Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

June 1st, 2007

Tags

, , , ,

Comments

7 Comments so far.
Add yours.

A Vote for Kurdistan

Via Barnett and Robb

It seems as if Chirol’s Rebalancing the Middle East post has echoed throughout DC. According to the LA Times

WASHINGTON — President Bush would like to see the U.S. military provide long-term stability in Iraq as it has in South Korea, where thousands of American troops have been based for more than half a century, the White House said Wednesday. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, told reporters that Bush believes U.S. forces eventually will end their combat role in Iraq but will continue to be needed in the country to deter threats and to help handle potential crises, as they have done in South Korea.

That means Kuwait and Kurdistan. As support for the war declines and Bush’s time in office winds down, he’ll want to be remembered not only for liberating Iraq but also for solving its post-war problems, or at least trying to. The South Korea solution seems to be a test balloon for withdrawing south into Kuwait and north into Kurdistan. While problematic, it’s not unfeasible. The real question is how to get past Kurdistan’s geography.

For more on Kurdistan see the following:

Kurdistan: Rebalancing the Middle East by Chirol

The Virtual State of Kurdistan by Zenpundit

An Overview of Kurdistan by Steve DeAngelis

The Kurdistan Problem (Part II and Part III) by Progressive Historians

Comments to this entry

ElamBend
June 2, 2007
3:09 am
Yeah, what's our best chance for resupply, Turkey?? ech
ElamBend
June 2, 2007
2:22 pm
You know, I've left a similar lame response before. I really do hope that the U.S. is sitting down the Kurds and telling them that there has to be some kind of rapproachment with the Turks and that that includes controlling (perhaps squelching) the PKK. The current Kurdish power structure in Iraq has to take the command decision that they are the power for Kurds and suppress the PKK. At the same time the U.S. and the Kurds have to pucker up and do everything possible to get the Turks working with us. Unfortunately, given the environment in Turkey, particularly the high nationalist, anti-American feeling; I'm not sure how easy that will be. A couple of days ago, two US f-16s strayed into Turkey and Turkey's verbal response, particularly in the press was a little "overwrought":http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=turkey+f-16&btnG=Search+News and all this comes in an atmosphere of Turkish military buildup on the Turkish-Kurdistan border.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
June 2, 2007
8:09 pm
Ideed, Chirol, you've spent some time in Turkey and know how well the idea of something even approaching independence plays in Ankara. If you are advocating the US promiting the idea of an independant Kurdish state in order to enhace security, doesn't there seem to be a risk that the whole thing might backfire, that Turkey could even cease to be an ally? Seems like playing with fire.
a517dogg
June 2, 2007
8:34 pm
The Kurds are "pro-American" because America is working for them, in the sense that we are weakening shi'ite and sunni forces that might fight to keep them within Iraq. But the status quo is not to their advantage - they see our assistance (toppling Saddam, giving them air cover, etc.) as steps towards an independent Kurdistan. Creating a DMZ would institutionalize the status quo, and the interests of the US and the Kurds would then diverge.
Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog
June 4, 2007
11:14 am
Tom around the web...

+ Curtis Gale Weeks says Tom was wrong in The virtual war yields non-kinetic outcomes and 'Shame on you, sir'. I think that's a little too strong, Curtis. + Baudrillard's Bastard linked that post, too. + John Robb linked Iraqi......
Michael
June 4, 2007
8:22 pm
Everything seems to boil down to Why are we settling down in Kurdistan?

If we're doing it at least partly to protect the Kurds and to push them to respect their neighbors borders, then this could be a good thing. If we're just using them as a convenient base without minding the realities of their situation, then we're asking for grief.

Unfortunately, this is Bush we're talking about here. Good grief, I'm starting to wonder if my lefty friends are right on immediate withdrawal, not because it's a good idea but because we don't have the leadership to implement any better ideas!
Adrian
October 4, 2007
5:21 pm
An oped in the Boston Globe today on the Kurdistan option:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/04/opposing_the_kurdistan_option_for_withdrawal/