Steve and Jen bring you this daily review of the news
Premium Advertiser

News Blog Sponsors

News Links

BBC World Service
The Guardian
Washington Post
Iraq Order of Battle
NY Times
LA Times
ABC News

Blogs We Like

Daily Kos
Digby's Blog
Operation Yellow Elephant
Iraq Casualty Count
Media Matters
Talking Points
Defense Tech
Intel Dump
Soldiers for the Truth
Margaret Cho
Juan Cole
Just a Bump in the Beltway
Baghdad Burning
Howard Stern
Michael Moore
James Wolcott
Cooking for Engineers
There is No Crisis
Whiskey Bar
Rude Pundit
Crooks and Liars
Amazin' Avenue
DC Media Girl
The Server Logs

Blogger Credits

Powered by Blogger

Archives by
Publication Date
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
Comments Credits
Comments by YACCS
Wednesday, August 23, 2006

He works for the Kurds

Kurdish factorum Peter Galbraith

Gone to pieces

Be Our Guest


But it is time for the administration to face an uncomfortable reality: There is no longer any such thing as a single nation called Iraq. In the north, Kurdistan has its own government, army and flag, and it does not allow the Iraqi flag or army on its territory. The Shiite south is ruled by religious parties and militias. The Sunni Arab center is a battleground between Sunni insurgents and the U.S. military operating in alliance with mostly Shiite Iraqi troops. In Baghdad, Al Qaeda offshoots dominate many of the Sunni neighborhoods in the city's west while the pro-Hezbollah Mahdi Army controls the Shiite east.

Iraq's supposed "government of national unity" is not very united, and governs almost nothing.
So the real question is not "How do we hold Iraq together?" but "What would it take to put it back together?"

At a minimum, the U.S. would have to disarm the Shiite militias and end the Sunni-Shiite civil war. Disarming the militias means taking on well-armed fighters supported by Iran. To end the civil war, U.S. troops would have to become Baghdad's police force. These missions would require many more troops than we have in Iraq today and would lead to greater U.S. casualties.

But even if we could put Iraq together, is that a worthy goal? Iraq's Kurds have created a Western-oriented aspiring democracy in the north. What U.S. interest is served by forcing them to live in an Iraq that is theocratic and allied with Iran? And if Iraq's Shiites want their own state, as apparently they do, why should we commit our military to stopping them?

Iraq is already partitioned. The question now is whether America should pay a higher price in blood and treasure to reassemble a country that a sizable proportion of its people do not want.
Shorter Peter Galbraith: Let the Kurds have their own country, and keep the Turks and the Shia off our backs.

Because the Turks and Iranians will never permit a Kurdish state and no matter what the Hakims say, Sadr wants a unitary Iraq and at the end of the day, he may have the whip hand.

Why is Kurdistan not viable?

The smallest part of a potential Kurdistan lies in Iraq. Oh yeah, Galbraith never mentions Kirkuk as the future capital of Kurdistan, but that's what they want, along with the oil. And that is a wee bit of a problem. No one is giving the Kurds Kirkuk or any oil. Much less any control over the Turkomen.

posted by Steve @ 2:39:00 AM

2:39:00 AM

The News Blog home page


Editorial Staff

Add to My AOL

Support The News Blog

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
News Blog Food Blog
Visit the News Blog Food Blog
The News Blog Shops
Operation Yellow Elephant
Enlist, Young Republicans