This is getting interesting.
Two days ago, I brought up the idea of the "Kurdistan Compromise". No, it's not exactly what I want, but it's much better than what we're doing now with the failed "stay the course" policy. I heard Andrew Sullivan say something about Kurdistan, it piqued my interest.
Now I just read that David Frum (yeah, I know) of the National Review wants to "redeploy" to Kurdistan, if "winning" isn't possible:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTgyMTUzNmY3OGZhNTg5MDVlMGZkNzFjMTc5MTRhZTM=As I said, we may need a backup plan.
Peter Galbraith offered an interesting one on the NYT oped page yesterday. Galbraith it should be noted served as US Ambassador to Croatia in the 1990s and was a brave first-hand observer of Saddam's murderous extermination campaigns against the Kurds in the late 1980s.
As an alternative to using Shiite and American troops to fight the insurgency in Iraq’s Sunni center, the administration should encourage the formation of several provinces into a Sunni Arab region with its own army, as allowed by Iraq’s Constitution. Then the Pentagon should pull its troops from this Sunni territory and allow the new leaders to establish their authority without being seen as collaborators.
Seeing as we cannot maintain the peace in Iraq, we have but one overriding interest there today — to keep Al Qaeda from creating a base from which it can plot attacks on the United States. Thus we need to have troops nearby prepared to re-engage in case the Sunni Arabs prove unable to provide for their own security against the foreign jihadists.
This would be best accomplished by placing a small “over the horizon” force in Kurdistan. Iraqi Kurdistan is among the most pro-American societies in the world and its government would welcome our military presence, not the least because it would help protect Kurds from Arab Iraqis who resent their close cooperation with the United States during the 2003 war. American soldiers on the ground might also ease the escalating tension between the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey, which is threatening to send its troops across the border in search of Turkish Kurd terrorists using Iraq as a haven.
From Kurdistan, the American military could readily move back into any Sunni Arab area where Al Qaeda or its allies established a presence. The Kurdish peshmerga, Iraq’s only reliable indigenous military force, would gladly assist their American allies with intelligence and in combat. And by shifting troops to what is still nominally Iraqi territory, the Bush administration would be able to claim it had not “cut and run” and would also avoid the political complications — in United States and in Iraq — that would arise if it were to withdraw totally and then have to send American troops back into Iraq.
It's a second best. First best is to win. But that will take more commitment than the administration was prepared to offer yesterday. If we forfeit the best outcome, and refuse to plan for * second best *, we stand in very grave danger of ending up with the worst.
First, let's get this out of the way -- I can't STAND David Frum. But my point in bringing this up is there is a consensus beginning to congeal in conservative circles that Iraq is an absolute disaster and "staying the course" will make it worse. And, I'm sorry -- this "redeploy to Kurdistan" is VERY close to "redeploy to Kuwait" first conceived by Jack Murtha and further fleshed out (with the key piece being the summit) by John Kerry.
Now, I know, I know -- Kurdistan brings up the whole permanent bases argument, a key to the Democratic platform, that we have no intention to stay in Iraq long term. And I sure as hell don't want permanent bases in Iraq. But . . . we're talking about relieving the extreme financial and carnage pressure here (and yes, it is cheaper when Hummers aren't getting blown up all the time), and I am choosing to be optimistic here. The conservatives are moving in our direction, even using the key term "redeployment" which Dick Cheney mocked not two weeks ago. I like that!!
The other thing to consider is this disturbing piece of news from The Guardian, that Turkish and Iranian troops are massing on the northern Iraqi border:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1852843,00.htmlTurkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases.
Scores of Kurds have fled their homes in the northern frontier region after four days of shelling by the Iranian army. Local officials said Turkey had also fired a number of shells into Iraqi territory.
snip
Frustrated by the reluctance of the US and the government in Baghdad to crack down on the PKK bases inside Iraq, Turkish generals have hinted they are considering a large-scale military operation across the border. They are said to be sharing intelligence about Kurdish rebel movements with their Iranian counterparts.
"We would not hesitate to take every kind of measures when our security is at stake," Abdullah Gul, the Turkish foreign minister, said last week.
We have been so distracted trying to secure Baghdad, and stop the civil war that we've already let the South go to pot, and now there might be a regional war in the north, as in the regional war Joe Biden was SURE John Kerry's plan would cause! So, my point is that we're probably going to have to go there anyway, so why not make it the redeployment from Baghdad plan, and quiet the fears of Turkey and Iran, in regards to the Kurds. There is no guarantee, of course, and that leads to this . . .
The conservatives are now talking about withdrawing. Right now it's Kurdistan, but it doesn't take a giant leap to change that to Kuwait. It really doesn't. Guys -- this change of thinking is GOOD NEWS. It's the first time in a LONG TIME that conservatives have started using OUR WORDS, OUR FRAMING. Let us celebrate this day where David Frum uttered the word "redeployment" and it was an endorsement. They're moving in our direction, and there is no doubt in my mind that John Kerry played a key role in this change when he came out with his plan in April 2006 which later became the Kerry/Feingold amendment. I also will credit Jack Murtha, as being the architect of the "redeployment" concept. The ideas are now coming from the Democrats, and we need to use this so that those ideas can be put into action in a Democratic Congress come 2007.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
