let's hope it won't happen...

but lets prepare for when it does...

so...does this mean the kurds hate america or not?

Before the invasion of Iraq, Tom Lasseter was a young reporter at the Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader, my local paper. He went to Iraq on assignment and was then hired by the parent Knight Ridder. His early reporting from Iraq was not at all pessimistic, indeed he reported many stories that were highly favorable to the US military and to the invasion.

As the war continued and Lasseter kept going back, his reporting became increasingly somber and doubtful. I only know this from following his reporting since before the war, having no personal knowledge.

It appears that Lasseter has undergone a true transformation. He has been a remarkably brave reporter, like several of his K-R colleagues.

Cue tbrosz kvetching about how we aren't citing all the wonderful reports on the milblogs and how we're all rooting for the US' defeat in Iraq.

One thing's for sure -- if the events predicted in this story come to pass (and I hope, though not with confidence, that they won't), the blame will be squarely on the incomeptence of the Bush Administration, and hopefully will prevent the GOP from being taken seriously on national defense for a generation.

This must be some big misunderstanding. All the Iraqi ethnic groups were just waiting to get rid of the iron-fisted Saddam so that they could get on with living in peace and harmony, as a devoted U.S. client state. Everything will be just fine.

I hope people realize that, until the US actually withdraws from Iraq, we really have about zero idea what direction an independent Iraq will take. The presence of our military is clearly the obstacle to correct measurement of the forces at play in Iraq.

What's interesting is how the various sides will alter their own behavior until we do leave. The insurgents want just enough damage inflicted on our military and in Iraq that we want to get out, but not so much that we feel we can't turn it over to the Iraqis. This is obviously going to be a carefully calibrated and targeted measure of violence.

When we are finally out of the picture pretty much altogether and forever, THEN we can expect the different groups to seek their natural levels -- levels mostly impossible to predict with certainty beforehand.

My own view is that the Sunni Arabs, who have in the past exhibited a very real talent for dominance far beyond their numbers, will make a major play to do so again, and have a pretty good chance at success.

Many, many experts as well as everyday observers pointed out the extreme difficulty facing the USA after it became obvious that WMD's did not exist in Iraq and bush hoped (saying this administration planned anything would be an insult to the word planned) to install democracy. The obvious intent has always been to occupy Iraq so control of oil fields would be certain, but asking Americans to die for oil was unacceptable so it was better to assert that the real reason was to spread democracy. This lie ignores the numerous political and religious realities of a region that have existed for centuries. While purple fingers are nice, the historic realities will prevail and failure of the bush "democracy" plan is viturally guaranteed.

Gosh and golly, what an amazing development!!! Gosh, who could possibly have predicted that Iraq would become anything like the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Germany after WWI, Cambodia or anyone of the hundreds of thousands of other examples of the fate of countries after the removal of a dictator? Who could have predicted that Iraq would be the same? Gosh, who?

Anyone but this bunch of fucking clueless morons in the Republican Party, that's who. I have never seen more stupid people in high office in the history of the US

If Iraq does split, can we afford to occupy 3 countries?

Every single Repuke "expert" in foreign policy is an idiot. Robert Kaplan, Kristol, Rice, every single one of these idiots have been wrong every single time.

I don't know about any "blame" being "squarely" anywhere. The administration is already slipping away from notions of "finishing the mission" and establishing "democracy" (whatever exactly that means in a 5,000-year-old culture that has never operated under that sort of system). They're getting ready to cut and run (except, of course, for the remote permanent bases necessary to keep a boot on the oil jugular), and to leave the vast majority of Iraqis to civil war or whatever other fate awaits them.

And the American public will buy it. They/we want "out," full stop. Whatever happens in Iraq wil be "their fault." We will have held out the shimmering orb of Democracy, and they in their benighted ignorance will have failed to grasp the golden opportunity. We will have done them a favor, and we will be hurt and bitter at how our generosity is repaid.

I'd like to think the chickens will come home to roost. But I'm not betting the farm on it...

Quagmire accomplished!

Soon enough the Sunnis will have to ride the back of the bus and drink from separate drinking fountains. Don't even ask what happens if they whistle at a Kurdish or Shiite girl.

If Iraq does split, can we afford to occupy 3 countries?

Heck, three for one? We can't afford not to!

It's time to name the conflict. Fortunately, we have a historical precedent.

We can call it "King George's War"

Roles reversed, I certainly would be fighting to reclaim my national heritage and identity as per the Kurds. They want to reverse the arbitrary history foisted on them by Churchill. The fact that there are really three Iraqs now (Sunnistan, Kurdistan and Shiastan) should give us some clue about adjusting priorities over there now. But I can't help but be sympathetic to a Kurdistan--wish Turkey would be so pliant.

I was at least hoping that the U.S. could make a tri-polar republic with three semi-autonomous states a vested part of the new constitution--somewhat like our early United States. I do think we have muddled that outcome up. We'll have civil war there now and like it--much like the limp vegetables a screaming child denounces to his parents at dinner.

It will be interesting to see how the spin machine that is the Republican party deals with a disastrous aftermath in Iraq after our troops leave. It seems obvious that we're going to draw down significantly before the 2006 election, and I'm sure the President will be on TV with the "Iraqis are standing up so we are standing down" talking point. If Iraq implodes, what do they then say?

is it bad news? will kurdistan vs. sunnistan vs. shiastan be worse than an iraqi civil war? if they were so inclined, the sauds could pay off/sit on the iraqi suunis? of course, why would they help the competition like that?

Iraq was doomed to suffer civil war when Saddam either died or fell from power. It is not surprising to learn the two major oppressed groups, the Shiites and Kurds, have been preparing to prevent a return of Sunni tyranny and to consolidate their sovereignty. What is surprising is our government's refusal to understand the ethnic and sectarian divisions that make up the ersatz nation of Iraq and its Pollyannaish desire to make a consociational democracy from it.

I think the reasons the US invaded and occupied Iraq were for selfish corporate reasons based upon oil and a desired militant hegemony in the area. Although I would like to think America's imperialist militancy has backfired and harmed the capitalist establishment, as the response to Viet Nam would indicate, the American wars of the Eighties and Nineties, Granada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, and the Gulf War, demonstrate American militarism is still an extremely powerful political force. There is no counter culture of youth or art to save us from our failed imperialism in Iraq, which, I think, indicates the decline of American culture.

