Success and the Surge

The ultimate problem in Iraq is that no matter how successful our military might be at eliminating any insurgency or terrorism on the ground, there will never be a political solution that revolves around a strong central government. The various political factions will never be willing to compromise on any major issues or stick to their word on any agreement. This is one of the main reasons our troops are having some much difficulty on the ground in the first place.

We should either federalize Iraq into distinct units now or let them do it on their own through a civil war. Either way our troops should be coming home before the end of this year. Otherwise we will just be wasting more lives and more money for a lost cause. Iraq is not ready for national democracy, nor will it ever be because it is not a nation-state. It is post-WW I compromise based on administrative divisions in the Ottoman empire. They either need to split up or go through the same civil war process that every other democracy on earth has gone through at one time or another in order to evolve into a true democracy.

Although any nation or province in the world is vulnerable to attack or civil war, I don’t think the Kurdish areas have anything to fear from their fellow Arab Iraqis for the same reason they are being left alone now. They were slaughtered in the early 90s (and periodically in the 80s) so that Hussein could keep strong control over the region. That could happen theoretically in Iraq if another military warlord decides he wants to take over the whole country again. But for now, they have quasi-independence and everyone seems to leave them alone. The U.S. leaving will not likely change that dynamic since we don’t seem to have much control or influence over it in the first place.

The Sunni Arabs, with whom the Kurds are intermixed in several areas have gotten along with their fellow Sunnis with few problems (and likely would not alienate the Kurds out of fear of Shiite domination). The Shiites don’t hold them responsible in any way for Hussein’s atrocities against them either. I could see the day when a Shiite dictator decides to dominate the entire country again, but I suspect that the Kurds are now armed to the teeth and would do a good job resisting any attack from any existing army or militia that exists now. They will also have plenty of time to create a real army to resist any subsequent dictatorship that may arise that does have the command of a modern army.

One of the reasons Slovenia was able to declare independence from Yugoslavia with few repercussions is because the nation was almost 100% Slovene with few Serbs. Yugoslavia left after a 10-day war with them because Slovenia was fully armed and would have given the Yugoslav army a real bloody nose if they had continued to stay. Right now, there really is no strong army in Iraq under anyone’s command (other than the U.S. army). All of the militias are basically armed thugs and would be slaughtered if they attempted to invade someone’s home territory with no logistical backing, command structure, air support, or armored vehicles. Having control and order in Iraq is all about having the support of the local population.

Any civil war will likely leave the Kurds largely untouched. The thing that the Kurds do have to fear is potential invasion from Turkey, Iran, and Syria, all of which have large Kurdish enclaves that those countries try to maintain strict control over. Recently Turkey massed a large number of troops at the northern border of Iraq to supposedly quell rebel activity in southeastern Turkey. A few months ago Charles Krauthammer prosed moving U.S. troops into the Kurdish area, let the civil war takes in course, and then move back in to mop up and cooperate with everyone left once they had come to their senses. That may not be a bad idea.

Turkey and the PKK

Plan to help Turkey hit Kurds shows Bush hasn't learned

My initial reaction to this article is to agree that us being actively involved in helping Turkey deal with Kurdish incursions into its territory (real or imagined) is a bad idea. The bigger question in my mind is why we are even involved with Turkey at all. The Cold War is over and even if Russia becomes a problem for the world again, Turkey will not likely play any vital role for us in any way.

They are a "moderate" Muslim country with a secular tradition of democracy and one of the few Muslim countries to recognize Israel. But every time they have an election, the people seem to pick religion-based, anti-American parties. It happened again earlier this month. The army then has to step in to restore "democracy" by removing any elected officials who don't tow the military line. This is obviously not a true democracy and if it ever becomes one it will likely be staunchly anti-American.

And beyond those few redeeming factors, what is the point of us getting any more deeply involved in their historic problems - especially in taking their side against one of our few success stories in Iraq - the Kurds? What good is a relationship with Turkey for us? Is I recall they were nothing but an obstacle to our invasion of Iraq. I disagreed with the invasion myself, but what good is an ally if they refuse to help us in an area where they can offer some of the best assistance?

Let's take a look from another angle though. Let's assume they are giving us something really valuable as our ally that is hidden from public view. Do we really want to make a deal with the Devil? Turkey, like Japan, has trouble coming to terms with admitting its own crimes against humanity. The Armenian genocide comes to mind here. It is, I believe, still officially banned from text books and has lead to more than a few deaths and death threats against public officials who say Turkey should admit to its role in the killings. We can also look to the "ethnic cleansing" of Greeks from mainland Turkey after WW I as well as from northern Cypress, not to mention the invasion of northern Cypress to supposedly protect the minority Turks.

Interestingly, while Turkey has no problem carving out a separate ethnic enclave for Turks out of a sovereign nation, they do have trouble with their own minority populations carving out a sovereign state for themselves. In this case the primary minorities being the Kurds in the southeast and Armenians in the northeast. Turkey has done a fairly good job of colonizing these areas with Turks to try and defeat any claims for ethnic autonomy, but this is just as a phony as it sounds.

My final question though is why we still have this strong relationship or feel this need to cater to Turkey. Is it solely because of their status as a secular Islamic nation and their help with Israel or perhaps against Iran? If that is the solely case, we should really reconsider what benefit this really is. My other thought is that we are constantly hearing that our support in Israel has more to do with us having such a large and influential Jewish population and pro-Israel lobbies in this country. I imagine there is some truth to this, but if it is true or least true to some extent, then why haven't we abandoned Turkey yet? We have substantial and wealthy populations of Armenian and Greek immigrants in this country and the subject of Turkey is one on which they all have a very negative opinion. That is compared to perhaps a handful of Turks.