Dynamics in U.S. politics in 2016 capable of damaging all manner of relationships.

As is typical of someone from my generation, I always find myself comparing the present to the past.  The United States of 2016 is no doubt split by political ideologies that could not be more further apart.  When I think about the different stages of my life, I am unable to recall a time when Americans were so politically polarized.  The Red State voter is motivated by a deep resentment for Barack Obama, and the Blue State voter is exhibiting the same kind of emotion for Donald Trump.  Personally, I hate this time of year.  It seems to be impossible to express oneself politically without offending a friend here and there.  Recently my blog posts have been more political, and I also post the occasional news link on Facebook.  Each time I post a political blog, I find myself worried about possibly offending friends with different political ideas.  I wonder, am I the only one who feels this way?  I can think of three friends in particular, one in Washington, one in Tennessee, and one in New York City, for whom I have tremendous respect and admiration.  All three work very hard, and have created successful careers and relationships.  I don't know how or why we ended up on the opposite end of the political spectrum, but here we are.  With Social Media at everyone's fingertips in one form or another, it only takes a few seconds to write a political comment or link an online article.  Recently, one of my friends posted his thoughts about Donald Trump, and I agreed with much of his assessment.  In totality, though, I did not agree with main thrust of his argument.  I wanted to reply, and provide my perspective. Then I remembered, how many times have I written something that rubbed him a bit raw?  Probably more times than I would like to admit.  Don't get me wrong; none of my friends are thinned-skinned.  All three love to laugh and reflect on some of the more absurd daily details of life.  The problem is with me.  Actually, the problem is with a bunch of folks, not just me.

Lets face it: roughly one-half of the country is conservative and one-half is not.  You know just as well as I do that the two separate voting groups are for the most part, cemented to their overall political perspective.  Nothing I post in my blog is going to change someone's mind about not voting for Donald Trump, and no amount of reasonable argumentation is going to convince someone in Midland, Texas, to vote for Hillary Clinton.  No doubt the recent past was different.  During the elections of the 1970's and 80's, the Independent voter accounted for more than ten percent of the electorate.  It was possible to sway an undecided voter here and there with a well-argued commentary or speech.  You would think that in 2016, if the Independent voter is down to three or four percent, and the rest of the country is evenly split, that the Independent voter would be even more valuable today.  I just don't buy it anymore.  When Trump spends the next week, screaming himself hoarse before thousands and thousand of supporters, he will not be impacting his final vote tally, and neither will Hillary, campaigning with Elizabeth Warren in Rhode Island one day and Joe Biden in Delaware the next.  This election will work itself out in a fashion very similar to 2008 and 2012.  The side that motivates its voters to not only get to the polls, but to drag two or three like-minded voters along for the trip, will reap the rewards of victory.  The Democrats have run circles around the GOP when it comes to registering and getting people to the polls on election day, so the Republican Party had better be working up a sweat chasing down those unregistered conservative voters.  I think that this election will highlight the importance of the precinct workers more than every before.  In 2012, a number of odd things accurred in certain respective precincts across the nation.  It was nothing that would have impacted the final outcome, but both sides are being very careful to ensure precinct representation.

