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.
Showing posts with label Pesh Merga. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pesh Merga. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
President Obama Announces Airstrikes Against ISIL
List: Obama Orders Bombing of ISIL
Tonight, on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in New York City and Washington DC, President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. Air Force would be conducting bombing raids into both Syria and Iraq to downgrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group. ISIL is the direct descendant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) terrorist organization that was almost destroyed by U.S. forces in Iraq in 2006-2007. The remnants of AQI hunkered down in the deserts around Tikrit and Ramadi until they were strong enough to become active in the recent quagmire in Syria. Once the U.S. pullout in Iraq began in earnest, AQI stepped up its activities in northern Iraq. The ISIL discussed by President Obama this evening is stronger than ever, and militarily active in both Syria and Iraq (who are we kidding; I'm sure they are all over Jordan and Lebanon as well).
In his speech, President Obama outlined a multi-faceted approach to defeat ISIL, including providing support to allies already engaged on the ground. This is the place where we usually get into trouble. Who is it exactly that will be receiving U.S. military hardware and ammunition? I'm very curious which groups have been identified as "the good guys". Better yet, how did the administration (through the CIA more than likely) make that decision? It matters a great deal to me. We have made a habit lately of arming our enemies by arming our surrogates. No doubt its much more palatable for the administration to conduct a war without U.S. troops, but finding other folks to die on our behalf (maybe a bit harsh...it is their fight as well or they wouldn't be there) does not come without a price tag. In the late 1970s the CIA armed the Afghan Mujahedeen with all sorts of yummy killing accoutrement. I can tell you that on more than a few occasions, those same weapons have been used to kill young American soldiers. Then we decided to train and arm the Iraqi Army before pulling out recently, and where are those weapons? An unpleasant number were left on the battlefield by deserting Iraqi troops before a shot was even fired. And now, if this conflict does eventually require U.S. troops on the ground, ISIL will have American-made weapons to use. Recently I wrote a post in which I called for immediate military assistance to the Ukrainian Army. I did so safe with the belief that whatever we give the Ukrainians will not one day end up pointed at U.S. soldiers. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Another group that gets my full approval for military support is the Kurdish Peshmerga.
If you've been reading my blog, you've probably already noted my affection for the Peshmerga. They may not look like much to the naked eye, but they are as disciplined and intelligent a military organization as you will find. They work well in smaller units, and can transport just about any piece of equipment great distances in no time. They have shown a tendency to avoid prisoners, and they are loyal to the Kurdish cause to the death. I've never known the Peshmerga to leave weapons on the battlefield because I've never known them to lose a battle. The Peshmerga enjoy fighting in conditions that others avoid, which is one of their best assets. The next time you are visiting Sulaymaniyah, have a walk through those rugged mountains where the Peshmerga train. You'll understand why they all seem to be in great physical shape. Oh, And they stink really bad...not big fans of deodorant.
President Obama's plan includes all the hallmarks of his foreign policy as we have come to know it. Once the air campaign begins (still no concrete date), the U.S. Air Force will target ISIL in both Syria and Iraq. One year ago today, this administration was contemplating an air campaign against ISIL's enemies, the repugnant Bashir al-Assad regime. Now we will be bombing Assad's opponents. There is no way that this will not tremendously help Assad and the Syrian military (let me see....the friend of my enemy is my friend, or my friend is my friends enemy, or is it my friend has an enemy who is also my friend, or....I quit!). As a traditionalist, I don't like war that is undeclared, and I don't like conflict that basically involves only one branch of the military. But I am all for ending blood sacrifices in this part of the world without a clear and bold strategy to turn the enemy into a pile of dust.
Basically, I appreciated the speech and I'm glad that we will be raining death upon these bastards somewhere. I understand that there was some concern about where exactly we would be dropping the bombs. I can assure everyone that the Air Force and our intel targeting guys and gals RARELY make mistakes, but someone will be inconvenienced (okay, so someone's house and goat herd may get blown to smithereens...we usually provide some sort of compensation). Also, be prepared for the bodies of innocent victims that will be paraded around. I remember one occasion in Iraq when the locals dug up a previously buried body and declared the corpse to be the victim of "American artillery". Unfortunately the body was roughly 100 yrs old, and when the arm fell off they realized the game was up. As for President Obama and the new strategy to attack ISIL, he has my full support. Again, I don't believe in "sorta" fighting a war. When you have identified that a foe has reached the point of being a deadly threat to the United States, then you utilize all of your resources to defeat the enemy in the quickest time frame possible. This strategy saves lives and makes the necessary point.
