A Novice Look at Iraq - Thanks!

[WhiskeyBoarder]

Gentlemen,

I always post here with a bit of hesitancy as I feel less qualified then others to express my opinion. This hesitancy is born of utmost respect. I have lurked on these boards for over two years now and choose my words sparingly. However, I wrote this little tidbit up tonight in my boredom and, despites its extended length, could think of no other place to gather worthy opinion then here.

I respectfully encourage any interested parties to read the following. It concerns a wealth of thought on the current situation in Iraq. Also, please note, that I wrote it with the intention of publishing it as a private blog amongst friends (whom I tired of explaining my Middle East opinions), so if it doesn’t seem directed toward the types on this forum, please know that it wasn’t.

Thanks Gentlemen.




The following is an abridged version of what I feel is going on currently in Iraq, what has led to the current situation – focusing particularly on issues that continue to influence certain in-country parties- and what to do to most effectively walk away from the situation with something resembling a more globally-beneficial Iraq then what we started with prior to the year 2002.

All of this is being written in one sitting and is my own original work. As such, it is not being professionally written, other then to be as grammatically proper as possible, and will include no citations because all ideas, opinions, and views are being developed originally. Also, I have no worldly influence for writing this. I have no scholastic or monetary gains in mind. Rather, I am- more or less- just bored and interested in the topic.

The only authority that I have to write on this topic with any sort of knowledge-base is four years military experience, of which most was spent on the ground, in Iraq, with light infantry battalions. Other then that, I am just a lowly undergraduate student, studying Middle East politics and history while attempting to obtain a B.A. in International Studies with a Minor in Religion. Could I be totally off-base in my assessment? It’s probable, but I beg only that you hear me out. Maybe something I say could be beneficial in some form, if for no other reason then to start interesting dialogue.

And, as a disclaimer, I am a Republican and a huge supporter of our current President, despite his flaws (like, for example, not being truly CONSERVATIVE). I also support all participation in Iraq and have been supportive since day one. I participated. I shed blood, tears, plenty of sweat, lost friends and killed bad people. While I will attempt to be unbiased, I feel obligated to let my prejudice be known. Now….

First of all, I hate to shortchange thousands of years of history by condensing all of it into a few paragraphs, but I am constrained by limitations that are guided by how long my interest will stand for this writing. Prior to the beginning of this latest Iraq war, I have had concerns with the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular. The biggest dilemma that faces the region is not religiously motivated but rather geo-politically (“geo-politics” to be a major theme throughout this writing). Certain ethnic divisiveness has contributed, throughout history, into the development of the Middle East. One divide stands out particularly; the Arab and the Persian, which given Iraq’s location should immediately stand out as a precursor to the current predicament. (Continued...)

[WhiskeyBoarder]

(...Continued from Above)

However, let’s just say, hypothetically, that the Middle East was developing in a bloody but natural manner throughout history. I feel that this “natural” development came to a crashing end following the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Suddenly, around that point in history, you have an entire region to be split between different Western imperialistic influences. The French had their mandate, the British theirs, and, of course, the United States had its own influence. The way my history looks back is thusly: countries in the Middle East were formed and shaped based on these foreign ownerships and not on what was most obviously correct for the region. And the creation of these countries, with boundaries that many times joined people of totally separate ethnic and religious ties, has been the single most devastating system of events to occur in the region. The creation of these countries in such a haphazard manner, to me, has been the most extreme cause of strife. And now we have an ample opportunity to correct at least one of these country’s problems.

So, let’s go from there. We have countries that exist that, if not for Western influence, really should not. But, remember, we are focusing on Iraq. Here is a country that suffers from all the maladies mentioned above. Not only do its borders contain large populations of three religiously divided groups, but it also sits directly on the Persian and Arabian divide. On one side, you have Persian Iran. On the other, you have Arab Saudi Arabia. What could good be expected of such an unfortunately geographically-placed nation?

Now with these two influences leaning heavily on each side of the country of Iraq, you have a further agitator. His name was Sadaam Hussein. But let’s remember; Sadaam was a Baathist. Scholarly types seem to forget what the Baathist party stood for (and what it still currently stands for in other nations) and that is NOT religious superiority. That is far from the truth. The Baathist platform, in a nutshell, contains a goal of spreading Pan-Arabism regardless of faith. So, suggesting that Saddam had intentions of staying true to his party’s most worthy intention, you can see how this would be particularly disheartening for its neighbor to the east, Iran.

