Posted on 08/05/2007 3:39:26 AM PDT by BlueSky194
The people of the northern Iraqi region of Kurdistan are anxious about increasing American talk of withdrawing at least some troops from the country.
The American decision not to stay and protect the Kurds at the end of the first Gulf War left them vulnerable to genocidal attacks by Saddam Hussein's forces.
Australian lawyer Jonathan Morrow has been working for the Kurdish regional Government of Iraq on oil treaties for the last couple of years, after helping form East Timor's constitution.
He tells the ABC's Mark Colvin the relatively normal and prosperous life of this unusual part of Iraq could be under threat.
"The only thing greater I think than their fear at being abandoned again by the West is the fear of being overrun by their neighbours," he said. "They will not test the relationship with the US and with Great Britain, though they may have reason for doing that for fear that they will be left out again [and] they'll be left to the mercy of hostile elements in the region."
Why are the Kurds worried about the way they're surrounded?
"Well, right now, even as we speak, there are approximately 200,000 Turkish troops on the border of Turkey and Iraq. There, the perceived threat from the Turkish point of view are rogue Kurdish elements that are Turkish Kurds who use the border with Iraq as a way of getting sanctuary from their sporadic conflicts with Turkish forces - not at all supported by the Government in Iraqi Kurdistan but nonetheless seen by the Turks as a threat and seen at least as a reason or a pretext for Turkish engagement.
"Threat number two, at least as great, is largely Sunni Arab Iraqi extremism, the Al Qaeda or insurgent element that we know about so well from Iraqi politics, which not only want to bring down the largely Shiite Iraq Government but would like to see the Kurdish regional Government also suffer.
"That had much less success in Iraqi Kurdistan because it's so much better secured than is Baghdad, so over the course of the last four years, since the American occupation of Iraq in 2003, there's only been something like four of five bombs in Iraqi Kurdistan that have killed people. That's bad enough, you might say, but of course four or five successful bombings over the course of let's say four years is ... a drop in the ocean, it's a quiet afternoon in Baghdad. I think they are hoping, perhaps against hope now, that they will at least this time be given some real security guarantee and some real support in economics and so on by America and the west generally."
What would be the possibilities there if the Americans are going to pull out in some form from the rest of Iraq?
"There are two groups that would be emboldened by that. Most immediately, the Sunni extremists are mentioned - the people have carried out bombings in Iraq and of course in Kurdistan, they are the most immediate threat.
"However, that isn't, I think, the most long-term threat that the Kurds face from a precipitous, to use President Bush's word, pull-out from the rest of Iraq. It is, in fact, the likelihood of a Shiah-dominated Iraq Government that is much less pleasant than the current [Nouri Al] Maliki one. Imagine an Iraq Government that was led by [radical cleric] Moqtada al-Sadr, for instance, which is very easy to imagine. The polling data suggest that he is probably the most popular politician in Iraq ...
"That kind of regime in Baghdad - not the traditional threat to Kurdistan, which is a Sunni Arab supremacist regime, Saddam being the classic example - but a new kind of regime in Baghdad actually would be a very serious threat to the Kurds and that's the greatest danger in the medium- to long-term from American pullout and a lack of support to Iraqi Kurdistan."
So what some people are talking about is a second option, which is that the Americans, instead of pulling out of Iraq, would actually pull back into Kurdistan and maintain some kind of garrison force in Kurdistan?
"I don't think anyone's talking about any wholesale movement of 150,000, 160,000 American troops in Iraq now into Kurdistan. That would be, I think, unnecessary. But certainly, if you look at for instance the Liberal think tank - the Centre for American Progress has proposed, I think, about a 10,000-strong US presence in Kurdistan, which would both be of strategic utility to the Americans but would beyond that really be an underwriting of Kurdistan's security in the region. It would be a signal to the world that any of the elements that I've mentioned couldn't really make an incursion into Iraqi Kurdistan without alerting the attention of the Americans and presumably inviting some opposition from them."
Given the history, are you an optimist about this or a pessimist?
"I'm an optimist about it. There aren't many signals at the moment from the current administration in the US that they are prepared to single the Kurds out, if you like, for special protection that I've just mentioned. It goes completely against the grain of the White House's rhetoric of a unitary, almost non-federal Iraq in which there's an undifferentiated mass of Iraqis, all of whom should owe allegiance to some wonderful Government in Baghdad. This vision, which is of course wholly false, doesn't permit to give those kind of security guarantees, it doesn't even permit them to encourage direct investment into Kurdistan or a real diplomatic engagement, so that's the near-term.
"However, you can see in some of the Democratic Party presidential candidates some understanding of what Kurdistan is - Hillary Clinton particularly but also Barack Obama. You're seeing an understanding that Kurdistan, whatever happens in Iraq, however quickly American troops should be pulled out of the rest of Iraq, Kurdistan shouldn't be abandoned."
