Redstate

mentioned the CFR along with Biden, luckily for them I couldn't find a link on the subject in a reasonable amount of time.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

this means something. What, I don't know.

I take it that you think the presence of Israel, whatever its merits, has added to the stability of the region? I also take it that you do realizwe that Israel is able to defend itself.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

besides - "Pentagon asks US Congress to authorize sale of 3,000 smart bombs worth $65 m to Israel"

an idiot.

Glad we cleared that up.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I had a real snarky comment ready for straycat expressing my disappointment that the vast military/industrial complex was being unduly shortchanged.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

1. That unification will come at the expense of four existing nations. None of them will be happy. Inevitably, one or more of them will not go along with the idea. Instead of giving the Iranians or Kurds something to worry about it would confront us with a dilemma of supporting Kurdish independence and maybe engaging in combat with a NATO ally. It certainly would confront us with the spectre of supporting the Kurds by airpower alone with each mission flown through hostile airspace.

2. The Kurds do not have a seaport and those four nations could insure that Kurd oil wealth stays in the ground.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I know they are still looking for EU membership. The Kurds have to be giving the EU fits with their multicultural regulations. Oil wealth from Iraq and Iran flowing through a pipeline in turkey and all that trade going through Turkish ports might buy them off.

Admittedly I am not that knowledgeable of the region. There is also the problem of the other Iraqi's that we have a moral obligation to. (We are probably the only nation that takes moral obligations seriously) so its impractical.

It just seems a shame not to VEX I MEAN REALLY VEX Iran and Syria. Just dealing with Kurdish problems could tie them down for years.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The potential is unlimited. Kurd v. the Turks, Syrians, and Iranians. Kurds v. Sunni in Kirkuk. Shi'a v. Sunni. Shi'a v. Shi'a in the South. Iranian, Syrian, Saudi, Turkish, and Jordanian competition for influence.

Most Kurds are in fact Sunni - it would be Kurd vs Arab in Kirkuk.

Rant Street! www.rant.st

the current Iraqi constitution creates the situation you speak of. Biden, et al, view a situation in which the central government has little authority over the subordinate states. This government would have little power to tax and little revenue with which to provide a central military.

The additional danger, as pointed out, is that the Shi'a aren't all that interested in a singular Shi'a region. The inhabitants of the provinces that have oil are in favor of keeping it. Similarly, in a coherent Iraq with federal regions and the oil revenue redistribution law just signed, the Sunnis have no vested interest in going to war over the control of Kirkuk. No central government and no oil law, and the Kirkuk problem will not be settled by a referendum.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Yeah, we'd all feel more comfortable if we could only start thinking of Iraq as a USA, but with 3 states.
It's a very manageable idea if not the actual reality.
Is it more like the former Yugoslavia, in need of separating?
We need to start asking the people of Iraq.

In the last few days, we began a 3-mile wall around a Sunni enclave in Baghdad. Our purpose was to separate and protect both Shia and Sunnis from each other. The Maliki gov't has now asked us to stop this little Biden-type plan because it felt that tensions would only grow worse with the wall.

BTW, Sen. Biden didn't order this short-lived wall. General Petraeus did. What plan is correct?

In the last few days, we began a 3-mile wall around a Sunni enclave in Baghdad. Our purpose was to separate and protect both Shia and Sunnis from each other.

That's really not the case.

We've used walls, actually dirt berms, a Tall Afar, Fallujah, and other places to restrict travel to a series of monitored checkpoints where IDs and vehicle registrations are checked.

Maliki is obviously very vulnerable to comparisons of this wall to the wall being constructed by the Israelis. We'll see if it actually stops.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

not a dirt berm. I'm not there so I don't know but I saw the pics on AOL and NBC. The report was of a 12 Foot Concrete Wall.