I won't spend too much time on the parts of the speech that I found disturbing. Here we go again with the coalitions. How many are we talking about? We have NATO, which is more or less a living coalition. We have separate coalitions in both Bosnia and Kosovo and we have the coalition which has been working with us in Afghanistan. When Obama spoke of a coalition including the United States, and then mentioned a coalition of Arab nations, was he referring to the same coalition? First and foremost, coalitions involving Arab states don't usually achieve much. And if they had any inclination to get involved in this mess, wouldn't they have done so by now? Hell, most of them have internal elements that are raising money for ISIL. And just when President Obama had me warming up, he had to remind us that this conflict is not about religion, and that Islam is about peace. We've heard it ad nauseam, Mr. President. By repeating that same mantra, you enable the average, peace-loving Muslim to avoid getting involved. Regardless of the numbers, true, peaceful Muslims need to stand up and be heard! And not to yell at me, but to do something about these fanatics in our cities and in our own neighborhoods who are using bastardized versions of your holy book to recruit killers. No one gets a free pass anymore. Everyone has a part to play.
Tonight, on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in New York City and Washington DC, President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. Air Force would be conducting bombing raids into both Syria and Iraq to downgrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group. ISIL is the direct descendant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) terrorist organization that was almost destroyed by U.S. forces in Iraq in 2006-2007. The remnants of AQI hunkered down in the deserts around Tikrit and Ramadi until they were strong enough to become active in the recent quagmire in Syria. Once the U.S. pullout in Iraq began in earnest, AQI stepped up its activities in northern Iraq. The ISIL discussed by President Obama this evening is stronger than ever, and militarily active in both Syria and Iraq (who are we kidding; I'm sure they are all over Jordan and Lebanon as well).
In his speech, President Obama outlined a multi-faceted approach to defeat ISIL, including providing support to allies already engaged on the ground. This is the place where we usually get into trouble. Who is it exactly that will be receiving U.S. military hardware and ammunition? I'm very curious which groups have been identified as "the good guys". Better yet, how did the administration (through the CIA more than likely) make that decision? It matters a great deal to me. We have made a habit lately of arming our enemies by arming our surrogates. No doubt its much more palatable for the administration to conduct a war without U.S. troops, but finding other folks to die on our behalf (maybe a bit harsh...it is their fight as well or they wouldn't be there) does not come without a price tag. In the late 1970s the CIA armed the Afghan Mujahedeen with all sorts of yummy killing accoutrement. I can tell you that on more than a few occasions, those same weapons have been used to kill young American soldiers. Then we decided to train and arm the Iraqi Army before pulling out recently, and where are those weapons? An unpleasant number were left on the battlefield by deserting Iraqi troops before a shot was even fired. And now, if this conflict does eventually require U.S. troops on the ground, ISIL will have American-made weapons to use. Recently I wrote a post in which I called for immediate military assistance to the Ukrainian Army. I did so safe with the belief that whatever we give the Ukrainians will not one day end up pointed at U.S. soldiers. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Another group that gets my full approval for military support is the Kurdish Peshmerga.
If you've been reading my blog, you've probably already noted my affection for the Peshmerga. They may not look like much to the naked eye, but they are as disciplined and intelligent a military organization as you will find. They work well in smaller units, and can transport just about any piece of equipment great distances in no time. They have shown a tendency to avoid prisoners, and they are loyal to the Kurdish cause to the death. I've never known the Peshmerga to leave weapons on the battlefield because I've never known them to lose a battle. The Peshmerga enjoy fighting in conditions that others avoid, which is one of their best assets. The next time you are visiting Sulaymaniyah, have a walk through those rugged mountains where the Peshmerga train. You'll understand why they all seem to be in great physical shape. Oh, And they stink really bad...not big fans of deodorant.
President Obama's plan includes all the hallmarks of his foreign policy as we have come to know it. Once the air campaign begins (still no concrete date), the U.S. Air Force will target ISIL in both Syria and Iraq. One year ago today, this administration was contemplating an air campaign against ISIL's enemies, the repugnant Bashir al-Assad regime. Now we will be bombing Assad's opponents. There is no way that this will not tremendously help Assad and the Syrian military (let me see....the friend of my enemy is my friend, or my friend is my friends enemy, or is it my friend has an enemy who is also my friend, or....I quit!). As a traditionalist, I don't like war that is undeclared, and I don't like conflict that basically involves only one branch of the military. But I am all for ending blood sacrifices in this part of the world without a clear and bold strategy to turn the enemy into a pile of dust.