Trying to unite an Arab nation would explain exactly why Sadaam had goals of crushing his Kurdish residents in the northern regions of his country. Adding intensity to all the disputes going on in Iraq was the Islamic Revolution that occurred in Iran in the late ‘70s. Now Iran became a pro-Shia Muslim country. Hussein, on the other hand, was a devout Sunni. Iran definitively becomes Iraq’s enemy number one, because they not only represent Persia but an opposing faction of Islam.

What does all this mean? Iraq was a kettle with the fires of hell burning underneath of it, just ready to boil over. American intervention in 2003 may have agitated the kettle, but it was already spilling. What American intervention did do, however, was give any hope to the situation. If the spark that would have ignited the country had come via any of the country’s three ethnically different groups, we would have a much worse situation now. Even scarier would have been an Iran-initiated conflict that would not only have pitted Shia versus Sunni but Persian versus Arab. With Western influence, at least now there is hope of some stability that these other options simply did not suggest.

So what is going on now? This is where go-politics comes in. The current situation in Iraq does not hinge on religion. I repeat: Iraqis, as a general overview, are not fighting over religious differences. This is not to say that the guys on the streets might not be motivated by religion, but that is because they are “low men on the totem pole.” Religion is propaganda being used by leaders with much more deeply rooted agendas.

And those agendas revolve around geo-politics. In a perfect world, the Kurds to the north would have their own autonomous region. As would the Sunnis to the west, separated from Persia by a Shia nation in the south. Perfect, right?

Not so much and here is why. The geography of these hypothetical nations precludes them from developing. Sure, the Sunnis want independence but not in the deserted western regions of Iraq. There are hardly resources there to be economically dependent on and, worse, no connection to water to transport anything they do have to offer. So their recourse seems to be to smash the Shia to the south. In my hypothesis, the Kurds and the Sunnis could co-exist, given the Sunni nation has access to the Gulf in the south. The only method for the Sunnis to get this access seems to be via destroying the southern Shia nation.

And this, in my assessment, is why we currently have a mess. Precluding the relatively peaceful northern Kurdish region in the north, a pan-Arab nation of Sunnis and Shias for all of these reasons simply will not work. There is entirely too much influence from Shia Iran to allow the Sunni nation to survive and geo-politics limit the Sunnis from desiring such to work anyway. Uniting the two simply isn’t an answer because one faction will never settle on a straight up “50/50” government, which democracy would never create anyway. So where’s the answer?

My solution is not well thought-out, a bit abstract, and more of just a development of early thought. But why not attempt a two nation system? The Kurds can have their northern region since they seem content with just that. That would constitute the first nation. A federation can occur for the remaining Sunni and Shia regions; a federation of two states. The western Sunni region would extend from its current figurative area with a small arm cutting down the eastern side (opposite Iran) of the Shia nation, giving just enough room to create some sort of access to the Basrah port area. In exchange, the Shias can have further access to the north. Oil revenue, which would be generated most predominately by the Shia south, would be distributed throughout the two-state federation. And, you know what? As hard as it is to swallow, allow the country to adopt whatever sort of government they choose. Democracy simply will not work when population numbers dictate that one faction will out-seat another. So allow them to choose a different form of government. Let the American mission in Iraq to become the spread of peace and unity in the region and less the spread of democracy. Hard for us military-types to swallow, but maybe something that needs to be realized.

Of course, any idea like this is a pipedream as it would take renewed support from the globe’s militaries to stand in support of the new federation until they can support themselves. There are entirely too many outside threats to expect this fledgling new federation to exist without early outside support.

And, if all this fails, my only other foreseeable option is much more difficult to accept. Let Iran absorb the Shia south, satisfy them and bring about Middle East stability through appeasement. But this opens a whole new can of worms.

I genuinely feel that if my two state federation idea were more thoughtfully developed by those with much more education and experience then my own, it could be a viable plan. It would take time, but any plan would. Furthermore, it would promote stability. And stability in the Middle East should be our (American) utmost desire even greater then the spread of democracy.

Just my two cents. Thanks!

Steve B.

[Pete]

How will an independant Kurdish state impact the Kurds in Turkey and Iran?

How will Turkey and Iran react to an independant Kurdish state on their border?