Every death in the civil war, if it comes, rests on the head of Bush. He destabilized the region. He may have, very predictably, made a bad situation worse. Unless the US wants to increase troop levels significantly, keep them there for decades, and kill many more people, lots of them civilians, the death toll of the civil war will surpass that of the Saddam regime by at least an order of magnitude. Assuming he does step down in 2008, he should be made to live in the hell he created.

Here is a question that could address the last part of the post. What is Mr Lasseter's track record for getting it right in Iraq? How about the Bush administration's track record?

Actually, cancel the second part. Bush has never gotten anything right, so this reporter could have a bad track record and still be infinitely more accurate than Bush.

Still, the question remains, has his pessimism been justified (and don't spout bullshit about elections).

Oh! C'mon! Don't worry! It will all be okay! Really! Stop being so negative all the time!

Look! A freshly painted school! Now why don't you see that in the news? That's at LEAST as newsworthy as 10,000 peshmerga inserted into the New Iraqi Army (TM) for the planned seizure of Kirkuk!

Is it not interesting that the fundie supporters of Twigless have not raised a peep about the loss of religious freedom and any voice in the goverment by the Iraqi christians. Juan Cole had an interesting discussion of this last week.
The Christians in Iraq had more freedom under Saddam than they will have in the theocracy of the new constitution.
Watch what will happen if they attempt to convert a Muslim.
No, not a peep from Dobson, Jerry and Pat.

"What's interesting is how the various sides will alter their own behavior until we do leave"
"It will be interesting to see how the spin machine that is the Republican party deals with a disastrous aftermath in Iraq after our troops leave."
"When we are finally out of the picture pretty much altogether and forever, THEN we can expect the different groups to seek their natural levels -- levels mostly impossible to predict with certainty beforehand."

You all understand that the US military presence in Iraq will continue to be there for many, many years to come, right? I call to your attention our military presence in Eurpoe, especially Germany. We still have troops there and WWII has been over for over 50 years. What makes you think that Iraq will somehow be any different, that we'll take all the troops out there, but not in other countries?

...the blame will be squarely on the incomeptence of the Bush Administration...

Cue Patton, Al, Tbrosz, Alice, Charlie, RDW, GOPGregory, Red State Mike, etc. "No, the blame will be on the liberal democrats who won't let Bush do whatever he wants even though his party contols all three areas of the federal government" in 3, 2, 1...

Is Juan Cole's blog down?

Ernst: let's hope it won't happen...but lets prepare for when it does...

Planning? That would imply the existence of a Plan B, and, as we all know, the Bush regime doesn't do Plan B. Their plan has always been to shut their eyes, cross their fingers and hope for a pony.

I don't see that it is self-evidently "bad news" that Iraq might split up into three separate states. For all anyone in the USA knows, that might be the best possible outcome in terms of the well-being of the people who live in what is now Iraq, and it should be up to those people to determine that for themselves.

It might be "bad news" for the US oil companies, who would prefer to have an authoritarian, central government that would have the power to hand over permanent control of Iraq's oil reserves to them.

But since, as all the Bush bootlickers will tell us, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is all about fighting terrorism and spreading democracy and has nothing to do with oil (only moonbat conspiracy nuts think that it's about the oil!), then what's "bad news" for the oil companies doesn't matter, right?

You all understand that the US military presence in Iraq will continue to be there for many, many years to come, right? I call to your attention our military presence in Eurpoe, especially Germany. We still have troops there and WWII has been over for over 50 years. What makes you think that Iraq will somehow be any different, that we'll take all the troops out there, but not in other countries?

I dunno. Why'd we take our troops out of Vietnam, but not other countries?

Indolene wrote: "You all understand that the US military presence in Iraq will continue to be there for many, many years to come, right?"

As an active military presence in anything like their current strength? Unlikely.

"What makes you think that Iraq will somehow be any different, that we'll take all the troops out there, but not in other countries?"

The universal unpopularity of the troops being there.

cmdicely,

Because we lost that one. Have we lost in Iraq?

Now here's another way of looking at it... Perhaps the destruction of Iraq as a single state will be a good thing... I, for one thought that it was the inevitable consequence of the invasion. Three very different ethnic groups all vying for power in the region. When the whole charade of Iraqis taking over their government started, wasn't that one of their plans that they set down on the table and then the Bush Admin. said, "No, you're not going to do that, you're going to do this."? Didn't scholars suggest this years ago?

Its nothing new... The only "bad" part of Iraq being split into 3 new nations is that 1.) It will throw the region into turmoil as parties vie to expand their fiefdoms and 2.) It'll be a bit more difficult for the CIA, Carlyle Group, Halliburton and the rest of the PNAC crew to pay off and manage 3 corrupt governments instead of just 1 corrupt government... And 1.) is/has going to happen/happened anyhow...

If that is what the Kurds want to do, isn't that the whole idea of "why we're there"? Democracy on the march, and all...

PaulB,

Unpopulatiry and necessity are two different things.

I'm with SA. Why not at least have an independent Kurdistan? If we really want freedom and democracy and the Kurds want their own country, I'd think the Bushites would be boasting about it. But how would Turkey respond to an independent Kurdistan?

Because we lost that one.

I would say because we realized that we could not achieve the goals that defined victory, at least at any cost we were willing to pay, but essentially, yes.

Have we lost in Iraq?

I dunno. What are the goals that define victory? What reasonable basis is there to that the presence of American troops and the costs associated with that presence increease the prospects for those goals being met enough to justify the continuation of the policy?

indolene wrote: "Unpopulatiry and necessity are two different things."

A truism that really has little to do with the current situation. The American public will not support what's going on in Iraq today indefinitely. Hell, they barely support it now. The Iraqis want us gone, as well. There simply is no way that the current state of affairs will be allowed to continue "for many, many years to come."

Unpopulatiry and necessity are two different things.

What is the necessity?

cmdicely,

I don't know those answers either, but I'd like to.

