Withdrawal from Iraq and the possibility of Middle East Regional War

[contedicavour]

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.

I had read some time ago (Economist ?) that Arab+Kurd+Azeri made up a quarter of the population. May be the difference is due to the accounting of mixed families.
IMHO using several different minorities (not necessarily friendly to one another) as a leverage against the main Persian Shi'ite community risks pushing them in the president's arms.
Regarding Azeris, I'm not sure that they are so anti-Persian even if they are being mistreated... they don't have many alternatives to turn to.

cheers

 

[Big-E]

Regarding Azeris, I'm not sure that they are so anti-Persian even if they are being mistreated... they don't have many alternatives to turn to.

cheers

What else do we have to topple the government... we can't invade.

 

[rrrtx]

Big maistake man. There is support for the Kurdish insurgency by the Kurds, in both Iran and Turkey. And what does Pakistan do?

Pakistan officially absolutely DOES NOT support rebels in India's Kashmir province. Although said rebels often seem to end up with Pakistani army rifles, grenades, uniforms, etc.

I think most people are convinced that the Pakistani govt. provides material and financial support to the rebels in Kashmir. You don't hear about it much any more with all the other stuff going on in the world. But it is a good example of one country arming combantants in a neighboring country.

 

[rrrtx]

We have been talking about keeping forward bases in Iraq... the Kurdish area seems pretty central to the GWOT.

Forward bases. Now that's a good issue to bring up.

I say forget the WMD's. Establishing a long term military presence (like the US did in Germany and Japan after WW2) was one of the key reasons to go into Iraq IMHO. Does a large scale pullout by the US mean that we still keep strategic assets in place? At least a fair amount of air power?

 

[contedicavour]

What else do we have to topple the government... we can't invade.

Well since I agree we can't invade, and since sanctions don't work as long as everybody needs their oil, the only thing you can do is negotiate to try to find some common ground... while gradually influencing new generations of Iranians with media (from satellite TV to internet), brands & style (from fashion to food to everyday househould brands) so that at the end anything standing between the young and personal advancement/enrichment will be shoved aside... from religious extremism to extreme nationalism.

We'll need to be very patient though...

cheers

 

[Pavando]

No need for real foreign support with explosives.
The "lost stocks" of the former Iraqi armed forces and militias should be able to supply the rebells for generations.
Not to talk of the US Army loosing some hundred rifles + ammo.

Most of the terror is caused by iranians trained in iran. iran is also making all of the bombs. the way to victory in iraq is to convince the saudis to increase there oil output to the equivilant of irans output, then attack irans ports. This will starv the country into overthrowing its govt.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Re: Lost rifles
Tell me about it, my mate was a Contractor Driver for the US, on a regular run he was at one of the Big camps I forget the name sorry and a soldier had "misplaced" his M16, the locked the camp down for about 7 hours, they had security teams thoroughly searching all the rigs for it as well the US Army gets pretty pissy about it apparently.

 

[eckherl]

Re: Lost rifles
Tell me about it, my mate was a Contractor Driver for the US, on a regular run he was at one of the Big camps I forget the name sorry and a soldier had "misplaced" his M16, the locked the camp down for about 7 hours, they had security teams thoroughly searching all the rigs for it as well the US Army gets pretty pissy about it apparently.

I have seen them lock down a entire installation over misplaced ammunition.

 

[Waylander]

There was an article some time ago about a shipment of rifles being lost.
I'm searching for it.

 

[Waylander]

I just found the german article.

I post it and give a summary of what is inside.
The source is www.tagesschau.de our premium and most reliable tv news show.

US-Regierung vermisst tausende Gewehre und Pistolen

Waffen irgendwo auf dem Weg nach Bagdad verschwunden

Mehr als 700 Sturmgewehre und 13.000 Pistolen, mit denen die USA die irakischen Streitkräfte ausrüsten wollten, sind verschwunden. Das berichtet die "New York Times" unter Berufung auf einen Untersuchungsbericht der US-Regierung. Besonders delikat: Die Waffen waren nicht registriert.