Africa suffers from the same problem. Tribes are split by borders drawn by Europeans.

[Ret10Echo]

How will an independant Kurdish state impact the Kurds in Turkey and Iran?

How will Turkey and Iran react to an independant Kurdish state on their border?

Africa suffers from the same problem. Tribes are split by borders drawn by Europeans.

IMHO...

In Turkey. PKK would seriously ramp-up operations to "unite" the state. Response by Turkish Military would most likely include COIN operations and larger scale cross-border operations to take out support bases and create a buffer zone...eg. Israel.

In Iran the reaction might be similar, I am not as familiar with the history of the Kurds in that area.

[WhiskeyBoarder]

Gentlemen,

As always, I greatly appreciate your comments.

While I am sure there are a great many holes in my theory, you guys exposed the largest: my limited knowledge of the Kurdish situation. Again, I am little more then an undergrad attempting to broaden my horizons outside of my collegiate education. In my suggested solution, I sort of bypassed the Kurdish region as an after thought. Y’all have been very clear that this option is not viable. You have been even clearer that I have to get my reading up. I will be off to do some “outside-the-classroom” studying on the Kurds at the earliest convenience.

Speaking of outside reading, I want to bring up another point (and if this has been discussed here, excuse me because I typing off the top of my head right now) in regards to my original post. I was flipping through the new epilogue in the latest publishing of “Imperial Hubris” and the author repeatedly points out that Muslim violence towards Westerners isn’t born of hate for Democratic freedom, but from Western actions (support of Israel, troops on Arab grounds, etc, etc). I mentioned in my original post that I didn’t feel that democracy could work successfully in a unified Iraq because of the Shia / Sunni division. I think the points in “Imperial Hubris” and what I am saying contradict and I would greatly appreciate any opinion concerning democratic prospects in Iraq.

Furthermore, I want to point out that I am currently reading “Chosen Soldier” and author Couch made a statement (and the exact quote escapes me) but really captured how important spreading democracy is to you Special Forces warriors. With that being said, I hope none of my opinions concerning the democratic solution in Iraq short-sight anything that y’all Gentlemen have worked so hard to protect and promote. Again, I am simply attempting to develop ideas “outside of the box” and, again, broaden my education.

Sorry to take this thread back in a direction more suitable to my education level, but I simply can’t comment on the Kurdish situation without further education. If you want to continue on that topic, please do. I would greatly appreciate the knowledge. And, bare with the length of my posts, it’s just my nature.

Thank you.

[jjames83]

What you've written sounds very close to Sammuel P. Huntington's clash of the civilizations.

If you haven't read it, I would suggest you do.

[jjames83]

Pete
concerning the kurds of turkey and Iran.

If anything this would most likely lead to a massive influx of Kurds to the newly formed Kurdish region. I doubt the Iraninas nor the Turks would have any problem with the Kurds leaving to thier own newly formed state. I also don't see the Iranians nor the Turks forcing the Kurds to stay. If anything this would further strengthen the Kurdish population in the north which as already begun to blossom and support the United States.

I see this as an opportunity to gain a much needed new ally to the coalition of the willing, as well as a stabiliizing force in the region.

[jjames83]

as far as splitting the shia and the sunni

it won't work. It's amazing how quickly we forget the lessons from the past. National divisions based on ideology never work. I can't think of any case where a division have worked. Let us take U.S. history as an example.

We seem to forget that one of the most brutal civil wars ever fought happened on American soil. Granted there are some differences between the U.S. civil war and the current situation in Iraq, yet there is enough similarity to draw conclusions which are surely applicable to this situation.

Firstly, there has to be a unified government. American tried to function as a buch of independent govenements and states and it didn't last. There was a myriad of reasons for this but it can boiled to to lack of cooperation. No two states can work together (does splitting oil revenues ring a bell here?) without some form of unified governemnt and it cannot be solely economic. Economic cooperation is good but it does not provide the stability necessary for a long standing, peaceful, relationship. Economics is known as the study of scarcity, it is a game of ruthless consumers, and consumption. Beware he who steps in the Lions den. An economic agreemnt would most likely add gasoline to the inferno raging between these two groups. A unified soverign nation would supply a set behaviors and laws which would be understood by both sides. If this were poker, a unified governement would set the rules of the game, because you can't win without knowing how to play your hand.