Basically, I appreciated the speech and I'm glad that we will be raining death upon these bastards somewhere. I understand that there was some concern about where exactly we would be dropping the bombs. I can assure everyone that the Air Force and our intel targeting guys and gals RARELY make mistakes, but someone will be inconvenienced (okay, so someone's house and goat herd may get blown to smithereens...we usually provide some sort of compensation). Also, be prepared for the bodies of innocent victims that will be paraded around. I remember one occasion in Iraq when the locals dug up a previously buried body and declared the corpse to be the victim of "American artillery". Unfortunately the body was roughly 100 yrs old, and when the arm fell off they realized the game was up. As for President Obama and the new strategy to attack ISIL, he has my full support. Again, I don't believe in "sorta" fighting a war. When you have identified that a foe has reached the point of being a deadly threat to the United States, then you utilize all of your resources to defeat the enemy in the quickest time frame possible. This strategy saves lives and makes the necessary point.
I won't spend too much time on the parts of the speech that I found disturbing. Here we go again with the coalitions. How many are we talking about? We have NATO, which is more or less a living coalition. We have separate coalitions in both Bosnia and Kosovo and we have the coalition which has been working with us in Afghanistan. When Obama spoke of a coalition including the United States, and then mentioned a coalition of Arab nations, was he referring to the same coalition? First and foremost, coalitions involving Arab states don't usually achieve much. And if they had any inclination to get involved in this mess, wouldn't they have done so by now? Hell, most of them have internal elements that are raising money for ISIL. And just when President Obama had me warming up, he had to remind us that this conflict is not about religion, and that Islam is about peace. We've heard it ad nauseam, Mr. President. By repeating that same mantra, you enable the average, peace-loving Muslim to avoid getting involved. Regardless of the numbers, true, peaceful Muslims need to stand up and be heard! And not to yell at me, but to do something about these fanatics in our cities and in our own neighborhoods who are using bastardized versions of your holy book to recruit killers. No one gets a free pass anymore. Everyone has a part to play.
Friday, September 5, 2014
Should the United States work together with Iran to defeat ISIS/ISIL?
Link: Cooperation between the U.S. and Iran?
Are we prepared for the possibility of cooperation between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran? On Friday, a plane carrying U.S. contractors on their way from Afghanistan to Dubai was forced to land in Bandar Abbas, Iran. It would have been no surprise if the Iranian authorities had caused headaches for the United States by keeping the plane grounded. But for some reason, the issue was resolved quickly and the contractors made it to Dubai in time for the weekend Camel Races. Personally, I would have expected the Iranians to create some international incident, and the fact that they didn't could be a message that the Iranians are open to some sort of dialogue. Its possible that Iran views the threat of ISIS/ISIL as more of a danger than American Imperialism (at least temporarily). What would lead Iran to consider working with the United States against ISIS/ISIL, and what could be gained by such a rapprochement?
Iran is an Islamic Republic, but it is a Shia-only club. Iraq was traditionally governed by Sunni Muslims, which fueled the animosity that lead to the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. ISIS/ISIL is a Sunni-based terrorist movement, and has shown a willingness to attack Iraqi Shia targets. In fact, Iran has sent military support personnel to assist the Shia militias that ostensibly are in place to protect Shia holy sites in Iraq. At this stage Iran must recognize ISIS/ISIL as its most dangerous external threat. ISIS/ISIL has grown in both manpower and firepower as it continues to reap the harvest of new recruits and abandoned Iraqi and Syrian military equipment. For all of its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Iran is basically a functioning republic with a regular army. ISIS/ISIL, with its unpredictable nature and its ability to change strategy quickly, is just the kind of foe the Iranians want to avoid. One would assume that Kurdistan would be the direction from which ISIS would invade Iran, which would mean that ISIS/ISIL would have to defeat the Kurdish Army and the Pesh Merga (Kurdish paramilitary) first. But ISIS/ISIL has shown tremendous quickness of movement and unpredictability, and might just pop up somewhere else on the Iraq/Iran border. The Iranians are correct to consider ISIS/ISIL a real threat to their national security.
Would a joint anti-ISIS/ISIL effort on behalf of Iran and the United States be successful, and is it a possibility to begin with? Both Iran and the United States have the military means to destroy ISIS. But it is doubtful at this stage that either has the conviction. The United States has the means to render ISIS/ISIL ineffectual (at least temporarily) from a prolonged air campaign alone. The Iranians, with an inferior and aged Air Force, would be obliged to use large numbers of troops (and to cross the Iraqi border). But ISIS/ISIL is hindered by its present lack of cohesion. Is it a terrorist organization or an army? Have enough volunteers swelled the ranks that supply has become a daily concern? Has ISIS/ISIL captured so much equipment that it has become a burden to what was once a lean, stealth-like organization? ISIS/ISIL is vulnerable, especially from a supply perspective. But again, the issue for both the Americans and the Iranians is conviction. Does either side want to make the call to devote the resources necessary to send ISIS/ISIL back to the Stone Age? As of right now, the answer is no.