Lasseter is,to my knowledge, one of the few reporters to be embedded with an Iraqi army unit (without Pentagon approval) and his stories about the week he spent there seemed accurate. There is no good way to completely ascertain the "truth" of his reporting but yhr scene he laid out can be confirmed in later reports.
He claimed that the brigade was mostly Shia, fully intending to take reveenge on the Sunni,the bulk of the unit was guarding a mosque and the picture on the wall at headquarters was of the imam whose mosque they guarded. All of this conforms with the stories of the MoI infiltration be Shia militias etc.
Lasseter also pointed out that the Iraqi army units in Al Anbar earlier this year (Tal Afar) were peshmerga who had no problems rousting out Turkomen Sunnis.
I think Lasseter is a good reporter with good sources and connections and I try to read his stories as often as they're posted.

It's also worth noting that the current state of affairs cannot continue "for many, many years to come," because the U.S. military, reserves and National Guard simply cannot sustain this level of commitment.

Now if you mean that we will have some limited military presence in Iraq for years to come (e.g., one or more bases with some minimum level of troop support, not actively engaged in policing or securing the country), you may very well be right. That certainly seems to be what the Bush administration is planning.

But if you mean that we will be actively engaged in Iraqi security for years to come, with a high level of military commitment, tens of thousands of troops, and so on, I would say that the evidence is pretty clearly against you.

Cmdicely,

I think the necessity is that an American military presence in Iraq not only helps stabilize that country, but leaves the US with an option of having that presence serve as a staging point if we get into a battle in the middle east. Not the least important part of having a presence in Iraq will be the deterrence it will serve to the countries around it, like Iran, who has pledged to destroy America, and most recently whose president said that the holocaust never happend.

PaulB,

I just don't see things in Iraq 10 years from now to be that much the same as things in Iraq are right now. I guess the best way to put it into perspective would be to read up on what things were like in Japan, Germany, Italy, Bosnia, and any other place where a war and reconstruction tool place. See what things were like in those places, and reasonably estimate that's how things will go in Iraq. Of course you have to take into consideration uniqueness of each situation, but I think that the similarities of each are stronger than the differences...

PaulB,

I mean that we will have some military presence, of course not like what we've got there now.

It will be interesting to see how the spin machine that is the Republican party deals with a disastrous aftermath in Iraq after our troops leave. It seems obvious that we're going to draw down significantly before the 2006 election, and I'm sure the President will be on TV with the "Iraqis are standing up so we are standing down" talking point. If Iraq implodes, what do they then say?

They'll say it was because liberals didn't clap hard enough. Nothing to do with their lies, incompetent planning or disastrous execution; no, it will be the fault of all those who didn't believe in their heart of hearts and because they didn't believe (the mechanics of this are never quite clear) Iraq failed. It's the old Dolchstosslegende.

Have "WE" lost in Iraq? I don't know, ask these guys and girls:

Military Fatalities: By Time Period News

Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
4 738 13 18 769 2.31 333
3 579 25 27 631 2.92 216
2 718 27 58 803 1.89 424
1 140 33 0 173 4.02 43
Total 2175 98 103 2376 2.34 1016

Wounded In Action According to The DoD
Period Wounded
Dec-2005 32
Nov-2005 398
Oct-2005 603
Sep-2005 546
Aug-2005 541
Jul-2005 476
Jun-2005 511
May-2005 572
Apr-2005 595
Mar-2005 371
Feb-2005 414
Jan-2005 498
Dec-2004 544
Nov-2004 1424
Oct-2004 648
Sep-2004 706
Aug-2004 895
Jul-2004 552
Jun-2004 589
May-2004 757
Apr-2004 1212
Mar-2004 323
Feb-2004 150
Jan-2004 189
Dec-2003 261
Nov-2003 337
Oct-2003 413
Sep-2003 247
Aug-2003 181
Jul-2003 226
Jun-2003 147
May-2003 55
Apr-2003 340
Mar-2003 202
Total 15955

Now, how about dispensing with the fucking "WE" when this subject is discussed, unless of course you're one of the sorry souls minus life or limb, minus friend or family, in Dubya's Grand Criminal Adventure. Otherwise "WE" doesn't apply to you.

To be slightly more accurate it should be: Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Iranistan, because they will be the Syria to Iranistan's Lebanon. Up north, in Kurdistan, the Turks will certainly not sit idly by. The Sunni's will sit in the middle with no oil ergo no money, sqeezed by Kurdistan and Iranistan. Plenty of ingredients for ongoing conflict. The neocons were effing stupid not to factor this in. What a bunch of maroons.

But how would Turkey respond to an independent Kurdistan?

In general terms, not well. In specific terms, I'd prefer to hear what Praedor Atredes has to say on the subject.

Praedor, you around?

I think the necessity is that an American military presence in Iraq not only helps stabilize that country [...]

That's an interesting belief. Why should anyone else believe it?

[...] but leaves the US with an option of having that presence serve as a staging point if we get into a battle in the middle east.

Our presence in Iraq severely curtails our ability to operate anywhere else, including elsewhere in the Middle East, because it ties up most of the combat power of the US military.

And if, as you suggest above, our forces are needed to maintain stability in Iraq, drawing them down to use elsewhere staged from Iraq isn't a viable option, because you then create instability in the area from which your new deployment is supported, which is a good recipe for catastrophic failure.

Not the least important part of having a presence in Iraq will be the deterrence it will serve to the countries around it, like Iran, who has pledged to destroy America, and most recently whose president said that the holocaust never happend.

Iranian rhetoric is hardly a substantive threat to America, and the American invasion of Iraq and continued presence there manifestly contributes to anti-American radicalization in the region, including in Iran. The US has the power to do any level of harm necessary to Iran, from afar, regardless of any deployment in Iraq; the presence of US troops in places where it is easier for Iran or pro-Iranian terrorists to strike back at them mitigates the deterrent effect of the US strategic power by increasing the ability of Iran to harm the US, and thereby providing a counterdeterrent.

You all understand that the US military presence in Iraq will continue to be there for many, many years to come, right? I call to your attention our military presence in Eurpoe, especially Germany. We still have troops there and WWII has been over for over 50 years. What makes you think that Iraq will somehow be any different, that we'll take all the troops out there, but not in other countries?