How do we do this? This is the ten million dollar question. I'm sure I'll catch alot of flak no matter my suggestion so I'll just be frank. Fristly allow all sides to be represented even the bad ones ie. diplomacy. Second draw up a set of rules that they all can agree on, yet doesn't involve ultimatums. One danger in drawing up laws especially religious laws, and most especially islamic law stems from it's absolute nature. One point that must be made clear is there will be no violence, subjugation, or attempted genocide for any reason, religious or otherwise. I understand this is especially difficult given that bigotry and violence is evidently apart of the dogma for these people. Yet we've seen that before in the Protestant Catholic wars in england and to a lesser extent the Protestant trials here in the U.S. So how was it done?

Once they came to the table there was no official endorsement of either side by the newly formed government. This compromise must be made and it will, so long as there is the understanding that no one will leave the negotiating table until a resolution is reached.This leads to the second conclusion, other nations such as Syria, and Iran must be brought in to this proceess. They are already parties to this conflict, moreover they are apart of the religious community. If they can be brought into negotiations, and if they can reach an agreement the smaller factions will undoubtedly follow.

to be continued...

[jjames83]

i ran out of time

[WhiskeyBoarder]

i ran out of time


Again, thanks. I like where you are going and anxiously await how you bring all this together. You got me thinking...:cool:

[x-factor]

Whiskey...your professors have probably already assigned you plenty of reading (probably including the ones I list below), but let me throw out a few titles for you that may help you structure your own thoughts and opinions:

The End of History by Fukuyama
Clash of Civilizations by Huntington
The Pentagon's New Map by Barnett
The Lexus and the Olive Tree by Friedman

These are some of the foundational texts of "post-Cold War" studies. Bear in mind that the world is in a very strange place right now and no one is really quite sure yet what the driving dynamic(s) is, so alot of what you read is going to be contradictory and alot you probably won't agree with. Still, they should help you get your head around some of the broader issues and give you a starting point to reason your own opinions from.

[The Reaper]

as far as splitting the shia and the sunni

it won't work. It's amazing how quickly we forget the lessons from the past. National divisions based on ideology never work. I can't think of any case where a division have worked. Let us take U.S. history as an example.

We seem to forget that one of the most brutal civil wars ever fought happened on American soil. Granted there are some differences between the U.S. civil war and the current situation in Iraq, yet there is enough similarity to draw conclusions which are surely applicable to this situation.

Firstly, there has to be a unified government. American tried to function as a buch of independent govenements and states and it didn't last. There was a myriad of reasons for this but it can boiled to to lack of cooperation. No two states can work together (does splitting oil revenues ring a bell here?) without some form of unified governemnt and it cannot be solely economic. Economic cooperation is good but it does not provide the stability necessary for a long standing, peaceful, relationship. Economics is known as the study of scarcity, it is a game of ruthless consumers, and consumption. Beware he who steps in the Lions den. An economic agreemnt would most likely add gasoline to the inferno raging between these two groups. A unified soverign nation would supply a set behaviors and laws which would be understood by both sides. If this were poker, a unified governement would set the rules of the game, because you can't win without knowing how to play your hand.

How do we do this? This is the ten million dollar question. I'm sure I'll catch alot of flak no matter my suggestion so I'll just be frank. Fristly allow all sides to be represented even the bad ones ie. diplomacy. Second draw up a set of rules that they all can agree on, yet doesn't involve ultimatums. One danger in drawing up laws especially religious laws, and most especially islamic law stems from it's absolute nature. One point that must be made clear is there will be no violence, subjugation, or attempted genocide for any reason, religious or otherwise. I understand this is especially difficult given that bigotry and violence is evidently apart of the dogma for these people. Yet we've seen that before in the Protestant Catholic wars in england and to a lesser extent the Protestant trials here in the U.S. So how was it done?

Once they came to the table there was no official endorsement of either side by the newly formed government. This compromise must be made and it will, so long as there is the understanding that no one will leave the negotiating table until a resolution is reached.This leads to the second conclusion, other nations such as Syria, and Iran must be brought in to this proceess. They are already parties to this conflict, moreover they are apart of the religious community. If they can be brought into negotiations, and if they can reach an agreement the smaller factions will undoubtedly follow.

to be continued...

I disagree with your characterizations.

There was nothing wrong with the US before the Federal government usurped the states' rights.

