5 posts tagged “iraq”

See, this is what kind of mess we're in....

Musharraf has assumed command. Funny, but it's going just like I thought: the deal with Bhutto seems primarily to be a deal with the Taliban. Don't believe me? Read the reports: you've got troops being moved into Waziristan, but then, being ordered not to attack, meanwhile, Musharraf is talking about "negotiations" while the tribal leaders are saying "We'd like to negotiate, where's musharraf?" and key people (all non-Taliban, natch) are dying. It makes no sense whatsoever, unless Musharraf has a deal through Bhutto with the Taliban.

Strangely, you'll note that neither America nor India is complaining.

Meanwhile, you've got Turkey sorting out Sorties against Kurdistan, and the US congress declaring that Turkey's responsible for genocide....fifty years ago. Meanwhile, Iran is defending against Kurd attacks in Iran, and we're declaring the Republican Gaurd a terrorist organization.

Starting to see the deck of cards for what it is?

This might help: if we support the Kurds, we'll lose Iran, and Turkey. If we lose Turkey, we lose our main supply route in Iraq. if we lose Iran, we're set up for them to get into a war with both us, and Iraq. If that war happens, It's very likely it'll become a multi-national battle, stretching from Turkey to India. If we give up the Kurds, they'll be overtaken by the Turks and Persian, most likely to be oppressed and their resources taken. But, the southern part of Iraq will be peaceful, but Afghanistan to Pakistan might just turn on us.

In other words, we're looking at conflict any way we turn. This is why it's called a quagmire, folks.

The ONLY route I could see, from the beginning was to side with Moderate muslims, from the Students in Iran to Sharif in pakistan to the turks. This would still mean turning our heads to some truly obscene violations of human rights (the Kurds are pretty much screwed) but it might just keep us from destroying ourselves over there.

It just baffles me how anyone thinks we're going to get out of this with any less damage than that.....

You might have heard about the skirmishes in Iran and Iraq, with both sides saying it was the other? Well, what that was concerned the Kurds. The Kurds, as an ethnic group, spill over into Iran, and Syria, and Turkey. They, of course, would like to see a united Kurdistan, but, quite frankly, that's unlikely. Again, this is the wisdom in siding with Iran: it might be possible to negotiate some kind of peaceful settlement for the Kurds. If we don't side with Iran, the rest of Iraq will not care about the Kurds, and they'll probably get annexed by either Iran or Turkey, only to face the same kind of subjugation they faced under Saddam. I don't believe Gul is a strong enough leader in Turkey to go against Iraq, Iran and Syria to take the kurds under his none-too-protective wing. Iran, if left to their own devices, wouldn't be much better. But, Iran, if a deal was offered, might be willing and Able to recognize an Independant Kurdistan. They could keep the Turks and Syrians out of it.

But, again, what would I know? I'm not a general.

I probably could write four books on the Middle East. Not only did I live there for a few years, I studied the history of it for two years in college. Maybe that's why I've got a different perspective than most Americans on the topic.

For example, I have friends that think that Obama's statements concerning Pakistan were a good thing, because, gosh darn it, Pakistan is harboring Bin Laden, and we should go to the ends of the earth to hunt down that 6'5" monstrosity.

I believe that's not only an incredibly naive position, it also shows some ineptitude. I knew, when Obama made those statements that Musharraf was in talks with Benazir Bhutto. If I knew, then I fail to understand how Obama couldn't know. If you have a short memory, follow the link. I especially want you to notice her role in connection to both the Bush administration, and the Taliban. Now that those talks have held forth some fruit, with the supposition that Bhutto is in some sort of alliance with Musharraf, it's even more clear that tough talk with Musharraf is blowing smoke, at best, and cutting off our nose to spite our face, more likely. I'm not saying he's our friend. I'm saying that, if he goes, we get a much worse enemy, in that Bhutto, radcliffe education or not, clearly is power-mad, and willing to align with our enemies, while re-assuring us that she's not. Furthermore, there's the question of the balance of power between India, and Pakistan. If we were to bomb Pakistan, as Obama indicated that he'd be willing to do, most likely India would attempt to take command of their century-old rival. This would not sit well with virtually anybody, and would practically assure World War 3 by 2010. The simple fact is that, like him or not, we need Musharraf. He's the closest we're going to get to a reliable ally in Pakistan. Certainly, he's not going too strongly after Bin Laden, but if he did, he'd be deposed within a fortnight, with his own officers leading the charge, and we'd have a whole new taliban, or a whole new Saddam in place of him. Either quite literally, a taliban-influenced government would take hold, or Bhutto would turn into a similar creature to Saddam Hussein.