Von Linda Staude, WDR-Hörfunkkorrespondentin Washington

Die Untersuchung ist ausgerechnet von einem prominenten Republikaner in Auftrag gegeben worden, von John Warner, dem Chef des Streitkräfteausschusses im Senat. Das Ergebnis: Dem US-Militär sind tausende Waffen abhanden gekommen, die eigentlich für die frisch ausgebildeten irakischen Sicherheitskräfte gedacht waren. Die zuständige Aufsichtsbehörde hat festgestellt, dass das Pentagon keine Ahnung hat, wo ungefähr vier Prozent der etwa 500.000 Granatwerfer, halbautomatischen Pistolen und Maschinengewehre geblieben sind, die den Steuerzahler runde 130 Millionen Dollar gekostet haben. Macht gut 14.000 Waffen, die irgendwo auf dem Weg nach Bagdad verschwunden sind.

Waffen nicht ordnungsgemäß registriert

Wo genau, das dürfte kaum mehr herauszufinden sein. Das Militär hat die Lieferungen - anders als sonst überall in der Welt - nicht ordnungsgemäß registriert. Lediglich von etwa 10.000 der insgesamt gelieferten Waffen existieren Listen mit Seriennummern. Das sind nicht einmal drei Prozent. Zur Begründung sagen hochrangige Militärs in Bagdad einem Bericht der "New York Times" zufolge: Wir wussten nicht, dass diese Vorschrift auch für uns gilt.

Das Pentagon hat damit keine Möglichkeit festzustellen, ob die fehlenden Waffen jemals bei den irakischen Sicherheitskräften angekommen und von dort verschwunden sind, ob sie bereits vor Lieferung abgezweigt wurden oder ob sie in den Händen von Aufständischen gelandet sind. Besonders pikant: Verschwunden ist unter anderem eine ganze Ladung mit etwa 700 Gewehren speziell für Scharfschützen. Und das zu einem Zeitpunkt, zu dem das Verteidigungsministerium über zunehmende Opferzahlen unter seinen Soldaten durch irakische Scharfschützen klagt.

Möglicherweise tödliche Schlamperei

Ein niederschmetternder Bericht über möglicherweise tödliche Schlamperei - und über Unfähigkeit. Die Untersuchung hat außerdem ergeben, dass das Pentagon den Irakis zwar Waffen geliefert hat - wenn auch offensichtlich nicht ganz so viele wie geplant - aber viel zu wenig Ersatzteile und Munition. Warum ist unbekannt. Einer der Gründe dafür, dass die Aufsichtsbehörde zu dem Schluss kommt, dass die Irakis bis auf weiteres nicht in der Lage sein werden, selbständig für Sicherheit in ihrem Land zu sorgen. Der andere ist, dass bisher viel zu wenig Personal ausgebildet wurde, das Nachschub liefern kann, Soldaten transportiert und ähnliche Aufgaben übernimmt.

Bei der Logistik hängt bis auf weiteres alles von den Amerikanern ab, heißt es in dem Bericht. Schlechte Aussichten also, dass die USA zumindest einen Teil ihrer Truppen in absehbarer Zeit nach Hause holen können, wie es der Präsident immer mal wieder hoffnungsfroh angedeutet hat. Und das bedeutet noch mehr Druck auf die Republikaner im Endspurt des Kongresswahlkampfs, bei dem das Thema Irak ihnen ohnehin die größten Probleme bereitet.

Stand: 30.10.2006 21:06 Uhr tagesschau.de

Summary of the important things:
More than 700 assault rifles and 13.000 pistols which were supposed to be given to the Iraqi army are lost.
Round about 4 percent of the weapons which have gone to the Iraqi army are lost.
They were not registered like everywhere else on the world.
Only 10.000 of the new weapons for the Iraqis are registered.
The "New York Times" asked high ranking Iraqi officers which said that the did not know that this rule is also to be used by them.

