Kerry urges Kurds to stand with Iraq
According to the New York Times, John Kerry, our secretary of State, unfortunately, asked Kurdish president Masoud Barzani to stand with Iraq after Barzani’s calls for an independent Kurdish state;
Mr. Barzani made no secret of his disdain for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite. Mr. Barzani also bluntly expressed his sense that the gains by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Sunni extremist group known as ISIS, had changed the political landscape.
“We are facing a new reality and a new Iraq,” Mr. Barzani said at the start of his meeting with Mr. Kerry.
Mr. Kerry’s trip to the Kurdish regional capital, Erbil, was his first as secretary of state. He met with Mr. Barzani after meetings in Baghdad on Monday with Mr. Maliki and rival Shiite and Sunni politicians.
The Kurds are the last best chance for Iraq. They’ve been successfully fighting al Qaeda since 2001 (you know, two years before the US invasion of Hussein’s Iraq when we’re told that that there was no al Qaeda in Iraq – look up Operation Viking Hammer) and the the current surge of al Qaeda-linked ISIS has pretty much avoided the Kurdish regions of the country. In fact the pershmerga have rushed to fill the security vacuum behind the fleeing Iraqi Army.
The Pentagon eyes reactivating the Sons of Iraq (Sunnis who sided with US troops to beat back the Sunni al Qaeda insurgents in 2006) who are not so keen on the idea these days.
Being Sahwa can be dangerous. One Sunni militiaman, Abu Ahmed, said he began receiving text messages from Iraqi insurgent groups four months ago, threatening him if he remained a Sahwa member. He said he reported the threats to security forces, “but nobody cared.”
“The security officials told me that the safety of my family is my own responsibility, not theirs,” said Abu Ahmed, a father of five in Muqdadiyha, a Sunni enclave outside Baghdad. Like many Iraqis, he would only identify himself by his nickname out of fear for his family’s safety. “It seems that both the government and the insurgents hate Sahwa.”
Maliki, on the other hand, seems to be only interested in his own safety.
Iraqi officials have told The Associated Press that al-Maliki is ready to at least temporarily concede the loss of large swaths of territory to Sunni insurgents as he deploys the military’s best troops to defend Baghdad.
Shiite militias responding to a call to arms by Iraq’s top cleric are also focused on protecting the capital and Shiite shrines, while Kurdish fighters have grabbed a long-coveted oil-rich city outside their self-ruled territory, ostensibly to defend it from the al-Qaida breakaway group.
Government forces backed by helicopter gunships have fought for a week to defend Iraq’s largest oil refinery in Beiji, north of Baghdad.
I’m no strategist, but it seems to me that the ISIS has stretched itself out pretty quick and fairly thin. A coordinated counter attack by government forces around Baghdad and Peshmerga from the north would trap the 10,000 or so ISIS between the two, but I guess the Iraqis and the Kurds would have to reach down deep and set aside old differences. Since Maliki has been making promises to Sunnis and Kurds that he had no intention to keep, I guess he should step down, but it would have to be his decision to put Iraq ahead of his interests…given his history, I’m not holding my breath.
Category: Terror War
I can hear it now, Kerry, “Hey you Kurds are the good guys here. We like you guys. How bout you lend a hand to Maliki and put a stop to these ISIS fellows eh. What say you?” Barzani, “Hey translator, how you say, yea, when pigs fly out of that giant nose of yours!” Big round of laughter heard in the room. Kerry saying, “What, what, what did he say?”
Arm the Kurds.
Recognize Kurdistan.
Problem solved.
And eliminate Turkey as an ally? Never going to happen.
There’s no denying the Kurds kick ass and would be an extremely valuable asset. But that’s it. The US will never recognize any sort of independent Kurdistan.
I get your point.
However, Turkey is at a breaking point with not only refugees from Styria, but loss of benefits from being denied entry to the EU.
Also, my understanding has it they have “disengaged” the PKK for the time being due to this issue.
Do not forget the large number of ethnic Turkomen population the ISIS is abusing.
The Turks may not like the Kurds but they cannot stand for the ISIS and their goal of a “Caliphate”. It would destabilize the region further. And the Turks are benefactors of two Kurdish pipelines.
There are “two” Turkeys.
The Turkish armed forces are no nonsense, guardians of the democracy in Turkey. We lose them, which would happen with any sort of recognition of a Kurdish state, and we lose a benign form of Islam in Turkey.
Yeah.
It sucks, and personally I would love to see an independent Kurdistan, but that’s geopolitics.
