High Stakes Game in Northern Iraq

FrontPageMag ^ | Aug 23, 2007 | By Kenneth R. Timmerman

[casino66]

Over the past week, with Iranian shells raining down on Iraqi villages in Kurdish areas along the border zone in the north, Iran’s leaders have engaged the United States in a high stakes game that has gone virtually unreported in the elite media.

Iran has massed thousands of troops along its northwestern border in preparation for a ground assault against Iranian Kurdish fighters who have sought refuge in the rugged Qanbil mountains in northwestern Iraq.

[casino66]

Could this be the straw that gets us into Iran?

[2banana]

Target Rich Environment

[AppyPappy]

The Iranians will have to contend with the US Air Force and they will lose that battle. Hopefully, they know that.

[Tallguy]

I wonder if the Iranians saw those pictures of the mountainsides in Afghanistan being vaporized by a single B52 working with a FAC on the ground? I should think that any Iranian incursion would be very small as a result.

[fightinbluhen51]

B52s coupled with A10s for close air support/on station precision clearing...the Iranians will just beg for us not to follow them home (which we should just do).

[Fee]

We will not enter Iran, but we will defeat any Iranian incursions with SOF team working with Kurdish troops and airpower like we did with Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against Taliban forces. However, the fight will ignite Kurdish nationalism in Iran, and we should support their uprising with arms and resources. Iraq will be their sanctuary (where Iran can not enter) and Iranian resources will be spent fighting a Kurdish insurgency in Kurdish parts of Iran. That means the Iranian must re allocate resources to defend themselves then sent out of country to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iraqi insurgents. Iran has to measure twice before they start something that they cannot finish.

[stm]

We should already be there.

[2001convSVT]

It would if their where American troops assigned to police the Northern Iraqi provinces. I don’t know if there are any American troops in the region, the Kurds have done a good job of policing themselves. At the very least the Iraqi army should be called up to protect their sovereign territory, and the Iraqi government could ask the US for help in protecting its people from invaders.

[casino66]

The last two paragraphs sum it up quite well:

“......if we seize this opportunity to smash an Iranian Revolutionary Guards offensive with massive force, we could send a message that will make Iran’s leaders think twice before messing with us again.

It’s about time we made Iran’s leaders pay a price for killing Americans and undermining America’s allies. Here is a terrific opportunity to get that job done.”

And get it done we must, before we take the chance that a dim wins in 08 and we surrender.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Iranian shells raining down on Iraqi villages in Kurdish areas along the border zone in the north, Iran’s leaders have engaged the United States in a high stakes game that has gone virtually unreported in the elite media."

Then by all means, let them have it. Give those Kurds something BIG to toss back at them.

There are 14 dead troops who's lives need to be avenged. I'd say, 1000 Iranian troops for each one.

Steenkin' Iranian Mullahs need a good beotch slapping.

[Nathan Zachary]

"I don’t know if there are any American troops in the region, the Kurds have done a good job of policing themselves."

What the heck are you talkin' about? we just lost 14 troops there yesterday!!!

[RolandBurnam]

good post.

[ClaireSolt]

There is a revolutionary movement that Turkey and Iran object to. We won’t fight for them.

[ishabibble]

Here is John Bolton’s take on the Iranian situation:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/23/video-bolton-absolutely-hopes-us-is-planning-to-hit-iran-within-next-six-months/

[casino66]

I agree that it is very complicated. How do we protect the Kurds without getting the Turks upset; and how do we hit Iran without a lot of support from the rest of the world?
Will Russia and/or China step in to protect their sources of oil? Russia is supporting their nuclear program. It can get real messy. Is Israel going to sit on the sidelines and just watch. It goes on and on.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

How many thousand Iranian troops?

[casino66]

Article just says “Iran has massed thousands of troops”.

Maybe the NYT will have our plans all laid out tomorrow on the front page.

[popdonnelly]

Nuke them.

[mjp]

Iran has massed thousands of troops along its northwestern border in preparation for a ground assault against Iranian Kurdish fighters

Iran's Vietnam

[Kevmo]

Here’s what I’ve been pushing for:

We should withdraw from Iraq — through Tehran. Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.

How to Stand Up to Iran

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36

Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.

15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts

Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.

Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.

Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.

.
.

I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.

I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.

The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).

It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend” when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldn’t be a wise move for them, they’d get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.

If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. It’s time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.

Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, it’s a messy situation. If Turkey goes “into the war on Iran’s side” then they ain’t really our allies and that’s the end of that.

I agree that it’s hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”

This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that don’t agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.

What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts

Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105

My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant “allies” like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that we’d need as many folks in police and nurse’s uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didn’t follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just haven’t won the peace.

I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, they’ve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when they’re done with that, we can help “negotiate” with our other “allies”, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.

That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up what’s left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.

That leaves Damascus for round II. The whole deal could be circumvented by Syria if they simply allow real inspections of the WOMD sites. And when I say “real”, I mean real — the inspectors would have a small armor division that they could call on whenever they get held up by some local yocal who didn’t get this month’s bribe. Hussein was an idiot to dismantle all of his WOMDs and then not let the inspectors in. If he had done so, he’d still be in power, pulling Bush’s chain.