I would also point out that the UK seems to do an excellent job of maintaining a confederation of free and more or less independent states, as do France, Germany, and Swirtzerland, to name a few.

The loose federation could be the way to go in Iraq as well.

The Turks will go crazy if the Kurds get an independent state.

TR

[Ret10Echo]

Pete
concerning the kurds of turkey and Iran.

If anything this would most likely lead to a massive influx of Kurds to the newly formed Kurdish region. I doubt the Iraninas nor the Turks would have any problem with the Kurds leaving to thier own newly formed state. I also don't see the Iranians nor the Turks forcing the Kurds to stay. If anything this would further strengthen the Kurdish population in the north which as already begun to blossom and support the United States.

I see this as an opportunity to gain a much needed new ally to the coalition of the willing, as well as a stabiliizing force in the region.

I disagree with any idea of a migration to a new state. When the fighting started in the Balkans it was based on ethnic lines (and in an American's mind some very ancient history). Bosnia for the Muslims, R.S. for the Orhtodox Serbs..by your theory that would have ended it and everyone would have been fine with the plan. Problem is that the people from one group that live in the area of the other are not going to leave their homes. Secondly, the mere existance of the other clan, group, tribe, ehtnicity, was troubling. Kosovo was a similar instance. Third, once the fighting started the bystanders (Croats) jumped in to see what they could get out of the deal. Why did the Serbs not migrate into what was left of the F.R.Y.? Later on as other areas experienced similar ethnics fights why did Muslims in the region not migrate to Bosnia?
The Turkish government (military) has already made it very clear that there will not be a Kurdish state. There was a time in American history when we would have championed the beginnings of any sort of independence movement (Cyprus for example). The Europeans will not get involved, especially the Germans due to the Turkish immigrant population residing there. Turkey was conveniently used as and continues to be a very comfortable buffer between the more radical Islamic states and the rest of Europe. No EU member wants to pull that stopper out.

[jjames83]

(continued)
I'm glad the topic of the Balkans wars came up. I was going there next.

Believe it or not the major steps to stabilize Iraq have already taken place. Much like the Serbia/Kosovo war the. The most important of these being the removal of an oppressive dictator (Slobodan/Saddam). An oppressive and abosolute figure who is both ruthless and unremoreseful will cause major problems as long as they remain in power. During the Kosovo war much of the blood shed was halted one Milosovic was arrested. Yet I must conceid that the situation in iraq is extreemly unique. The involvement of many individual cells/groups, each independent in leadership, yet all pulling for supremacy make the Iraq war extremely unique. We've seen this situation before in Somalia with a bunch of independent warlords seeking control over the people and resources.

Our experience in Somalia led to a drastic change in our approach to foreign policy as a nation. It is a large reason we didn't play as large a role in the Serbian conflict as we could have. During both Clinton administrations, foreign policy was handled with a sort of arms length approach. This is largely responsible for the skepticism most individuals have concerning the Iraq War. Most view the war as an impossible catch 22, for which no solution exist.

But there is a way to win this conflict. Although unresolved, the Serbian conflict has stabilized. It has been stabilized by allowing Kosovo to function as it's own sovreignty. Although it has not been recognized as it's own government it has function independently with it's own laws, loose government, and language, thereby making it a de facto sovreignty. This situation is extreemly analagous to the current situation witht he Kurds. I am aware that the forming a separate government could potentially cause problems. But for the Kurds this point is moot. Currently both in Turkey and Iran, the Kurds experience poverty, and subjugation due to government oppression. In both countries a massive Kurdish depopulation has been happening for years. While it is true the Iranians and Kurds don't want the Kurds to have a seperate state, it must be mentioned that they don't want to have to give up any of their land for the Kurds to occupy. If the Kurds were to occupy a piece of land outside Iranian or Turkish borders (the current situation in Iraq) there would be no problem.

Except in Iraq, which is where this conversation comes full circle. While I have outlined how the Shia and the Sunni can be brought to the negotiating table (international involvement and diplomacy (which reports have indicated is bound to happen)) I have yet to mention how these factions will interact with eachother.