And the fact Kurdistan would stretch into multiple countries. But they have the Zagros Mountain range which equals water and protection.
Maybe, and I know it is a big Maybe, A Kurdistan could be created from the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria. Then Turkey will be happy (I know, not happy but they will not be losing their territory)
If the Kurds could move West, clearing as they go and the Israelis could move East, clearing as they go, the whole problem would be solved in a few weeks
Hence support the Kurds.
The KRG works.
Initiate trade….and support.
There have been a couple of references from partisan sources to statements by a member of the Turkish government that they would have no problem with an independent Kurdistan (in Iraq)
See both http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/turkey-kurdistan_n_5504309.html and http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/18/kurdish-independence-now-being-supported-by-turkey/
Now all of those track back to a story from a Kurdish source, so who knows the truth of the matter, but I don’t think it is entirely outside the realm of possibility. The Turks may have made the calculation that there is more benefit for them in having the Kurds onside in squashing ISIS and stabilizing Iraq and Syria than in the separatist movement in its Kurdish provinces.
They might be able to use an independent Kurdistan to their advantage after all: “Hey, Turkish Kurds, you want to live in Kurdistan? It’s over there, see you later.”
That’s the problem though. Part of what the Kurds consider Kurdistan is Turkish territory. They’ve been dying for it for this long, telling them to go “over there” isn’t going to work.
Maybe not, but the Turks might still make the calculation that it is better to deal with the Kurds later and get them onside with the current crisis now.
That’s my point.
Ethnic identity trumps religion.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
And do not forget about the ethnic Turkomen population in Northern Iraq.
And do not forget about the ethnic Turkomen population in Northern Iraq.
I spent a year in Tuz Khurmatu (one of the best years of my life), so I would never do that :-).
Green Thumb…Amen and Amen!
John Kerry asking people to stand behind someone! Yea like the piece of shit stood behind us Vietnam vets. This whole Administration makes me want to puke!
“They’ve been successfully fighting al Qaeda since 2001 (you know, two years before the US invasion of Hussein’s Iraq when we’re told that that there was no al Qaeda in Iraq – look up Operation Viking Hammer..”
Gotta love wording. Especially implying that there was some link between Saddam and Ansar al-Islam, without really saying it, because no one can back that up.
For those interested in the truth:
The Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq concluded that Saddam “was aware of Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda presence in northeastern Iraq, but the groups’ presence was considered a threat to the regime and the Iraqi government attempted intelligence collection operations against them. TheDefense Intelligence Agency (DIA) stated that information from senior Ansar al-Islam detainees revealed that the group viewed Saddam’s regime as apostate, and denied any relationship with it.”[11] The leader of Ansar al-Islam, Mullah Krekar, has also called Saddam Hussein his sworn enemy.[12]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
Excuse me, did I link Hussein to al Qaeda? No, I merely made the point that al Qaeda was operating in Iraq years before the US booted Hussein. You people like to say that al-Qaeda didn’t come to Iraq until the US troops arrived, and it’s simply not true. And given the battles that were fought over those two years, it’s hard to believe that Hussein didn’t know they were there, but they were only fighting and killing Kurds, so they had Hussein’s tacit approval.
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Al Qaeda was never in Iraq with any support from Saddam. None, zero, zilch.
They were in areas controlled and protected by their air force. Whoops..I mean, the USAF.
Al Qaeda was in Iraq because the US made it possible.
Well, I see someone’s still wearing their ideologically-polarized Ray-Bans these days.
They interfere with seeing clearly sometimes, but they “look cool” and help one “fit in” – especially when attending grad school in the NCR.
And don’t think we didn’t see the side-step of Jonn’s question, Hussar. Not even a good try.
So tell us: just where did Jonn (or anyone here, for that matter) link Hussein to support for al Qaeda above? And remember: tacit approval =/= support.
Which question was that?
One of the fallacious points used to justify the US invasion of Iraq was that there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. That’s been proven to be completely false. So now the narrative has changed to, “well, AQ was in Iraq”, which they were, protected by the USAF.
And where’s your proof Saddam offered tacit support/approval? I’ve given proof that he didn’t. Your turn.