The rest is about the fact that the whole logistical chain of the Iraqi army is totally dependent on the US. There haven't been trained enough non-combat forces for the Iraqi army so they are not near to being able to support the operations of their combat forces.

If you look at the corruption inside the iraqi police and army forces it is not hard to imagine that such things happen.

 

[Pinky]

Now would actually be the perfect time to try to convince Turkey to change it stance vis a vis an independent or semi-independent Kurdistan. Does Turkey want to get into the EU? Then they need to take a hard look at how they have dealt with non-Turkish ethnicities such as the Kurds and especially the Armenians. Admitting what has happened is a neccessary first step.

If they can do that, which will only help them with the Europeans, the next step would be to recognize that having a stable buffer between Turkey and the rest of Iraq would only be a good thing. (who knows how bad it will get) So far the Kurds seem to be doing the best job in terms of stability. Turning "pro-Kurd," at least pro Kurdish state within the confines of Iraq, would give them a stable government to partner with instead of an unstable uncentralized area fomenting even more insurgents, which is what could happen if the Kurds get the shaft in Iraq.

I just wonder what difference it would make in their own internal troubles with their Kurdish minority if it was all over every media service that Turkey was allied with and helping "kurdistan," was willing to go at least halfway in acknowledging kurdish grievances, and was allowing/helping movement to Kurdistan/Kurdish Iraq for those Kurds that would prefer being there over being in Turkey. Given a Kurdish state or semi-autonomous Kurdish state within Iraq, at least Turkey ends up with an equal they can negotiate with and work with.

In these racial/ethnic strife type problems, historically it seems like the only solution that has worked is to keep em seperated. India and Pakistan have their problems, but what would have happened if everybody hadn't migrated to their side of the India/Pakistan border? Would we have seen Iraq/Yugoslavia type violence and instability for decades? You look at New York and how people of every ethnicity and religion can live together just fine and wish the whole world could be that way, but if it can't, what's the next best choice? Mabye it's getting people into a country with people of the same ethnicity (and away from the people they'd want to "cleanse" from their area), then having their countries strike up good diplomatic relations (or as good as can be hoped) so the people living in each country gets used to the idea on that level... give it a couple hundred years and you have nations start talking about how they need to unify like we have with the European Union now.

So I guess I'm for partitioning or getting close to it. How else can you stop people from killing each other who want to kill each other in this type of situation?

 

[Rich]

Now would actually be the perfect time to try to convince Turkey to change it stance vis a vis an independent or semi-independent Kurdistan. Does Turkey want to get into the EU? Then they need to take a hard look at how they have dealt with non-Turkish ethnicities such as the Kurds and especially the Armenians. Admitting what has happened is a neccessary first step.

Never! The Turks would never allow a Kurdish state on their territory, entry into the EU or not. Besides they know they are in a position of strength on the issue.

They have been in a shooting war with the PPK for a long time and there is a lot of bad blood from it. They have suffered a lot from PPK terrorism. Having lived there I can tell you that from the Turkish viewpoint the analogy of their Kurdish situation would be like Al Qaeda being allowed to operate out of Mexico.

Even worse is that Syria, Iran, and Turkey are in agreement over the Kurds and the last thing we need is any kind of alliance between them. There is no way we can support a separate Kurdish state.

 

[Big-E]

They have been in a shooting war with the PPK for a long time and there is a lot of bad blood from it. They have suffered a lot from PPK terrorism. Having lived there I can tell you that from the Turkish viewpoint the analogy of their Kurdish situation would be like Al Qaeda being allowed to operate out of Mexico.

The only reason the PPK exists is for a Kurdish state... maybe if they get one they will go away.

Even worse is that Syria, Iran, and Turkey are in agreement over the Kurds and the last thing we need is any kind of alliance between them. There is no way we can support a separate Kurdish state.

Giving the Kurds a state is one of those disruption factors that can make or break a country. If we add some fuel to the fire by inciting more uprisings our enemies might just collapse from within.