So why do we keep writing blogs, and linking stories, and watching debates, when we all know that our efforts aren't changing the mind of even one voter?  Since I know that turnout and getting voters to the polls will have the real impact on this election, then why did I link that article today on Facebook which trashed Obamacare in Alaska?  Can anyone out there who reads my blog (U.S. citizens only, please) honestly say that some random blog post of mine from the last year caused you to reconsider your choice for president?  I have been trying to keep my political commentaries and links to a minimum, but inevitably something I read online will nag at me until I offer a rebuttal.  The truth is, I like my friends and I don't want them to think that our political differences have the power to put a strain on our friendships.  The three individuals of whom I speak are truly amazing people and I am fortunate to know them.  I am beginning to consider the possibility that we have become so different in the way we view our nation and how we believe society should evolve, that the time has come to separate.  I realize we tried it once before, but I dare say the circumstances are different.  Red State and Blue State citizens seem to be so polarized, that maybe we would all get along so much better if we just went our separate ways.  Have you looked at the violence that accompanies political rallies today?  Its disengenuous to blame Trump; American flags were getting burned and Mexican flags waved long before Donald decide to bully his way into this election.  The truth is, we are like an old married couple that have grown apart, and for some reason, sentiment probably, we refuse to even begin the discussion of separation.  Here is the reality, folks.  Red Staters were not happy with many of the developments of the Obama years, and if Trump wins, I can guarantee you that the Blue Staters will be at least as agitated with some of Trump's actions.  Keep in mind, he has already announced his willingness to utilize Executive Action in the same manner as his predecessor.  At the end of the day, I hope we can find a way to reach across the divide and not aggravate our friends with opposing viewpoints.  Maybe we can get past this election without having to split apart as well.  Its possible that an emeny may invade our towns and cities and force us to remember the things that kept us together all these years.  God Bless America.  

Should Iraq be partitioned?

Links: A. Considerations on partitioning Iraq.
           B. The U.S. contemplates partitioning Iraq.


In 2006, then-Senator Joe Biden suggested that consideration be given to the partition of Iraq.  I believe at the time, that the idea was to allow the Kurds a homeland in the north, the Sunni would stay put in the central belt region, and the Shi'a would have an independent state in the south.  For some reason, I couldn't buy into this argument, although for the life of me I can't recall why.  I know that Turkey would have had a proverbial herd of cows if the Kurds had been given a homeland, and the Sunni, who as a minority have always ruled Iraq, would've been forced to accept a smaller and less-wealthy nation, but something else kept me from joining the "pro-partition" partisans.  I think it was probably just an example of the traditionalist in me not wanted to change the maps again.  But we've reached that point again, when folks in position of authority are whispering about partitioning Iraq.  It does piss me off a bit, because this discussion wasn't really necessary.  We could have avoided this position if we hadn't been in such a hurry to get out of Iraq.

Our rapid departure from Iraq was not necessary.  The Iraqis were not requesting it, and our military leaders were strongly advising otherwise.  Everyone seemed to be in agreement that the Iraqi military needed to be responsible for Iraq's external security, but only after sufficient training had taken place.  Its my understanding that the training program that had been approved by the administration hadn't even started before Obama changed his mind and pulled the rug out from under everyone.  So we left Iraq in the hands of an untrained, unprofessional army, with a huge invitation to ISIS to "come on in, folks!"  And they didn't need to be asked twice.  The real tragedy is that Iraq was beginning to settle into existence as a unitary state, with an economy that connected all the various regions and ethnicities.  As its traditional boundaries are drawn, Iraq is fortunate to have natural resources distributed in all parts of the nation.  This fact contributed to the successful re-establishment of an internationally-focused economy.  The presence of the U.S. military allowed for consecutive years of peace, something foreign to many Iraqis.  Markets were open and full of produce, schools were full, traffic lights worked, the electoral process was improving with each election, Iraq's airports were using the designation "international" again, the national soccer team was winning (occasionally), and an Olympic team existed to represent all Iraqis.  Compare those few facts with the situation in Iraq today.  You can lay all of this at the feet of Barrack Obama.  He felt the political pressure from his base to follow through on his irresponsible pledge to rid Iraq of U.S. military forces at the earliest possible opportunity.  And lets face it: the ultimate sacrifice of all those American young men and women....does it mean nothing to Obama?  Peace was achieved and prosperity was at hand, and for politics' sake, he turned success into failure.  His actions did everything possible to encourage sectarian movement amongst the various ethnicities of Iraq. Without the U.S. Army, the only security is with your own kind.  That is the perspective of the various groups trying to survive in Iraq today.