No, we won't be there in a few years. The difference between Iraq and, say, Germany is that in Germany the US had a successful occupation of a foe it defeated and which accepted its defeat. It was easy and convenient to keep troops in Germany because (1) the Germans wanted the Americans there as a bulwark against the Soviets and (2) American troops weren't dying and there and was no resistance against them.

Neither is the case in Iraq. A US Administration cannot afford to keep an occupation going when it is losing 1,000 troops a year and billions of dollars a month for no appreciable gain. The public won't stand for it. I call to your attention Vietnam, where we have no troops because we were chased out.

Not the least important part of having a presence in Iraq will be the deterrence it will serve to the countries around it, like Iran, who has pledged to destroy America, and most recently whose president said that the holocaust never happend.

What does the last part have to do with deterrence? What does deterrence have to do with anything? Deterrence from what? He made assinine statements — and we're already there! Right next door! They're also developing nukes, and care not a whit about our military there because our idiot president has already stretched our boys too thin.

Who the hell thinks that our army, as dedicated as they are, could invade another country while barely holding on to two others? Not to mention that this country is much larger and more populated than the other two combined and probably has the WMD capabilities we whiffed on in Iraq.

My God, is there any end to it?

Well I for one believe it's time for the Sunnis to reap the wind.

I guess the best way to put it into perspective would be to read up on what things were like in Japan, Germany, Italy, Bosnia, and any other place where a war and reconstruction tool place.

In places like that, people weren't blowing up US soldiers in organized, active armed resistance after the end of the war with the enemy state. So its pretty clear that those are unlike Iraq.

cmdicely,

I disagree that being in Iraq curtails our ability to operate anywhere else. By that logic, being in Europe and Asia has curtailed our ability to operate in Iraq. (Personally, I think that we could take the tens of thousands of troops who are sitting in Europe, and use them if we needed to. Of course, then Europe would have to pay for an army to defend itself for a change, instead of relying on American military to protect them.)

The other thing is that drawing down troops won't happen independently of the stability in Iraq. I think you incorrectly assume that we'll leave Iraq when it's unstable so we can go somewhere else to fight if necessary. Democrats and Republicans agree that that is not a wise course of action, and frankly I wouldn't even put it on a list of theoretical "what if's".

"That's an interesting belief. Why should anyone else believe it?" -because that's what is happening in Iraq right now. There would be no stability in the post-invasion phase if it weren't for the military presence.

To Steve Duncan: Are you an American citizen? If so, than you are definitely part of "we" whether you supported the war or not (I'm guessing not). For you see, you are still as much an American citizen as I or any other. If you don't see yourself as part of the American "we", please tell me what your affiliations are, and I'll respect them. I'll also caveat every future use of the American "we" to be "we minus steve duncan"

indolene: here's a piece of advice for you. if you haven't read up on post-world war ii conditions, read up on it. don't assume that the rest of us haven't.

"Iranian rhetoric is hardly a substantive threat to America"
Neither was Osama Bin Laden's rhetoric before 9/11. I'm just sayin'.

The idea that various groups were going to salt the security forces with their own "ringers" was obvious way back when the news of the Sadr group doing this same thing made the papers. I wrote about it as long ago as early 2004, although I was more worried about Baathists, other insurgents, and Sadr's goons than I was about Kurds.

This would have been a problem in any case in a nation with tribal loyalties that tend to be stronger than national ones. There were probably similar issues in America with the first Continental Army.

If the Iraqi central government manages to emerge as something everyone can live with, the divided loyalties of soldiers like the Kurds will hopefully eventually fade, as they have with other new nations. Of course, that still leaves the insurgent, or even al Qaeda ringers.

The army under Saddam was stacked with Saddam loyalists, yet somehow I still hear people claiming we should have left that army intact. What's the difference?

The question of a continued military presence in Iraq is an interesting exercise from a US viewpoint,but what response is likely from the administration if the newly seated Parliament selects a PM on the basis of a resolution requiring the US military to leave posthaste? Would the President seek to defy such a request even if it came from a Shiite majority with open Iranian backing? Would the US accede to the request (demand) and leave within the six month window as Murtha suggested? Or does the administration try to argue that a withdrawal wouldn't be prudent? I think it's the worst of both worlds. Stay and get caught in the middle or leave and watch the carnage draw in other parties.
The Turks are going to oppose an independent Kurdistan,Syria will find it difficult to stand by and let their Sunni (and Baathist) brethren be decimated by a Shia majority and Iran is unlikely to passively back a Shia move to carve out as southern state.

indolene, you wrote up your 1:56 while i was writing up my 1:57, and your 1:56 takes a sad descent.

it's at least arguable that there will be some form of US military presence in some form of iraq in the years to come.

it is not arguable that we are weakened elsewhere by the number of troops we have tied down in iraq - that's a fact. sure, you can point out that the troops sitting in europe right now aren't doing much of anything, and could be redeployed, but until that decision of state is taken, they are occupied. it's the kind of thing the bush administration should have thought about before this war, but that's when they were thinking that we would be down to 30K troops in september, '03, a piece of ideologically blinkered fantasy that seems almost unbelievable to reflect back on today.

it is not arguable that there is "stability" in iraq right now with the US troops there - that's a falsehood. the Dear Leader's definition of victory isn't stability any more, indolene: it's the ability of the iraqis to defend themselves, which is, by definition, unknowable until we leave. so we're going to leave without knowing if the country is stable, either because we need the troops elsewhere or because public disgust at the cost in blood and treasure for so insignificant a change in us national security overwhelms even the propaganda robots.

I think the necessity is that an American military presence in Iraq not only helps stabilize that country, but leaves the US with an option of having that presence serve as a staging point if we get into a battle in the middle east.

We have several other staging areas, in countries such as Kuwait and Qatar, where they are not getting shot at daily and where their presence is not creating a terrorist playground. Iraq was stable before we invaded, so it seems somewhat bizarre to say that our presence, which is the very source of the terrrorims and civil war now plaguing that country, is a stabilizing influence.

Not the least important part of having a presence in Iraq will be the deterrence it will serve to the countries around it, like Iran, who has pledged to destroy America, and most recently whose president said that the holocaust never happend.

First, our presence is not a deterrent because it's revealed how weak our military really is, that the bulk of US fighting forces can be tied down by a few thousand lightly armed guerillas. Second, the president of Iran pledged to destroy Israel, not America -- it's not the same thing.