" We'll see if it actually stops." Yes, that is the question. Will some attempt to separate the deadly factions continue?

delivered by truck. Acknowledged. It does nothing to change how the walls are used. Not to separate combatant but to control ingress and egress.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

these are the jersey barriers that we have in the U.S.? the 3 foot tall version? that doesn't seem like it would stop anything- so I assuming it's a much taller version? anyone know?

looks like an 8 foot variety of jersey barrier-so I guess they would need a ladder or a friend to give them a boost-

anyway here's a link to some pics:

http://www.dvidshub.net/index.php?script=images/images_gallery.php&actio...

20% of Turkey is Kurdish and there has been a long running Kurdish independence movement in Turkey and long term active Turkish suppression of Kurdish language and identity. An independent Kurdistan would serve as a rallying point for Turkish Kurds and the Turkish government would view it the same way most of us look at the way Mexico sucks up to the MEChA jerkoffs and the reconquista movement.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

at all afraid to use it for protecting what they perceive to be their national interests and territories, as they did in Cyprus.

Only reckless thinking could envision a breakup of Iraq into independent countries as a good thing.

Which of course explains the enthusiasm of some Democrats.

is reckless thinking. Having separate states united under a strong central Federal Government is Ok. In the US the state of Alaska shares with the other 49 states its oil revenues. There could be some political benefits to Iraqis having both local government and national government.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

functioning constitutional government:

- a government that respects their culture
- a rich government that has oil revenue
- a government that will resist their absorption by Turkey
- a government that is free of Saddam and his ilk
- a government where the Kurds constitute a significant power bloc with all the advantages that entails.

One would think the MSM would pay more attention to how Iraqi Kurdistan has flourished without Saddam. One would be wrong.

And the Turks have a very large army and they are not at all afraid to use it for protecting what they perceive to be their national interests and territories, as they did in Cyprus.

I can't believe the Turks invaded Cyprus because it had plotted to attack the mainland with missiles, invasion or suicide bombers. Wasn't it on the pretext that some Turkish residents on the island were discriminated against -- or for some equally feeble definition of "national interests" ? If so, I submit that they "perceive" conquest of weak neighbors to be part of that definition.

Radical Greek nationalists on Cyprus, in cahoots with the Greek junta of the day, were plotting the overthrow of the government of Cyprus in pursuit of their goal of "Enosis", union with Greece.

The Turks perceived a threat to the Cypriot Turks and launched an invasion despite diplomatic efforts at settlement, which were on the verge of success. The invasion was very costly in terms of life and economic ruin.

More details at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enosis

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/tango/turkeycyprus1974.htm

to peacefully establish an independent nation via democratic means should be responded to in what fashion?

If the kansans do make good on their desire for independence, not because of Joe Biden but because they want it, what are we supposed to do about that fact?

Or, if a majority of Alaskans in the North demand independence using ballot box, what are we to do about that?

Just curious.

Are national borders in the Developed World always sacrosanct, even if enforcing them violates the principle of self-determination?

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Any attempt at 13 colonies to peacefully establish an independent nation via democratic means should be responded to in what fashion?

If the colonists do make good on their desire for independence, not because of Joe Biden but because they want it, what are the British supposed to do about that fact?

Are national borders in the New World always sacrosanct, even if enforcing them violates the principle of self-determination?

In 1861, secession was a mistake. In 1861, forcing Union upon the south was a mistake. Sometimes, both sides are wrong.

If Vermont votes to seceed, I would say "Here's your star. Dont let the door hit you on the way out."

I do think the initial question is important, because at some point in the future, Kurdistan will leave Iraq. Maybe in the 70s when they offered to become a US state, we should have taken them up on the deal.

as a constant undercurrent in politics. Back in the "Blue Eyed Arab" days of the late seventies, early eighties it was a strong enough undercurrent to put candidates on the gubernatorial ballot; the Alaskan Independence Party remains on the ballot and commonly, though unsuccessfully fields a slate of candidates. Walter Hickel, who most would have described as "Mr. Republican," actually won his second gubernatorial term as the AIP candidate, though he never mentioned independence again.

The general consensus is that it is a foolish notion and the province of the black helicopter gang and various other malcontents, so they have had trouble keeping the 2% of the vote in the general necessary to be on the ballot without a candidate petition. That said, there is always a deep and ready reservoir of resentment towards the federal government that anyone who wants to demagogue can tap. I've discussed the reasons for that resentment before here and don't want to start that over. Needless to say, we generally see "bridges to nowhere" differently from many in the Lower 48.