The only way we can even begin diplomatic negotiations is to remove the heads of the factions. This is current phase of the iraq war. So long as extreemist are able to get ahold of young impressionable males, brain wash them with half truths, misinterpreted religion, and false promises, we will be unable to unify the rivaling factions in Iraq. Without organization the individuals will begin to seek guidance. This will be provided through rule law, security, and economic stability, because lets face it, your less likely to blow yourself up in a suicide attack when you have a job, security, and a reasonably bright future ahead of you. All these processes are currently happening in Iraq. This is what most people don't realize. Although progress has happened slower than most people would like, the administration has taken to proper steps toward reaching thier goal creating a stable sovreign state.

In the end, we have to remember "Rome wasn't built in a day" and neither will Iraq. By allowing the Kurds their own seperate de facto state whether it be recongnized or not has already gone a long way toward stabilizing Iraq much like it did in Kosovo. Conversly allowing the same for the Shia and Sunni tribes could be detrimental. The approach must be multifaceted, and dynamic. Many things have to happen such a removing faction leaders, brining other countries to the negotiations to promote letitimacy, and establishing a clear cooperative economic system which doesn't depend on solely on oil will go a long way toward reaching a resolution. Then and only then, will we be able to tell if dividing lines can be drawn for these two groups and in what way they can be drawn.

[Pete]

Profile please.

Edit: Thank you

[Pete]

(continued)....But there is a way to win this conflict. Although unresolved, the Serbian conflict has stabilized......

The Serbian conflict has not stabilized.

That whole area is still fighting a war that was "over" hundreds of years ago.

The USSR thought they had things stabilized and sat on the region for about 40 years. People were born, grew up, married and grew to middle age while the USSR had things stabilized. As soon as the lid was off it exploded again.

To blame this on one boogie man and say things are "stabilized" now is to just sit around and wait for the pot to boil over again. These people hate, hate deep down and through the generations from one to the next. To these people it's all or nothing.

It's hard for Americans to understand just how deep "land" and "relations" (family, blood, religion & tribe) are in the Balkins, Middle East and Africa. The average American sees Arabs, Blacks and in the Balkins, Europeans. These groups can place each other by the way they dress, act and talk. To them it will never be over until they have it all.

[jjames83]

The Serbian conflict has not stabilized.

That whole area is still fighting a war that was "over" hundreds of years ago.

The USSR thought they had things stabilized and sat on the region for about 40 years. People were born, grew up, married and grew to middle age while the USSR had things stabilized. As soon as the lid was off it exploded again.

To blame this on one boogie man and say things are "stabilized" now is to just sit around and wait for the pot to boil over again. These people hate, hate deep down and through the generations from one to the next. To these people it's all or nothing.

It's hard for Americans to understand just how deep "land" and "relations" (family, blood, religion & tribe) are in the Balkins, Middle East and Africa. The average American sees Arabs, Blacks and in the Balkins, Europeans. These groups can place each other by the way they dress, act and talk. To them it will never be over until they have it all.

Lets say I agree with you. What is our next move?

Disclaimer: This isn't meant as an challenge, or instigation. I would simply like to understand your perspective better.

[Pete]

Lets say I agree with you. What is our next move?

Oh, you can disagree with me all you want. It don't upset me any at all.

Our only move is to try and contain this mess as long as we can. Go read, or re-read, the "Are We at War With Islam" thread.

Just my opinion now but I think the UN is a waste of time and money. It's an Anti-American platform for dictators, bottomless money pit and a blight on NY, NY. Any number of problems can be traced right to their doorstep and all they do is kick the trash to the curb. Need I say Oil for Food program?

I liked the "with us or against us" bit. I think we should inform all countries that "You stand with us or you don't get even one more skinny dime from us." I'm getting as bit worn out by the "Here's some money, please be nice. Ok, Ok, that was bad but here's some more money, please be nice" routine.


Pete

[7624U]

I'm getting as bit worn out by the "Here's some money, please be nice. Ok, Ok, that was bad but here's some more money, please be nice" routine.


Pete

Why should I be nice when your giving me free stuff ?

I was thinking if maybe I act like I can't take care of myself you will give me more handout's "UMMMMMM your hand looks tasty... if I bite your hand I will still save face with the rest of the Lower Life Forms :D

[groundup]

Just my opinion now but I think the UN is a waste of time and money. It's an Anti-American platform for dictators, bottomless money pit and a blight on NY, NY. Any number of problems can be traced right to their doorstep and all they do is kick the trash to the curb. Need I say Oil for Food program?Not just your opinion, I share the same. They even tell us that we aren't giving them enough money. When they take to a military action, they bitch about us not helping out. We still do and we still get the shit end of the stick. When we take to a military action, they don't do a damn thing. The UN angers me so much. Good idea on paper - bad implementation.