I just don't see things in Iraq 10 years from now to be that much the same as things in Iraq are right now.

No, they'll probably be worse for us.

I guess the best way to put it into perspective would be to read up on what things were like in Japan, Germany, Italy, Bosnia, and any other place where a war and reconstruction tool place. See what things were like in those places, and reasonably estimate that's how things will go in Iraq. Of course you have to take into consideration uniqueness of each situation, but I think that the similarities of each are stronger than the differences...

Proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Once again, the difference between Iraq and your examples is that (a) we won those wars while we're losing in Iraq and (b) the native populations in those countries wanted us there to defend them, while in Iraq they want us gone.

Look, you're dealing with historical experts here, people whose knowledge of politics and history is deep and wide. Don't think you can come in here and fool us with some half--understood historical analogies.

TJM,

Good point. I think that in Iraq, te US military would have to do what the Iraqi government told it... I mean, that's what Bush has said.

That's a "wait and see" thing, for sure.

tbrosz, the argument against disbanding the army is that the disbanded, having nothing better to do, joined up with the insurgents (not all of them, obviously, but certainly thousands of them).

the further difference is that, for better or worse, saddam was committed to a unified iraq, and having an army full of people who would do whatever he ordered meant that the army was committed to a unified iraq.

it is not the case that the kurds and the shiites are committed, per se, to a unified iraq. this may, indeed, as someone else has already noted, the "best" outcome: i can't say, other than noting that the "iraqi" people are residents of a state created to served the interests of british imperialism, not residents of a state that organically arose from a tribal past.

regardless, when you've already got a low-grade civil war going on, the gap between "here" (the army containing many people whose primary allegiance is to their ethnic tribe, not to the nation at large) and "there" (some utopian future in iraq when ethnicity has faded as an issue and everyone now loves their neighbors as themselves) is rather large and dangerous, especially to the occupying army (that would be, uh, us)....

I disagree that being in Iraq curtails our ability to operate anywhere else. By that logic, being in Europe and Asia has curtailed our ability to operate in Iraq.

There's a difference between keeping troops in occupation duty where they are not being shot at and keeping them in combat theatres where they are undergoing daily attacks with all the attendant stress on their morale, fighting capacity and equipment. A child should recognize this.

(Personally, I think that we could take the tens of thousands of troops who are sitting in Europe, and use them if we needed to. Of course, then Europe would have to pay for an army to defend itself for a change, instead of relying on American military to protect them.)

Protect them from what, you loon? The Red Army? European nations already have armies of their own and are perfectly capable. The primary purpose of our keeping troops in Europe was not for their benefit, to protect them, but for ours, so we can project force around the world and maintain our empire.

Stefan,
I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm trying to talk about things, and when you teach me something I don't know or tell me something I got wrong, I would appreciate that you (and all of you) not condescend toward me. Thanks.

Also, you say "Once again, the difference between Iraq and your examples is that (a) we won those wars while we're losing in Iraq and (b) the native populations in those countries wanted us there to defend them, while in Iraq they want us gone."
Two things: 1)how do you know we are losing in Iraq? 2)are you sure that Germans, Italians, and Japanese really wanted us to go in to their country and defend them? Judging by the actions their countries took against the world, I'd have guessed "no".

"Iranian rhetoric is hardly a substantive threat to America"
Neither was Osama Bin Laden's rhetoric before 9/11. I'm just sayin'.

Al Qaeda was engaged in an ongoing terrorism campaign against American interests before 9/11, such as the embassy and Cole attacks. Iran, on the other hand, hasn't engaged in any anti-US terrorism since the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996.

I disagree that being in Iraq curtails our ability to operate anywhere else. By that logic, being in Europe and Asia has curtailed our ability to operate in Iraq.

Well, certainly our combat operations in Central Asia, if they had not been reduced to divert resources to the invasion of Iraq, would have done so; our noncombat deployments in Europe and Asia were drawn down considerably for Iraq, and continue to be drawn down to support that operation.

Nowhere in the world is so much of our combat power devoted to combat operations as it is in Iraq.

(Personally, I think that we could take the tens of thousands of troops who are sitting in Europe, and use them if we needed to. Of course, then Europe would have to pay for an army to defend itself for a change, instead of relying on American military to protect them.)

Um, where do you think lots of the troops for Iraq came from, Mars?

The other thing is that drawing down troops won't happen independently of the stability in Iraq. I think you incorrectly assume that we'll leave Iraq when it's unstable so we can go somewhere else to fight if necessary.

No, what I'm saying is that devoting most of our combat power to stabilizing Iraq (whether or not it works) does not make Iraq available, as you have claimed, as a staging area for combat operations elsewhere.

There would be no stability in the post-invasion phase if it weren't for the military presence.

How do you know that? There is certainly a considerable degree of instability directly resulting from widespread opposition to the presence of US forces, evidenced by polls showing widespread support for attacks on US and other foreign forces, far exceeding opposition to the present government.

So becuse they're on hiatus means that they won't try again?

European nations already have armies of their own and are perfectly capable.

Well, except, among our NATO allies, Iceland, as I recall.

If Washington Post says something it must be true. We must be losing the Iraq war then, our President's and Rumsfeld's reasoned and fact- based assessments notwithstanding.

Neither was Osama Bin Laden's rhetoric before 9/11.

Only if, like Bush before 9/11 but unlike his predecessor, you ignore the fact that bin Laden, in addition to rhetoric, had been conducting and continued to conduct and attempt to conduct actual terrorist operations directed at the United States for quite some time before 9/11.

Edo on December 29, 2005 at 1:45 PM:

But how would Turkey respond to an independent Kurdistan?

I know I'm not Praedor, but if you don't mind me putting in my 2 cents, I'd have to say in general terms, not well.

Here's some snapshot background information about the Kurdish population through 1999.

In more recent news:

Turkish television stations will be allowed to broadcast Kurdish programs and other languages spoken by minority groups next month.

The move is seen as a step towards expanding the cultural rights of the country's long-repressed Kurdish minority in line with Turkey's efforts to gain full membership of the European Union.