Back to the idea of partitioning Iraq.  First and foremost, its really absurd of the United States to be considering the limits of the national boundaries of a sovereign nation which is diplomatically accredited in the United States and a member in good standing of the United Nations (what the hell is that, anyway?).  Be that as it may, I have always supported the Kurdish independence movement.  The Kurds have played the game so long, and been such good team players, that they deserve the opportunity to govern themselves.  The truth is, Kurdistan would probably exist today as a separate and legitimate nation-state if it weren't for issues regarding oil.  How much oil are the Kurds sitting on, and should it belong to all the people of Iraq, and not just the Kurds?  A specious argument, considering that the Kurds have never benefitted from any of the other oil deposits in Iraq.  Most Iraqis don't consider the Kurds to be Iraqi, even though most Kurds are Muslim.  If Iraq were at peace, it might not be a bad idea to consider three separate nations, one for each ethnicity.  But given the current conflict raging against the Islamic State, its really a moot point.  The good guys are hoping to find a way to keep Iraq from becoming one united nation under the Islamic State, and don't have much time to sit around discussing the viability of a Kurdish, Sunni and Shia separation.

A quick review of the excellent links that I've provided will remind everyone that efforts to create multiple nations based on ethnicity, from the remains of a failed, much larger state (Yugoslavia, for example), have usually not been successful.  I don't know if those examples are applicable in this instance, though.  If Iraq were divided into three nations, the two voices that would be screeching the loudest would be Turkey and the Iraqi Sunnis.  The Turks are paranoid that the establishment of a Kurdish state will eventually lead to an attempt to annex parts of eastern Asia Minor (Turkey), where the Turks constitute a majority of the population.  As long as Erdogan is in office, I'm all for anything that will piss off the Turks, so no problem there.  The Iraqi Sunnis will also threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue and pass out, because they've always been the chosen ones.  The Kurds, the Assyrians, the Shi'a, the Jews, have always had to sit way in the back of the Iraqi bus, so to speak.  Even though Saddam rarely spent money on infrastructure or social projects, when he did, it was for the benefit of a Sunni community.  That explains the abject poverty that exists in the Iraqi Shi'a communities located in the south-central and southern parts of Iraq.  The Kurds, God love 'em, didn't wait around for a handout from Saddam's Baghdad; they created their own economy, and also benefitted greatly from the Kurdish diaspora.  For all practical purposes, Kurdistan has been a self-sufficient nation-state for some time now.  Its just not recognized outside of Sulimaniyah.  The Kurds even have their own military, and as I've commented before, you don't want to pick a fit with the Pesh Merga.  As for the Iraqi Sunni, I don't think they will have much luck finding a sympathetic ear anytime soon.

Under ideal circumstances, It might just be time for serious consideration to be given to the partition of Iraq.  But given the current state of affairs, it just doesn't make sense.  We might be re-writing the boundaries of a nation that won't exist in 2016.  Lets focus on winning this war first.

Just what is Iran's strategy in Syria and Iraq?

Link: What is the Iranian Strategy?

The article which I have linked is so concise, well-written and full of relevant details, that I had no need to added a second link.  You might be assuming that it was written by me, but in this instance, I can't take the credit.  With regard to the ISIS/ISIL conflict playing out in Syria and Iraq, Iran is a major player.  The Iranians support Bashir al-Assad in Damascus, and currently appear to be calling the shots in Baghdad, Yemen, and Lebanon (Iran is also close with Oman's Sultan Qaboos).  The recent military gains near the oil refinery in Baiji have been attributed to support provided to the Iraqi Army by Shia militias directed by Teheran.  While Turkey purposely steps on everyone's toes, the United States fumbles around, searching for a coherent strategy, and ISIL spends every waking moment looking for a woman to rape or a head to chop off, the Iranians have stealthily strengthened their position in every theater.  Don't get me wrong, I'm still very pessimistic regarding the future of Baghdad, but the Iranians are beginning to apply a few more resources to the struggle, which traditionally signals a new, more aggressive policy on the part of Teheran.  Actually, the Iranians almost seem to be in the catbird seat.  ISIL has been stopped, temporarily, from its efforts to control the northern Iraqi oil fields, and the Iranians have yet to deploy one regular army brigade (although the Badr Corps and Kataib Hezbollah are bound to have Iranian military advisors on hand).  Assad, Teheran's man in Syria, has been given a new lease on life due to the allied air campaign against ISIL, al-Nusra Front, Khorasan and the Partridge Family (excuse the sarcasm, I'm still full of myself after the geniuses in the Pentagon discovered that the groups were part of the same network, which I've been declaring for two months).  In fact, by the time the Free Syrian Army has been trained to adequately fight defensively, the regular Syrian Army will be reconstituted to the point of being the strongest military element in Syria.  And once Assad is back on top, I doubt seriously that Putin and Teheran will allow his removal without a legitimate fight.