In Vino Veritas

http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=248

Who is an Arab?
"Arab" is a cultural and linguistic term. It refers to those who speak Arabic as their first language. Arabs are united by culture and by history. Arabs are not a race. Some have blue eyes and red hair; others are dark skinned; many are somewhere in between. "

So - any attempt by the Kurds, the Shia, or Sunni to peacefully establish an independent nation via democratic means should be responded to in what fashion?

I don't see how this could happen. It is difficult to see how any of the situations you reference can happen democratically because in all those cases 70% or so of Iraqis could be counted on voting against the option. Unless what you are really proposing is a plebiscite within an area guaranteed to vote in a particular direction.

If the Kurds do make good on their desire for independence, not because of Joe Biden but because they want it, what are we supposed to do about that fact?

Nothing. There is ample precedent for what a unilateral declaration of independence brings about. Dublin, 1916. Katanga, 1961. Rhodesia, 1965. Biafra, 1967. Oh, and Charleston, SC, 1861. Without the US military to guarantee any of these actions we would rightfully expect the Iraqi Army to be called upon to suppress an illegal assertion of independence.

Self-determination is an interesting Wilsonian phrase and coming from you somewhat unexpected. The stakes here, and the potential negative outcomes, are too great to let decisions like independence to be made in a vacuum.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Democracy and self-determination are not the same things. Our history, the Quebecois, the Flemish/Walloon conflict, and many others demonstrate that self-determination is not absolute. Cases like the "Velvet Divorce" shows how it can happen but the example of Yugoslavia is much more the norm.

In this area of the world we simply can't afford to let self-determination accomplish again what Gavrilo Princip did in Sarajevo in June, 1914.

What the Kurds, Shi'a, etc. need to understand is that they will get much more of what they want inside a federal Iraq that is strong enough to defend them than they will get as independent entities who can't defend themselves.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

You are right, self-determination isnt absolute, but what is standard? Do we have anything to guide us in determining when a region declaring itself independent is okay? I suggest the following:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Of the French and Spanish on our behalf, that quote would be a Trivia Pursuit question.

Are we willing to be the guarantor for the independence of any of these statelets? Is anyone? If not, they may make a moral statement by declaring independence but they will be just another Iranian or Turkish province in short order unless they can defend themselves.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Theory and pragmatism are two different things. I dont think we should determine whether it is "right" to do something based on whether or not it will succeed.

That being said, should we negotiate with Turkey to get them to accept a Kurdistan? Maybe, eventually. Or maybe we tell the Kurds they have our full moral support but they are on their own. Hope it works out for ya.

Im also not sure that as a Turkish or Iranian province they wouldnt be more trouble than they are worth. Could be the worst mistake Turkey or Iran could make.

Something that is just a bad idea is not right. While there might be an emotional appeal to Kurdish independence, unless we are willing to guarantee that independence we are really subsidizing genocide.

Both the Turks and Iranians have shown that no province is more trouble than its worth, especially when it contains a huge amount of oil.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Kurdish independence isnt our decision to make. If they choose to go for it, it may be suicide, but we wont be involved (unless we support them or oppose them).

Hopefully, the surge succeeds, Iraq stabalizes, the troops come home. Then if Kurdistan breaks off, its not our problem, they made a choice.

Now, if you are talking about the Biden plan, well, thats different. But I thought we were all already in agreement that Biden is an idiot.

we do have a veto power on that subject. If we don't do all we can to dissuade them from independence then we will be complicit in setting their fate. Doing nothing doesn't mean you aren't acting. It just means you are doing nothing.

Kurdistan breaking off would be very much our problem for reasons I outlined in the story.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Turkey will not accept an independent Kurdistan on its borders, especially with the history they have with the PKK (Kurdistan Worker's Party), which has engaged in a considerable amount of terrorist activity.

See background:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9241/#3