Then, we have Iran. Could we be following a more impractical path? i don't think so.

First let me get two elephants out of the room; First, the religious question: Yes, the Imams have waaay too much power, there. Iran is a theocratic state. However, it's a semi-theocracy, with a strong secular undercurrent, especially amoungst the nascent middle class 20-30 year olds. Shi'ia may include people like Khomeni (who was the 'big bad Muslim" before Bin Laden got the job) but it also includes people like Rumi (Sufism derives from the Shi'ia, not the Sunni). So, with help from the US, Iran could be a moderate religious state.

The second elephant is the nuclear question. Quite frankly, yes, they are enriching uranium. But nowhere near to weapons-grade. The UN just released another set of findings earlier this week that said as much. So, why is Bush beating that drum? The same reason he was pushing "WMDs" about Iraq. He thinks it will invoke enough fear that America will support any action he takes against Iran. So, why are they enriching uranium? Because they're actually decently educated and know, better than we seem to, that the end of Oil is coming, and they have no desire to become Flint, Michegan, after GM left. They don't want to go back to the stone age. So, nuclear power really is a smart move for them.

So, Did they train "insurgents" in Iraq? You bet they did. Well before we got there. Y'see, there was this little matter of a total war they were waging against Saddam. Quick, anybody, do you remember what the Iran-Iraq war was about? Yes, that's right, Jane, it was about trying to overthrow Saddam and his Sunni Ba'athist party due to their oppression of Shi'ia in Iraq.So, of course Iran trained Shi'ia in Iraq in guerilla tactics against the Sunni in Iraq. Evidently, the folks who planned our little fiasco over there never heard the maxim that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". If we could get beyond the notion that Islam=Evil, we might notice that Iran would make one heck of a friend.

Yes, a Shi'ite state in Iran and Iraq would means some oppression of the Sunni. But, it would also go a very long way towards a stable middle east. And if the US were on the side of Iran, we'd probably have a lot less troops needed to fight the war on "terror". It'd be in Iran's best interest to get rid of Wahhabists  and their armed friends in the Network (yes, that means Bin Laden, too)

Again, with US Support, there's decent evidence to suggest that a stronger Iran would probably end up being a more moderate state. Heck, they'd probably be more moderate than Saudi Arabia.

They probably wouldn't ever be too fond of Israel, and our misguided support of Israel, even in light of all the abuses and atrocities that Israel has created against the Palestinians is probably the biggest reason why something like what i'm outlining hasn't happened.

Now, again, this is just a brief little glimpse into a few of my thoughts concerning the middle east, but you gotta admit, it's a completely different take than what you'll get on the evening news.

I'm not saying that I'm totally right, and they're totally wrong. But my version is backed up by a little bit more than phantom studies, and wishful thinking.

Attacking Pakistan, attacking Iran, and continuing to try to go it alone in Iraq? That's worse than wishful thinking: that's a good way to kill thousands upon thousands of US soldiers for a result that's less stable, and more hostile than anything we have,now.

So, I hear that George W Bush still thinks the surge is working, and won't be rethinking, even in september. This is supposed to be news? I'm pretty certain that Mr. Bush has made explicit that he feels that God is on his side, and has his hand guided by the Almighty. Why would such a man care what congress says?

Further, despite grandstanding, like "pulling an all nighter", when has congress differed from Mr. Bush in a substantial manner? It shouldn't surprise anyone when, in september, they give him pretty much whatever budget he wants, to conduct his pivate war however he wants. I suspect that's because they don't actually care all that much, and are feeling out the voters for how much war protest is really in them. I'm sincerely hoping that some voters feel as strongly as I do that this war is immoral, and tactically unsound.

I mean, say we were to out-and-out cut and run. Just haul every yankee out of Iraq, immediately. According to most of the politicians, then, "Our enemies" would "win". This is kinda interesting to me, in that most of the major players in the Iraqi civil war are Iraqis. That means that whoever ended up with control would be an Iraqi, and would gain that control by amassing a force of other Iraqis. Certainly there are foreign-born combatants, but the bottom line is that there would be self-rule in Iraq. Now, isn't that our stated goal? Further, didn't we go in stating that we're not trying to build a nation? See, I think (and I could be wrong, here) that the language our politicians use points the way to what our policy really is: if Iraqi self-rule is "our enemy", then, we only win when Iraq is firmly under our control. I could live with that, but I don't think Iraq could. So, if I'm right, I expect our occupation to be very, very long lasting.