Where do the Kurds fit into all this?

I worry about the Kurds.  The fortunes of the Kurdish people can change in the blink of an eye.  They fight like madmen, are courageous to a fault, have never really betrayed anyone, and only want to be left alone in their own little piece of nationhood.  However, since that nationhood dream includes access to oil, it is unlikely to become a reality.  This conflict has Syrian Kurds fighting in Kobani, Iraqi Kurds fighting around Mosul and Erbil, and the never-ending shooting contest with the Turkish Army.  I see an opportunity for the Iranians to add Suleymaniyah, Kurdistan to their list of friends:  If the Iranians were to intervene militarily against ISIL in defense of the Kurds and the Yazidi, can you imagine the public relations jackpot Iran will enjoy?  What a development: Iranian ground forces move in to mop up ISIL, when the Americans couldn't be bothered (and we all know that this is the American's mess to begin with).  The Iranian Army fighting alongside the Iraqi Army, removing the ISIL butchers, should push aside any distaste from the influential Sunni Shaykhs and politicians.  It would solidify the pro-Iranian political forces in Baghdad, and stabilize its own northeastern border with Kurdistan.  Assad finishes off ISIL in Syria, and the Iranians become the power broker in the region.  True, a lot would have to fall into place for this scenario to come to pass.  The Kurds and Iranians would have to get past years of distrust to work that closely together.  And the Sunni community in central Iraq would be the most difficult audience of all.  But when I examine the current situation, I can see no one as well-placed as the Iranians.  The Turks had an opportunity to become that same power broker, but Erdogan can't keep his personal prejudices from impacting his decisions.  The Turks should have co-opted the Kurds, gained access to the Kurdish oil fields, and ended centuries of conflict.  Turkey should have done the United States one better and rolled its tanks and F-16s into Syria, blasting both ISIL and Syrian regular forces into smithereens.  Erdogan could have appealed to the sense of destiny that sits in the heart of every Turk.  At the beginning of this conflict was the time for Turkey to reclaim its natural position as savior and leader of the region, and the first step would have been to crush the band of butchers who call themselves ISIL, and then remove the band of butchers that call themselves the Ba'ath Party in Damascus.  And what would have been the worst-case reaction from the United States and Europe?  That they might have gotten so angry that they enacted a sanctions regime to prohibit Turkish leaders from traveling to Miami Beach in the winter?  At the same time, the Iranians would have been too focused on their all-consuming obsession to build nuclear weapons, and Putin was otherwise too engaged in Ukraine to have made a big stink.  Ok, that last point is probably not true: Putin will not let Assad go without a serious fight, because of Putin's desire for a Mediterranean Port for his navy.

So today's post began as an examination of Iran's options in Syria and Iraq, and ended with a review of what Turkey had to gain by being more aggressive and less-impulsive.  But Turkey's opportunity has now passed, especially in light of recent anti-American, anti-European, events in Turkey.  Erdogan is probably happy right now just to sit back and regroup.  This is of course after he has the pleasure of visiting for a few days with Egg-Head of the millennium, Joe Biden.  But Iran is still in the moment, and if the leaders in Teheran showed a bit of innovation and strategic urgency, they could turn this conflict into an Iranian diplomatic coming-out party.