 

[Pinky]

Never! The Turks would never allow a Kurdish state on their territory, entry into the EU or not. Besides they know they are in a position of strength on the issue.

Naturally I didn't propose Turkey would cede any territory. The Kurdish state already exists in all but name in Iraq.

They have been in a shooting war with the PPK for a long time and there is a lot of bad blood from it. They have suffered a lot from PPK terrorism. Having lived there I can tell you that from the Turkish viewpoint the analogy of their Kurdish situation would be like Al Qaeda being allowed to operate out of Mexico.

Establishing good relations with the already existing Kurdish government is far from "allowing" anything. If you have a Kurdish state, you have someone to negotiate with. Also a place to "encourage" your Kurdish minority to go along with perhaps some assistance in setting themselves up there. Possibly a better option than not recognizing its right to exist and the very predictable reaction from the Kurdish minority. Don't tell me they don't have real grievances. I know my Armenian friend is still pretty pissed about her grandfather being disemboweled and then thrown off a 4-story building while still alive. (during the Armenian Genocide) Considering the Turks' track record, I'm not feeling all that sympathetic about comparisons to Al Queda in Mexico. Turkish actions against its minorities has been every bit as helpful to them as killing Jews was to Germany. Not helpful to themselves at all. If they change their strategy, they may get different, better results.

Even worse is that Syria, Iran, and Turkey are in agreement over the Kurds and the last thing we need is any kind of alliance between them. There is no way we can support a separate Kurdish state.

The Kurds in Iraq clearly want to be allied with western democracies. If anything they want to increase their security and autonomy vis a vis the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq. I don't see how making themselves into pawns of Syria and Iran would be anything but a desperate final option for their survival. As for Turkey, they aren't going to get into the EU or stay in NATO for that matter if they ally with Syria and Iran and everyone knows it. Not likely.

 

[.pt]

The problem with Turkey allowing a state, or a pseudo state for the Kurds, next to their border, is perhaps not the immediate time. Traditionally Kurdistan, in territory, was composed of areas that now belong to Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.
That is why the 3 countries are in agreement in not allowing the Kurds to have an independent state. They just dont want to lose any territory. If one of the countries, Iraq in this case, allowed such a thing, the other 2 would feel compelled to intervene. Because, even if right now the kurds might settle for the Iraqi part of Kurdistan, in a few years time they might claim, as they always have, the other "lost" parts of Kurdistan, in Iran and in Turkey.
Besides, as was already posted, there is a lot of bad blood between Turkey, specifically the Turkish military, and the PPK, and i don´t see them allowing that to happen.
The current situation, with a Northern Iraqui territory controlled by Kurds, in Autonomy, wich are acting as a de facto Nation, might serve everyone´s interests, even the Turkish, as it allows the pressure from the PPK to dwindle, as they concentrate on their territory in Iraq, cooling things in Turkey and Iran. Wether this will stay like this for a long time, is anybodys guess...
Another note: Turkey needs to make a few adjustments to enter EU, but they aren´t going to sacrifice everything just to get in. Just look at whats hapening because of Cyprus, and thats a small issue compared to Kurdistan.
.pt

 

[rrrtx]

Just to clarify the idea I originally put forward - I am not proposing an independant Kurdish state as a separate country. The idea is a federal system like the US with a predominantly Kurdish area/state/zone within a federal Iraqi government.

Security forces in the Kurdish area would be national Iraqi troops. They would need to be integrated units - truly national and not local in nature.

It would be completely counter productive to allow the Kurds their own country at this point. They would still want the land in Iran and Turkey that they view as theirs. It would not stop at granting them a chunk of Iraq.