For anyone who seriously hopes for peace in this region, any cooperation between Iran and the United States must be seen as a positive development. But I just don't see it happening. And the problem isn't in Washington DC, its in Teheran (or should we say Qom). The religious leaders of the Islamic Republic will never be able to reconcile themselves to cooperation with "The Great Satan". The United States has extended the Olive Branch on more than one occasion in the last decade, only to be meet with a cold shoulder. The non-interference with a planeload of U.S. contractors on the tarmac of an Iranian Airport is a very surprising and encouraging sign. But this relationship will improve with tiny steps (such as the one just mentioned) over an extended period of time. But the situation could become fluid quickly. The Iranians want to do whatever they can to keep the U.S. Army from returning to Iraq. Maybe some sort of joint military operation (as unlikely as it is) that eliminates ISIS/ISIL, would be the one development that keeps large numbers of U.S. troops from returning to Iraq.
(This is a very interesting question and I very much welcome all other considerations and opinions. Please comment!)
Are we prepared for the possibility of cooperation between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran? On Friday, a plane carrying U.S. contractors on their way from Afghanistan to Dubai was forced to land in Bandar Abbas, Iran. It would have been no surprise if the Iranian authorities had caused headaches for the United States by keeping the plane grounded. But for some reason, the issue was resolved quickly and the contractors made it to Dubai in time for the weekend Camel Races. Personally, I would have expected the Iranians to create some international incident, and the fact that they didn't could be a message that the Iranians are open to some sort of dialogue. Its possible that Iran views the threat of ISIS/ISIL as more of a danger than American Imperialism (at least temporarily). What would lead Iran to consider working with the United States against ISIS/ISIL, and what could be gained by such a rapprochement?
Iran is an Islamic Republic, but it is a Shia-only club. Iraq was traditionally governed by Sunni Muslims, which fueled the animosity that lead to the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. ISIS/ISIL is a Sunni-based terrorist movement, and has shown a willingness to attack Iraqi Shia targets. In fact, Iran has sent military support personnel to assist the Shia militias that ostensibly are in place to protect Shia holy sites in Iraq. At this stage Iran must recognize ISIS/ISIL as its most dangerous external threat. ISIS/ISIL has grown in both manpower and firepower as it continues to reap the harvest of new recruits and abandoned Iraqi and Syrian military equipment. For all of its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Iran is basically a functioning republic with a regular army. ISIS/ISIL, with its unpredictable nature and its ability to change strategy quickly, is just the kind of foe the Iranians want to avoid. One would assume that Kurdistan would be the direction from which ISIS would invade Iran, which would mean that ISIS/ISIL would have to defeat the Kurdish Army and the Pesh Merga (Kurdish paramilitary) first. But ISIS/ISIL has shown tremendous quickness of movement and unpredictability, and might just pop up somewhere else on the Iraq/Iran border. The Iranians are correct to consider ISIS/ISIL a real threat to their national security.
Would a joint anti-ISIS/ISIL effort on behalf of Iran and the United States be successful, and is it a possibility to begin with? Both Iran and the United States have the military means to destroy ISIS. But it is doubtful at this stage that either has the conviction. The United States has the means to render ISIS/ISIL ineffectual (at least temporarily) from a prolonged air campaign alone. The Iranians, with an inferior and aged Air Force, would be obliged to use large numbers of troops (and to cross the Iraqi border). But ISIS/ISIL is hindered by its present lack of cohesion. Is it a terrorist organization or an army? Have enough volunteers swelled the ranks that supply has become a daily concern? Has ISIS/ISIL captured so much equipment that it has become a burden to what was once a lean, stealth-like organization? ISIS/ISIL is vulnerable, especially from a supply perspective. But again, the issue for both the Americans and the Iranians is conviction. Does either side want to make the call to devote the resources necessary to send ISIS/ISIL back to the Stone Age? As of right now, the answer is no.
For anyone who seriously hopes for peace in this region, any cooperation between Iran and the United States must be seen as a positive development. But I just don't see it happening. And the problem isn't in Washington DC, its in Teheran (or should we say Qom). The religious leaders of the Islamic Republic will never be able to reconcile themselves to cooperation with "The Great Satan". The United States has extended the Olive Branch on more than one occasion in the last decade, only to be meet with a cold shoulder. The non-interference with a planeload of U.S. contractors on the tarmac of an Iranian Airport is a very surprising and encouraging sign. But this relationship will improve with tiny steps (such as the one just mentioned) over an extended period of time. But the situation could become fluid quickly. The Iranians want to do whatever they can to keep the U.S. Army from returning to Iraq. Maybe some sort of joint military operation (as unlikely as it is) that eliminates ISIS/ISIL, would be the one development that keeps large numbers of U.S. troops from returning to Iraq.
(This is a very interesting question and I very much welcome all other considerations and opinions. Please comment!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)