Some stations complained that the broadcasts would be limited to 45 minutes a day and that none would be broadcast live because of regulations requiring Turkish subtitles.

"Even so, who could have imagined that we could have TV programs in a language we were not allowed to even speak?" said Hasim Hasimi, an independent Kurdish politician.

Like many, he attributed the move to Turkey's drive to join the EU.

The 25-nation bloc, which opened membership negotiations with Turkey in October, has been pressing Turkey to end discrimination against its Kurdish population.

Estimated at about 14 million, the Kurds are Turkey's largest ethnic minority, yet until 1991 their language, which is distinct from Turkish, was banned as part of a state campaign to assimilate their culture and stifle nationalist passions.

The bans were eased in 2002 when, succumbing to EU pressure, the parliament also granted limited rights for Kurdish to be taught as a "foreign" language in private schools.

So my gut feeling on the issue goes like this: Turkey doesn't want an independent Kurdistan for fear that it will encourage more heated calls for recognition of equal civil rights for Turkish Kurds. How far the Turkish government is willing to push that view in light of its desire to join the EU remains to be seen.

I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm trying to talk about things, and when you teach me something I don't know or tell me something I got wrong, I would appreciate that you (and all of you) not condescend toward me. Thanks.

OK, fair point. I apologize for the name calling.

Also, you say "Once again, the difference between Iraq and your examples is that (a) we won those wars while we're losing in Iraq and (b) the native populations in those countries wanted us there to defend them, while in Iraq they want us gone."

Two things: 1)how do you know we are losing in Iraq?

I read the news. For a less flip answer, I know because the long-term trends (the growth of the Shiite religious parties, our mounting casualties, the cost to us, the increased strength of the insurgency, the strain on our armed forces, rising ethnic tensions, etc.) are all against us

2)are you sure that Germans, Italians, and Japanese really wanted us to go in to their country and defend them? Judging by the actions their countries took against the world, I'd have guessed "no".

No, you're getting this wrong. They didn't want us to go in and defend them before WWII. But once WWII was over and we'd won, Germany, Italy and Japan accepted US forces because the alternative -- occupation by Stalin's Red Army -- was much worse. They also soon realized that we were rather benevolent occupiers and would spend a lot of money to rebuild them, so saw cooperating with us to be in their long term interest.

Turkey doesn't want an independent Kurdistan for fear that it will encourage more heated calls for recognition of equal civil rights for Turkish Kurds.

No, Turkey doesn't want an independent Kurdistan for fears that the already existing Kurdish freedom fighter/separatist/terrorist/whatever-you-feel-like-calling them groups operating in Turkey, who often already have bases in Iraqi Kurdistan, will have safe haven and support and encouragement from an independent "Kurdistan" and seek to join the parts of Turkey that they consider part of Kurdistan to that new nation.

(Syria and Iran would likely have similar concerns, and in fact Turkey, Syria, and Iran have been reported to have had joint discussions concerning possible coordinated responses should Iraqi Kurdistan break away as an independent state.)

There are so many points to try to speak to, forgive me if I don't address them all.

cmdicely,
Please tell me, in your opinion, how one twisted view of Islam (Al Quaeda) and another twisted view of Islam (the Iranian mullocracy (sp?)) are so different. I guess a big one off the top of my head: one has a nation and the other doesn't. That's where the threat from Iran comes. IMO, the Iranian leadership is using religion as a cause to incite the death of, including Americans, anyone who isn't part of their religion. Am I wrong?

So becuse they're on hiatus means that they won't try again?

Iran has no immediate tactical or long-term strategic goals in conducting operations against the US. We're far more of a threat to them than they are to us, and it's because they view us as a threat, partly, that they've been building up their nuclear capacity.

Stefan,
"No, you're getting this wrong. They didn't want us to go in and defend them before WWII. But once WWII was over and we'd won, Germany, Italy and Japan accepted US forces because the alternative -- occupation by Stalin's Red Army -- was much worse. They also soon realized that we were rather benevolent occupiers and would spend a lot of money to rebuild them, so saw cooperating with us to be in their long term interest."

Good point, but I counter with: do you not agree that there are some Iraqis who do want us there? I think that there are, and the number who want us there is greater than the number who don't. Also, we (sorry, we minus steve duncan) are no more evil or no less benevolent as an occupier in 1945 as compared to 2005. Plus I'd argue that we spend more : )

Please tell me, in your opinion, how one twisted view of Islam (Al Quaeda) and another twisted view of Islam (the Iranian mullocracy (sp?)) are so different.

They're tremendously different, and have quite different philosphies and world views. Don't assume that just because they're both Muslim that they're the same -- this would be assuming that Catholics are the same as Baptists because they're both "Christian." Without getting too far into the specifics, Al Qadea members are Sunni and generally follow a variation of Salafi/Wahabbit Islam, while Iranians are Shiites.

Also, the fact that you don't understand another religion is no excuse to call it "twisted."

I guess a big one off the top of my head: one has a nation and the other doesn't. That's where the threat from Iran comes.

Actually, the fact that Iran is a nation while Al Qaeda isn't makes Al Qaeda, not Iran, the bigger threat. Iran's interests are localized to the region, while Al Qaeda is a worldwide movement that can strike anywhere and has adherents all over the globe.

IMO, the Iranian leadership is using religion as a cause to incite the death of, including Americans, anyone who isn't part of their religion. Am I wrong?

Yes. Iran is not inciting the deaths of Americans. While the mullahs are of course religious leaders, you discount their interest in increasing their economic/political/military rather than their religious power.

Please tell me, in your opinion, how one twisted view of Islam (Al Quaeda) and another twisted view of Islam (the Iranian mullocracy (sp?)) are so different.

Well, other than the rather considerable theological difference, one has status quo power over a reasonably (technologically) modern state on which the ruling class relies and which is therefore eminently subject to strategic targetting by the US of things like industrial, economic, military, security, and government apparatus, while the other has no particular vested interested in any existing state but instead seeks to rally anger against the West to sell a vision of a global struggle against Islam by the West in order to support the idea that it ought to be recognized as the vanguard of the fight on the Islamic side, and therefore, unlike the other, has a positive, rather than negative, interest in US attacks on economic, cultural, etc., sites associated with Islamic populations and is largely immune to strategic deterrence.