This question by Jonn, which I’ll quote for you: “Excuse me, did I link Hussein to al Qaeda?” I didn’t make any statement that Hussein offered tacit or overt approval to anyone, Hussar. I was merely observing – primarily for your benefit, since you seem to delight in putting words int people’s mouths and/or misinterpreting simple, clear English, possibly deliberately – that tacit approval is not equivalent to active support. And, by the way: you’ve actually proven nothing. The source you quoted indicated that there was no known linkage (or words to that effect) between Hussein’s government and Ansar al-Islam. That is absence of evidence, not proof of nonexistence. Absence of evidence is decidedly not the same as proof of nonexistence. However, tacit support/acquiescence on Hussein’s part for Ansar al-Islam’s presence in Iraqi Kurdistan prior to March 2003 can be logically inferred from the following: 1. As the source you quoted above clearly indicated, Hussein knew that Ansar al-Islam elements were operating in Iraqi Kurdistan. 2. Hussain made no attempt to force Ansar al-Islam from Iraqi territory, or to block their operations. He merely collected intelligence on them. 3. Ansar al-Islam was hostile to other Kurdish groups – in particular, to those Kurdish groups who were hostile to Hussein’s regime. 4. Ansar al-Islam was known to have links to al Qaeda. 5. Although of Indian origin, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is even today the de facto mode of operation for much of the ME, and has been since before the first recorded instance of the phrase (Sanskrit text from 4th Century BC). Definitive proof of approval/tacit support? No. Reasonable logical inference of such approval/tacit support? Definitely. Collectively, the points above lead to the logical conclusion that Hussein knew precisely what Ansar al-Islam was doing, but elected to allow them to continue as it benefited him more than attempting to stop their operations would. Even without the ability to conduct air operations in the NNFZ, Hussein was capable of conducting ground operations there – albeit costly ones – against Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan had he so… Read more »
“And where’s your proof Saddam offered tacit support/approval? I’ve given proof that he didn’t. Your turn.
We must have missed something, where did you give “proof“?
Why, where he quoted a Senate Committee report saying that there was “no known linkage” (or words to that effect), Jacobite. That’s his “proof”.
Of course, that’s also an elementary logic error on his part. Specifically, he’s confusing lack of evidence of something with proof of nonexistence of same. The two are not equivalent.
But maybe we shouldn’t be so hard on the youngster. Perhaps his undergraduate and/or graduate studies haven’t yet covered basic logic.
Naaaa, grind his credibility to dust and sift the remains to the four winds.
I’m sick of these bloviating pseudointellectuals and their half-baked, ignorant, self-sure bullshit. The conceit is appalling.
Hmmm. Gonna have to work on being sardonic more obviously. Apparently the sardonic intent of the last para in my previous comment wasn’t clear enough. (smile)
Naaa, you were clear enough, I just needed to vent. 🙂
Hussar…You were the one the other day on another thread touting that Saddam was in essence a non religious Ba’athist. Well in recent news the Ba’athist’s seem to have stepped up and taken sides with ISIS. So much for that theory.
A “coordinated counter attack”?! Those morons couldn’t coordinate a flu epidemic.
We need to take off and nuke them from orbit — and be done with this stupidity.
Kerry’s another subject, but I can’t think of anything sufficiently blunt to say at the moment, so I’ll just let that slide.
Really Hussar? No ties between al Qaeda and Hussein? Let’s take a look at a few, as well as other terror links. These examples from “Saddam’s Terror Ties,” by Deroy Murdock (October 21, 2003). Journalist Stephen Hayes reported in July 2003 that the official Babylon Daily Political Newspaper, published by Saddam’s eldest son, Uday, had printed what it called a “List of Honor” in its November 14, 2002 edition. This list gave the names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis, including this entry: “Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.” According to Hayes, that name matched that of Iraq’s then-ambassador to Islamabad. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell. He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan. Ramzi Yousef, the Kuwaiti-born ringleader of the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot, first arrived in the United States (on September 1, 1992) on an Iraqi passport. Author Richard Miniter reported on September 25, 2003, that U.S. forces had discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown, showing that Iraq had given both a house and a monthly salary to al Qaeda member Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath the World Trade Center in 1993. Along Iraq’s border with Syria, U.S. troops captured Farouk Hijazi, Saddam’s former ambassador to Turkey and suspected liaison to al Qaeda. Under interrogation, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam’s behest in 1994. While sifting through the bombed ruins of the Iraqi intelligence agency in April 2003, three investigators – the Toronto Star’s Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph’s Inigo Gilmore, and their translator — discovered a memo dated “February 19, 1998” and marked “Top Secret and Urgent.” It said the… Read more »
So now you are thinking, ” but I do not have a good enough memory to memorize all of these terms”.
Iraq and Iran had been in a war with one another and all survivors
of the Halabja incident were taken to Tehran. The national competitions last for a
week and the international championships for 2 weeks.