Elements Of Dolchstosslegende In Our Exit From Iraq

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I believe that Turkey has started working more with the Kurds... Or at least I read something to that affect recently.

JM

Make no mistakes about this. Turkey will go to war against a Kurdish Free State because 40% of its population along with 40% of its territory would want to secede to join it. The Turks have fought for 25 years to prevent that and they've been so indoctrinated that they'd likely fight for another 25 years if they thought they could prevent it. That's the lessons Turkey learned from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire; never give up territory no matter how much suffering must go to stop it.

Turkey can accomplish that because Turks really believe that and they'd support a military over throw of the government to accomplish that. Western Democracies would attempt to find a less expensive and less bloody compromise but if a government is determined enough and doesn't care about the human cost then it can be done. Witness Communist China, Soviet Russia during the civil war, turkey, and a host of others.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Get Turkey to accept Kurdistan, and go even further as being a guarantor of Kurdistan, on the condition that the Kurds accept the current border with Turkey.

Won't happen. Every Kurd I met in Iraq was endowed with the same nationalist propaganda that Kurdistan must one day be united instead of divided under Turkish, Iraqi, Syrian, and Iranian rule. Some even added in places like Armenia and Azerbaijan to their list because some small fraction of the population was ethnic Kurd. They really, really, really want to unify the county they see as under foreign occupation.

[Berzerker]

Iran, Syria, Russia, China, France,...

Iran is about to get invaded, or bombed... Syria will then be alone, and without highly desired resources - which is why they'll be alone France? They just elected an anti-Muslim immigrant candidate...

And if you buy into the bigger picture, we're surrounding the Middle East with bases and pipelines will be going westward from the Caspian, not thru Afghanistan and Pakistan which benefits China more.

It is when "who beat us" is a retort to "we lost"

Lost what? Seems to me we got what we wanted, enhanced presence, a battlefield for terrorists to engage both our military and Iraqis, and the gratitude of millions of Iraqis. Sure, our continued presence and the violence are wearing thin, but once Iraq stabilizes - and it will - we will have a much more friendly country in Iraq.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Iran is about to get invaded, or bombed...

a) No
b) It would already have been in a world without Iraq

[Berzerker]

We dont live in a world without Iraq, first things first... We'd get the least amount of international guff by invading Iraq, but Iran is next and we'll see the shift toward war

iran is building nukes...Iran in building nukes... IRAN IS BUILDING NUKES!!! Repeat and swallow until a majority is either supportive or apathetic about attacking Iran...

[Dinner]

Dick Cheney is trying his best but it isn't good enough. Reality has won and there isn't enough troops, money, or political will to invade Iran since we failed in the much smaller Iraq. Hats off to Cheney for trying to ignore constitutional government though.

May 24, 2007
Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush


There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel.

However, the Department of Defense and national intelligence sector are also preparing for hot conflict. They believe that they need to in order to convince Iran's various power centers that the military option does exist.

But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well -- as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

There are many other components of the complex game plan that this Cheney official has been kicking around Washington. The official has offered this commentary to senior staff at AEI and in lunch and dinner gatherings which were to be considered strictly off-the-record, but there can be little doubt that the official actually hopes that hawkish conservatives and neoconservatives share this information and then rally to this point of view. This official is beating the brush and doing what Joshua Muravchik has previously suggested -- which is to help establish the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran.

The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.

According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.

On Tuesday evening, i spoke with a former top national intelligence official in this Bush administration who told me that what I was investigating and planned to report on regarding Cheney and the commentary of his aide was "potentially criminal insubordination" against the President. I don't believe that the White House would take official action against Cheney for this agenda-mongering around Washington -- but I do believe that the White House must either shut Cheney and his team down and give them all garden view offices so that they can spend their days staring out their windows with not much to do or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President.

It is not that Cheney wants to bomb Iran and Bush doesn't, it is that Cheney is saying that Bush is making a mistake and thus needs to have the choices before him narrowed.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002145.php

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Won't happen. Every Kurd I met in Iraq was endowed with the same nationalist propaganda that Kurdistan must one day be united instead of divided under Turkish, Iraqi, Syrian, and Iranian rule. Some even added in places like Armenia and Azerbaijan to their list because some small fraction of the population was ethnic Kurd. They really, really, really want to unify the county they see as under foreign occupation.

You can dream.

[Dinner]

Or rather they can.

[notyoueither]

Well, considering I can't trust you to accurately depict the political situation in your own country, I doubt I'll take your word for what is possible or not in an area of the globe that is full of people you believe to be barely deserving of the word barbaric.

[Dinner]

You are free to dream. I relay accurately what occurs in Kurdistan.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They really, really, really want to unify the county they see as under foreign occupation.

They'll end up envying the Armenians.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You are free to dream. I relay accurately what occurs in Kurdistan.

How do you do that if you can't accurately describe the political situation in your own country?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I wouldn't take your word for it on the colour of the sky.

[One_more_turn]

That scenario is absolutely possible.

[Ecthy]

Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan aren't touched in my version. Iraq and Syria are disbanded as states, Turkey cedes territory. Free Kurdistan will be Europe's (including Turkey and Georgia) buffer with Iran. Libanon gets the bit between its current border and Turkey, and alongside with Israel and the Palestine territories joins the EU and NATO. The Sunni Arab areas form a united Sunni Arab republic that will probably be run by Islamist forces, the question is to what degree are they radical. And what to do with the current status quo elites (Baath, Hashemites, Saudis, Sabajites etc.).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by notyoueither


How do you do that if you can't accurately describe the political situation in your own country?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I wouldn't take your word for it on the colour of the sky.

What exactly have I gotten wrong in your opinion?