There are considerable other differences, too, but those are the most relevant to the present discussion.

Stefan,
I didn't sauy that Islam is twisted, I said that the mullahs and Al Quaeda are twisting Islam.

I do recall Iran making at least a few "death to America" calls every now and then... I also understand that any body in power wants to remain in power.

Good point, but I counter with: do you not agree that there are some Iraqis who do want us there?

There are probably some, although the majority that feel that attacks on US forces are justified stand against them. (Actually, I suppose al-Qaeda sympathizers probably both want the US there and think attacks on the US are justified.)

Good point, but I counter with: do you not agree that there are some Iraqis who do want us there? I think that there are, and the number who want us there is greater than the number who don't.

No, you're wrong about that. Most Iraqis want us out, and quick. The major polls, while unrelaible, all support that. Even if they all wanted us to stay, why should we do so if it was against our interests? What are we getting that'd worth the death of our soldiers?

Also, we (sorry, we minus steve duncan) are no more evil or no less benevolent as an occupier in 1945 as compared to 2005. Plus I'd argue that we spend more : )

Please stop these facile and ignorant comparisons to 1945. In WWII we occupied Japan and Germany because we had been attacked and declared war on by them; in Iraq, on the other hand, we were the aggressor who invaded a sovereign nation without cause. There's simply no comparison. And believe me, I know, because my German family lived under American occupation.

The Kurds intend/plan for an independent state? Good. Hell, I was behind them from the beginning of this entire illegal war in Iraq. They were clearly the only group with a functional head on their shoulders (strengthened by years as a de facto independent state under the protection of the No Fly Zone backed by US - and allied - air power). They've already shown that they are capable of running a decent secular state. They deserve it and they are welcome to it.

The shit is there for the Shiites and the Sunnis. The Shiites are incapable of doing anything without a mullah telling them where to shit and how to breath. The Sunnis are a mishmash of secular and religious nuts. The Shiites and the Sunnis are looking at ugly days ahead. The Kurds, barring an unjustifiable Turkish assault, are set to have a pretty decent little country.

Anyone with a marble in their head (this leaves out the entirety of the Bush Admin) could see that partition and civil war was the only outcome possible in this debacle. The Kurds have it the easiest while the bulk of the shit is there for the Shiites and Sunnis to eat.

What a bunch of genius' makes up the Bush Admin.

I didn't sauy that Islam is twisted, I said that the mullahs and Al Quaeda are twisting Islam.

But why do you say that? If you're not very familiar with Islamic theology or practice how can you say that their version is any less correct or any more "twisted" than any other branch of Islam?

indolene on December 29, 2005 at 1:56 PM:

Of course, then Europe would have to pay for an army to defend itself for a change, instead of relying on American military to protect them.

Not to be antagonistic, but this kinda stuck out for two reasons: 1) EU countries still have armies, right? and 2) What exactly is the American military protecting them from?

Oh, checked on some of the responses...I guess that I'm not the only one who noticed that...

indolene on December 29, 2005 at 2:04 PM:

I think that in Iraq, te US military would have to do what the Iraqi government told it... I mean, that's what Bush has said.

From the Associated Press, November 22, 2005:

CAIRO (AP) — Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The participants in Cairo agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.

The conference was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers, as well as leading Sunni politicians.

Curiously, the same article posted on the CNN website is no longer available...

I do recall Iran making at least a few "death to America" calls every now and then...

Sure, they've been doing that since 1979. And people in the US have been plotting the overthrow for the mullahs for just as long. It's all words and empty rhetoric.

After reading some of these comments:
The US disarmed Japan and Germany, NATO forces in Europe were very much protecting Germany,they had no army,neither did Japan outside of a small self-defence force.
Most of Europe today has very limited forces outside of their contribution to NATO, one reason France for example didn't send troops to Iraq (assuming they wanted to) was they didn't have any.
The Turks are not going to support a Kurdistan that has an army,better trained and more experienced than their own. Which is why the Iraqi army is being equipped with Eastern Bloc hand-me-downs. For example, the Iraqi armored division being formed has T-72 tanks donated by Hungary (State Dept. Weekly Staus Reports),trucks are old Soviet models (Naz and Gaz whatever they are),Russian AK-47s,and machine guns. No Abrams for these boys,no F-18 and certainly not the next generation.
The polls in Iraq indicate more than just a majority want the US out. They do think things will be better in the future, but without the US.

"while the other has no particular vested interested in any existing state but instead seeks to rally anger against the West to sell a vision of a global struggle against Islam by the West in order to support the idea that it ought to be recognized as the vanguard of the fight on the Islamic side, and therefore, unlike the other, has a positive, rather than negative, interest in US attacks on economic, cultural, etc., sites associated with Islamic populations and is largely immune to strategic deterrence."
I see what you mean, but I read into that: AQ has nothing material to lose, while Iran does. I see your point, but all I can say is that there were other countries in the history of the human race that had heated rhetoric and something to lose as well.. a lot of them ended up fighting and losing.

What do you think about Bin Laden's call for the return of a caliphate (I googled 'bin laden caliphate' and got many results)? You're right, AQ doesn't have a state, but they want one...a worldwide one, at that.

grape_crush,

I know I'm not Praedor, but if you don't mind me putting in my 2 cents, I'd have to say in general terms, not well.

I don't mind at all, and apparently we agree on the broader aspect of it. What I was hoping for from Praedor was a more nuanced view of the strategic and tactical military and political situation.

If the Kurds seceed and form a "Kurdistan" state, would Turkey, Iran and/or Syria attack them? If so, how would that impact Turkey's EU desires and membership in NATO (assuming there would be an impact)? etc.

If you have any perspective on that, I'd love to hear it.

What do you think about Bin Laden's call for the return of a caliphate (I googled 'bin laden caliphate' and got many results)? You're right, AQ doesn't have a state, but they want one...a worldwide one, at that.

And I want a billion dollars. Neither one is likely to happen.

"obvious that we're going to draw down significantly before the 2006 election, and I'm sure the President will be on TV with the "Iraqis are standing up so we are standing down" talking point. If Iraq implodes, what do they then say?"

