knowledge about these events the Saudis are actively funding anti-shia forces in both Iraq and believe it or not A-stan. Once the conflict actively hits KSA then be prepared for one in Syria & A-stan as well.
Those who think that the Kurds will ride it out are wrong or at least I believe so. Turkey, Syria & Iran will try to take benefit of the turmoil and try to suppress the small insurgencies that are ongoing or the Kurds might take it as an opportunity to start their campaign for an independent country that would provoke their neighbour in to action.
As for Iraq splitting, it would only come because of fatigue. At present most Iraqis do not support division but if the killings continew then fatigue will set in and all means to end it will be supported by the ppl, which might be a breakup. Which Ironically lead to even more conflict.
If the situation does evolve into a broader Sunni vs. Shia conflict what other outcome is there except partition? This does not appear to me to be a conflict between supporters of a unified government and separatists. It's a war between separatists with outside forces invested in the outcome.
I agree that Turkey and Iran would react strongly against an independant Kurdish state as well as any increase in Kurdish insurgent activity inside their countries. I do think they could avoid serious involvement in the Sunni vs. Shia fighting though.
How about this scenario for the purposes of discussion:
1. Partition Iraq into 3 states controlled by a weak federal government. Certain institutions will remain at the federal level - the armed forces and control of the oil wealth most importantly. Most real control would be local.
2. Gradual draw down of US forces leaving a security presence to back up the central government. Resources not well handled by Iraqis (air support, logistics) would continue to be mostly handled by the US. Ground operations would be carried out by Iraqi personnel. Continue fairly large scale financial support by US.
3. Establish a UN presence in key areas where Iraqi security lacks credibility and a US presence is counter-productive.
4. Secure the borders to better disrupt the supply chain feeding militant groups within iraq.
5. Plus the obvious stuff - diplomatic pressure on Iran and Syria. Infrastructure investment. Training for Iraqi security forces. All the little things we are already doing.
I agree that Turkey and Iran would react strongly against an independant Kurdish state as well as any increase in Kurdish insurgent activity inside their countries. I do think they could avoid serious involvement in the Sunni vs. Shia fighting though.
How about this scenario for the purposes of discussion:
1. Partition Iraq into 3 states controlled by a weak federal government. Certain institutions will remain at the federal level - the armed forces and control of the oil wealth most importantly. Most real control would be local.
2. Gradual draw down of US forces leaving a security presence to back up the central government. Resources not well handled by Iraqis (air support, logistics) would continue to be mostly handled by the US. Ground operations would be carried out by Iraqi personnel. Continue fairly large scale financial support by US.
3. Establish a UN presence in key areas where Iraqi security lacks credibility and a US presence is counter-productive.
4. Secure the borders to better disrupt the supply chain feeding militant groups within iraq.
5. Plus the obvious stuff - diplomatic pressure on Iran and Syria. Infrastructure investment. Training for Iraqi security forces. All the little things we are already doing.
Also Iran, niether Turkey or Iran would be happy with a Kurdish state.The biggest problem I see to partition is Kurdistan... What will Turkey do?
Solve one problem, create another.
But as a semi-autonomous state still a part of Iraq with the central government still in charge of security? If such a thing is possible.
So no "Kurdish Army". No organised security forces under sole control of an exclusively Kurdish entity. And therefore a limited likelyhood of organized support for rebel Kurdish forces in Iran and Turkey (like what Pakistan does for the rebels in Kashmir).
So no "Kurdish Army". No organised security forces under sole control of an exclusively Kurdish entity. And therefore a limited likelyhood of organized support for rebel Kurdish forces in Iran and Turkey (like what Pakistan does for the rebels in Kashmir).
Big maistake man. There is support for the Kurdish insurgency by the Kurds, in both Iran and Turkey. And what does Pakistan do?
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Then no ability for the Kurdish state to protect itself, this would be reliance on basically US or Nato protection in case of aggresion of neighbours which would as mentioned be likely. Rebel attacks of Kurdish insurgency would see Turkey eg. making incursions in to Kurdish territory, now you have the option of putting Allied troops on the border to stop turkish incursions, does the situation sound familar?
Agreed and that would probably continue.
I'm against any idea of an independent Kurdistan which might then use state resources to back insurgents in Turkey and Iran. That would be very bad. Turkey and Iran might become involved. Justifiably so.
It would be Iraqi national forces responsible for the border. Keeping Kurds in and Turks/Iranians out.
contedicavour
New Member
Good idea, but I doubt the Kurdish leadership (including Iraq's current president btw) would appreciate having Sunni troops encircling Kurdish territory, from the Turkish and the Iranian frontier to Kirkuk and Mosul.
Shi'ite troops would be better tolerated on the frontier, but not around Kirkuk and Mosul, where local Sunnis would think that they side with the Kurds. What a mess. I'd still prefer neutral Muslim troops, such as the Egyptians.
cheers
We have been talking about keeping forward bases in Iraq... the Kurdish area seems pretty central to the GWOT.
contedicavour
New Member
That won't help you reestablish friendly and warmhearted relations with Turkey... since the US will be perceived as the only barrier between now and defeat of the Kurds... that area is so complex that whatever you do or you don't you get hit sooner or later.
cheers
I think the only way to beat Iran is to destabalize them... inciting some Kurds and other Azeris sounds like a good plan to me.
contedicavour
New Member
I'm not sure, they are relatively tiny minorities. Besides, upsetting the majority will only push them closer to the ayatollahs and the current president.
Saddam tried this with the Arab minorities in the Shatt-al-arab in the '80s but didn't manage to gain much from this.
cheers
Azeri and Kurds make up 31% of the population... that is a BIG chunk. The Azeris are feeling rather oppressed from reports I've heard.