Thanks. R&R can’t get here soon enough. I’m sure you have fond memories of the August climate here. {wilt} ;-)
Or we lose this, radical Islam will be emboldened and expand their reign of terror in the Middle East and Eurabia. USA will no longer be a superpower. China will have an increasing role in the world and will project power to secure their interests.
That is a great thought. I enjoy people that have a positive outlook and know that there are alternatives to their view, but they have faith in their ideas. Keep it up.
Wrong. The Iraqi gov't wants us to stay to do the work for them. A lot of the locals want us gone b/c we're foreigners in their country. Believe me, I talk to a lot of locals in their homes, in their neighborhoods. Most aren't openly hostile or anything, but they don't like our presence here.
The Kurds, on the other hand, very much want us to stay, and are very loyal to the U.S. From everything I've seen of them, they would be very strong regional allies. Of course, how we would explain that to Turkey would get tricky...
I respect your take on this, but I think you’re confusing an idealistic take on the part of the Iraqis, with what they also see as the ultimate reality if we do leave.
The Iraqis know that if we leave the nation will sink into a massive bloodbath. Hundreds of thousands if not millions would die. Look at Vietnam and Cambodia for an example of what it would probably devolve into.
Yes, I do think the Iraqis want us out. As far as it goes, I agree with you. I don’t doubt that for a second, but I do think they are capable of seeing nations like Japan, Germany, France, the Philipines and other places where we’ve been and the societies the better for it after a period of reduced self-rule.
Ultimately, I have to say that I still thik the Iraqi citizens want us to remain until the situation stabalizes.
Now we may not like the time frame, but the world will be better if we stick it out and ten years from now ther is a stable moderate Iraqi nation. The only alternative IMO is to leave prematurely and watch the situation turn worse in Iraq than it was in Iran under the Ayatollahs.
Terrorist governance consolidated in Iraq would turn the whole region into one massive dark ages, our citizens as their focus.
If instead Iraq refuses to allow terrorists on it’s own soil, won’t that make it hard for terrorists to use it as terrorism central? And won’t that ultimately make it’s and our citizens more safe?
I think they can see that.
And what tremendously negative effect did those outcomes have on the U.S.? They were intent on slaughtering each other, we sacrificed over 50,000 people to keep them from doing it, and it still happened. Our nation was largely unaffected by it.
I do think they are capable of seeing nations like Japan, Germany, France, the Philipines and other places where we’ve been and the societies the better for it after a period of reduced self-rule.
Those are all cultures that are not enslaved by Islam. Iraq doesn't have that advantage. We definitely can't change that.
Ultimately, I have to say that I still thik the Iraqi citizens want us to remain until the situation stabalizes.
Meaning a totally open-ended commitment to this dump. Did you know their police and soldiers get a week of leave for every two weeks of work? You should have seen the amazing turnout of IA and IP forces for when the Iraqi soccer team came back from winning the Asian Cup. I've never seen so many Iraqi forces anywhere for anything. Did you know a police Lt. Col. in Mosul said that "it's not my fault that American Soldiers are on their 2nd or 3rd tour. I would tell their families they have to stay until Iraq is secure and free." Security is a low priority for these people, as long as we're here to do it for them.
Terrorist governance consolidated in Iraq would turn the whole region into one massive dark ages, our citizens as their focus.
True terrorism (in the sense of what we're trying to fight for OUR country) is rapidly losing the war, and their influence is all but gone--fear and intimidation is all they have left. Everything else here is sectarian. Sectarian and fighting against the infidel foreign occupiers. So the Sunnis win and the Saudis control them, or the Shi'ites win and Iran has their way. Neither Saudi or Iran are good for us (we just like to pretend and make nice with SA).
The bottom line is, I would really like to know there is a very good reason my Soldiers and I are putting our lives on the line every day, that there is a good reason for the six Soldiers in my battalion who were recently killed in two separate attacks (one by Shi'ites, one by Sunnis). There has to be a reason for all of it, and all we can see is that we're trying to do the IA and IP's jobs for them, sacrificing our lives (at home with our families on deployments or WIA with lost limbs or flat out KIA). These people aren't worth it.
I will respond to this in the next day or so. Thanks.
What reasons does the Military Chain of Command state for not attacking Iran.
I can’t stand the fact that Bush hasn’t lifted a stinking finger against Iran while the kill our troops. Worse than Nam, at least then we bombed the enemy sanctuaries!
Well, we probably are attacking them, at least on a very low, Special Ops level. A full-scale attack is absolutely out of the question, though, since we’re tied up in Iraq. We hit them when we find them in Iraq at least, but that’s all I know of.
Google Nashville Kurdish gangs. They are a bunch of thugs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.