It's Clinton's Fault.

cmdicely on December 29, 2005 at 2:20 PM:

Turkey, Syria, and Iran have been reported to have had joint discussions concerning possible coordinated responses should Iraqi Kurdistan break away as an independent state.

Oh yeah, that too. Would help if I remembered the article I just read.

"But why do you say that? If you're not very familiar with Islamic theology or practice how can you say that their version is any less correct or any more "twisted" than any other branch of Islam?"
So what is the correct statement then? Are these groups twisting Islam, or is that what Islam is all about?

Praedor,

The Kurds, barring an unjustifiable Turkish assault, are set to have a pretty decent little country.

Think Turkey (or Syria or Iran for that matter) would attack or would they let it go? If the latter, how long do you think the new Kurd state would allow the Kurds in Turkey to continue to be oppresed?

I see what you mean, but I read into that: AQ has nothing material to lose, while Iran does.

That's imprecise. al-Qaeda has plenty of things to lose, of course, but they aren't the things that the distant striking power of the United States is very good at hitting, so they aren't particularly amenable to strategic deterrence the way Iran is.

I see your point, but all I can say is that there were other countries in the history of the human race that had heated rhetoric and something to lose as well.. a lot of them ended up fighting and losing.

Mostly, the ended up fighting and losing when what they had to lose from not-fighting was more than they had to lose by fighting, though of course false perception and irrationality come into play here to a certain extent. The point is, there is no substantial additional deterrent effect on Iran posed by US forces engaged in a drawn-out conflict next door, and considerable mitigation of the credibility of the American strategic threat undermining strategic deterrence since the presence of US forces in Iraq increases the likely cost of any use of the strategic capacity against Iran.

What do you think about Bin Laden's call for the return of a caliphate (I googled 'bin laden caliphate' and got many results)?

I think that it is a key point in understanding his motivations; particularly, in understanding why he wants the US to wage war against regimes governing Islamic populations, and why he has no vested interest in the survival of existing regimes, particularly regimes governing Islamic populations.

Stefan, I think that there are valid comparisons that can be made from the two wars. I say this because regardless of who started each war, America ended up being an occupier, and that is the same in each instance. I think that you could even learn something from an instance where any country occupied another... I think you can still glean valuable insight from history in that regard.

The Kurds, barring an unjustifiable Turkish assault, are set to have a pretty decent little country.

The first time Kurdish "terrorists" strike Turkey from bases in "Kurdistan" -- or even appear to be preparing to -- a Turkish assault becomes a lot less "unjustifiable". Certainly less "unjustifiable" than the US invasion of Iraq.

" our President's and Rumsfeld's reasoned and fact- based assessments notwithstanding "

tea-out-the-nose funny.

Stefan, I think that there are valid comparisons that can be made from the two wars. I say this because regardless of who started each war, America ended up being an occupier, and that is the same in each instance.

Sure, the mere fact of US occupation is the same; but the conditions in which that occupation came about are relevant to how the occupation progressed, and in fact both the pre-occupation conditions and the post-occupation progress are sharply different between the US post-WWII occupations of Germany and Japan (or US peackeeping in Bosnia) and the US occupation of Iraq.

It therefore seems foolishly, given the sharp dissimilarities both in the background from occupation and the past and current progress of occupation to look to those past occupations as models for the likely future progress of the US presence in Iraq.

Stefan:

Look, you're dealing with historical experts here, people whose knowledge of politics and history is deep and wide. Don't think you can come in here and fool us with some half--understood historical analogies.

indolene:

I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm trying to talk about things, and when you teach me something I don't know or tell me something I got wrong, I would appreciate that you (and all of you) not condescend toward me. Thanks.

Indolene, a nearly-cosmic level of intellectual arrogance is one of the things you deal with coming to a board like this. Get used to it.

Praedor, The Kurds, barring an unjustifiable Turkish assault, are set to have a pretty decent little country. Think Turkey (or Syria or Iran for that matter) would attack or would they let it go? If the latter, how long do you think the new Kurd state would allow the Kurds in Turkey to continue to be oppresed?

The Kurds of Iraq would be in no position to do anything against Turkey for any reason. The Kurds in Turkey would best serve their nationalistic interests by moving to N. Iraq to join their Kurdish brothers and sisters in what will, one way or another, be a Kurdish state. Turkey's sole fear is that the Kurds of N. Iraq obtaining an independent Kurdistan (they will one way or another regardless) will give their own Kurds "ideas". Ridiculous. Ridiculous for the Kurds in Turkey to seek this when there's a ready-made Kurd state right across the border and ridiculous that the Kurds of Iraq will change much by way of the Kurds in Turkey's desires one way or another. Ridiculous too to is the idea that Turkey can do much to change reality. Norther Iraq IS and WILL BE, one way or another, an independent Kurdish state even if by some miracle Iraq doesn't fall apart in civil war.

The Iraqi Kurds are THE most together group in Iraq. The Shiites are mostly together but for ill religious reasons. Ugly ugly ugly. The Sunnis are just screwed. As hard as it is for them (and the Kurds) the best thing the Sunnis could do is make secular peace with, and join, the Kurds. The country would be a secular north dominated by the good Kurds with a large Sunni minority and the south would be (WILL be) a Shiite religious hellhole (particularly if you are a woman or nonmuslim). That is just reality.

I am not up on Syria, though they don't have much room to do SQUAT with Bush just ITCHING for a reason to expand the illegal war in Iraq into Syria and do a little regime change there (Iran isn't the only idiotic target of BushCo). Syria is a nonthreat. Really. As for Iran, I rather doubt they will do much of anything. They HAVE southern Iraq, to a great extent, just by religious "brotherhood" but even this hold is not total. The Iraqi Shiites, by and large, are keen on being independent and are NOT into having Iran call the shots. Iran is not a threat.

cmdicely,

Gotcha. I disagree with you in that I think having our military right next to Iran does prove a deterrent, but I don't think we'll ever agree on that, so I'm ok leaving that topic alone if you are.

Also, what's similar to me about the WWII and OIF occupations is that in each, you have huge populations of people who lived under a certain way of life, only to see that way of life destroyed by an outside force, and the outside force comes in and tries to acclimate the population to a new way of life. Yeah it's a very simplistic redux, but I think has value... maybe we should leave that topic alone too? : )