 

[Rich]

Establishing good relations with the already existing Kurdish government is far from "allowing" anything. If you have a Kurdish state, you have someone to negotiate with. Also a place to "encourage" your Kurdish minority to go along with perhaps some assistance in setting themselves up there. Possibly a better option than not recognizing its right to exist and the very predictable reaction from the Kurdish minority. Don't tell me they don't have real grievances. I know my Armenian friend is still pretty pissed about her grandfather being disemboweled and then thrown off a 4-story building while still alive. (during the Armenian Genocide) Considering the Turks' track record, I'm not feeling all that sympathetic about comparisons to Al Queda in Mexico. Turkish actions against its minorities has been every bit as helpful to them as killing Jews was to Germany. Not helpful to themselves at all. If they change their strategy, they may get different, better results.

I'm not stating my views so much as Im stating theirs "Turks". Whatever the right and wrong of it the Turks are infuriated with the creation of the de facto Kurdish state in Northern Iraq and they are not going to change their opinion of it no matter what.

I got a laugh at the time over the Turks reason for not allowing us Yanks to use their territory for a 2nd front when we removed Saddam. The reason they gave was, "we dont want our land used to attack a Muslim brother". HaHaHaHa, The Turks have had long and close ties with Israel for decades. They couldn't care less what any "Muslim brother" thinks about them.

The real reason they refused is because George Bush refused to deal the Kurds out of the new Iraq Government. Thats how much they dont want a national entity for the Kurds and right or wrong thats never going to change.

 

[.pt]

@rich,

As for the laugh, well, they had to have an excuse, right? The rest is politics and diplomacy between allied nations at its best...:hehe
As for the Turkish standing regarding the Kurds, and the state of things in northern Iraq, i totally agree. Nothing is going to change that in the foreseeable future.
.pt

 

[atilla]

AZERIES ?? kurds???? IRAN ???

ı try to read all opinıons ın one seemed new most ..now Turkomans whıch ıs lıvıng ın IRAQ ıs gettıng pressure from kurds and some say azerıes can help In IRAN gentelman whıch language does azerıes use lıke one saıd I gıve a bıg laugh lıke we gave ın the begınıng of ıraq war all word could accep there ıs a kurdısh state ın North ıraq but we wont because ıraqs borders ara clear. I see Kurts ın thıs senarıo a force whıch ıs goıng to be used eıther agaınst Iran Or TUrkey BOth wont work and both wıll end whıth short clash whıth entrence of Iran or eıther turkey ın to the oıl fıelds of north ıraq but thıs could change Whıch one enters .Turkey dıdnt accep crossıng Usa troops and gave the best decısıon of thıs entıre story turkısh army forcasted all thıs up comıng civil war and kurdısh movements agresıve movements before hand .

I m sure lıke ıran dıd the same

It ıs lıkely ıf Usa troops wıll get out of IRAQ they lıve behınd worst condıtıoned country whıch makes me more sımıle the reason of thıs war was to gıve freedom to ıraqı people

And ın my opıon They shall leave !!!

ın last ten years all weapon producers dumpıng theır weapons to north ıraq and also ın ıraq sure cıvıl war wıll make lots of people more happy

Turkey doesnt take kurdısh state as an danger to ıts own securırty turkey ıs takıng thıs as an danger to all regıons peace


It ıs other questıon we shall ask 2 nato allıes Turkey and USA are on Dıffent sıdes after all thıs Turkey wıll questıon need of nato

thıs could also brıng new approach for the russıans
and also securıty ıssues for EU

It ıs an dump polıtıcs to use kurdısh state agaınst the Turkısh state And also dump one to use agaınst Iran

Probly Iran would not mıss thıs chance and enter ıraq for to stop cıvıl wars between sıas sunnıs sunnıs kurds

In other senarıo ın my opınıon If ıraq gets ın 3 parts kurdısh terotory Sunnı terrotry Sia terrotory war wıll start soon not only cıvıl war but probably removıng USA from entıre regıon

We have a nıce word stone ıs heavıer on ıts place so lets hope no one ıs goıng to move thıs bıg stone once agaın

 

[FutureTank]

Has anyone read this A Switch in Time: A New Strategy for America in Iraq (Analysis Paper) by Kenneth M. Pollack ?