[Ret10Echo]

The Turks will go crazy if the Kurds get an independent state.

TR


They have a history of that:

http://imia.cc.duth.gr/turkey/chro.e.html

[WhiskeyBoarder]

Everyone, thanks for your responses.

I didn’t want it to seem that I opened this thread and then abandoned it, but summer classes started this past week, so I have been away from the internet for the most part. But, seriously, I love the perspective that y’all bring to this thread. I am learning things here that, for various reasons, don’t get taught at my University; not so much of a knock on my school as it is a compliment towards y’all for being so open with relating your real world experiences to my book-taught education.

With that being said, I will re-read this thread more critically when I get a little extra time and see if I can contribute. If not then, again, I thank you for the knowledge shared.

On a side note, someone mentioned that I should read “Clash of the Civilizations.” This is not the first time this has been suggested to me. In fact, I have heard it so much that I will certainly have to check it out. I am currently taking two classes (Globalization and Comparative Religions: Judaism and Islam) that may have subject matter related to this thread. I got lucky and picked outstanding professors for both these classes it seems, so it will be interesting to see if their teaching sheds any different light on everything mentioned here.

Thanks again.

[dmgedgoods]

It's amazing how quickly we forget the lessons from the past.

It seems many have forgotten the wretched history of war in the Middle East. If we paid a little more attention to what happened in history, we might find a bit more understanding in the roots of radical Islam. GI Joe says it best..."Knowing is half the battle"

[KSC]

Turkey already wants to involve itself in Iraq against the Kurds. They have expressed interest in crossing the border into the north and engage the Kurdish "revolutionaries"(for lack of a better or more PC term) who cross back and fourth from Turkey to Iraq causing trouble. The US doesn't want this since the Kurds are looked at as allies, but doesn't want to upset Turkey since military basses there are an asset.

The Kurds are painted as the tragic heros of Iraq, but don't forget- Ansar al Sunna, one of the premier Iraqi insurgent groups, has a very large Sunni-Kurdish involvement. As for Arab-Kurd relations, the Kurds aren't neccessarily trying to co-exist either. No one really wants a part of anyone else.

Maybe full blown civil war is needed to bring stability to the region. It worked for the US. After our Civil War, we reunited stronger than ever and haven't faultered since. However, in Iraq we'd see the Sunni Arab vs Shia Arab war, the Arab vs Kurd war, and maybe even fighting between the different Kurdish groups like Yazidi vs Muslim. The days of the great islamic states, I believe, are over. There will never be another Ottoman Empire, Persian Empire, Almohad Caliphate, or Egyptian state under Saladin. No more unity, just grumbling over technicalities.

Maybe we could destroy all military assets in the Islamic countries and leave them with horses, camels, swords, and text books. The Beduoins, Persians, Turks, etc could begin disputes for the land all over again and try to do it better this time with history as a guide. Then when things are looking up, 1st Group could come marching across the Steppes with a Mongol Horde- just to make things interesting.

[Ret10Echo]

New Turkish parliament sworn in

Kurdish MPs are in the chamber for the first time since 1991
Turkey has sworn in a new parliament with attention focusing on 20 pro-Kurdish deputies, represented for the first time since 1991.
The new deputies say they want reconciliation and a peaceful solution to the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, which has claimed 30,000 lives since 1983.

The last Kurdish MPs to be elected were jailed for taking their oath in Kurdish but this time they spoke Turkish.

Their party was later banned for its alleged links to the PKK rebel group.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6930915.stm

[txzen]

I remember reading in the recent "iran shells northern iraq," media that Iran had made a deal with Turkey to fight PKK/Kurdish Militias for Turkey agreeing to fight certain anti Iranian groups in Iraq. someting like this http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=120792
You fight anti iranians and we will fight anti turks.

The facts that Kurds want to take parts of Iraq and Turkey to make Kurdistan would be a big problem since there is oil in that area and neither Iraq's central government, especially the sunnis, and Turkey want to lose the oil or money that comes from it.

And were you guys talking about the articles of confederation vs the u.s. constitution pertaining to there being nothing wrong with the US before states' rights were usurped?