Is This A Joke?

[Armen]

In all likelihood no. They never said they would. Even if they said they would, they still would not deliver as usual. So given that they rule out a Kurish state the chances are very small that this will happen.

As it is now it is easier to control the Kurds. If they were given a state they would be harder to control and have influence on, so there is no benefit for Americans to create a Kurdish state. But certainly Kurds are useful for them with the limited power and autonomy that they have. They are as well a good threat to Iran, Turkey and Iraq in the hands of the US if the US chooses to push for such a state.

Sasun, major political changes seem unbelievable until they happen one day. Like the 9/11. As you said such a state would be a very good tool against Turkey, Iran, Iraq, I would add Syria and the whole region. It would become the most loyal state to the U.S. fof some 10-15 years. And the U.S. definitely needs such a state in Middle East.

[KnightOfArmenia]

The US did just receive such a state: it's called Iraq. When you conquer a country you can pretty much do what you want, and you'd have to be pretty naive to think that the Iraqis are going to have full, actual sovereignty over their country. They'll be about as independent as South Vietnam.

[Armen]

No Knight, the Iraqies are never going to be loyal to the U.S. One day they could become neutral but that about it. Nothing more. In case of Kurdistan they are going to have a real ally which will go to any war with them.

[KnightOfArmenia]

Well, of course they won't stay loyal forever. Any Kurdistan would eventually make decisions that would benefit itself, even if those would come at the expense of the US. "National gratitude" and "eternal friendship" are words; look at Europe, for example. The time limit for such gratitude is usually about two generations; by the time the third generation rolls around, people have forgotten about the past (not literally, but as in it isn't in their immediate mind).

 

The point is that for the immediate future (with the way the world is at the moment, trying to plan beyond 10 years on subjects such as political power play is an exercise in futility) Iraq is the 51st state; it is within striking range of Israel (meaning that no Arab country would ever even CONSIDER attacking Israel now, because the US can directly strike at them with land forces), Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria (these are the most important nations in the region, naturally).

[Vigil]

Israelis 'misread' Iraqi threat

 

Israeli intelligence miscalculated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, an Israeli think-tank has suggested.

 

This contributed to the "false" picture painted by US and British services, said the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University.

 

The country's secret services could lose their credibility over the issue, Israeli politicians have warned.

 

Six months after the end of major hostilities, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.

 

 

Worries

 

"Israeli intelligence was a full partner with the US and Britain in developing a false picture of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capability," said the author of the report, retired Brigadier General Shlomo Brom.

 

"It badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons existed."

 

 

From now on, when we present serious data on other countries, like Iran for example, who will treat us seriously?

Yossi Sarid

Israeli MP

 

"If Israeli intelligence had argued Iraq did not have capabilities and there was no real threat, it would have had some effect," he said.

Senior Israeli politicians have expressed fears that the findings will have an impact on the perception of the country's secret services.

 

"From now on, when we present serious data on other countries, like Iran for example, who will treat us seriously?" Israel Radio quoted Israeli left-wing parliamentarian Yossi Sarid as saying.

 

The 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group has been looking for evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction - a key justification for the war.

 

British and American leaders have come under increasing pressure over the intelligence cited in the run-up to the war.

 

A committee of the US Senate is trying to establish how solid the pre-war intelligence on Iraq was, whether mistakes were made in interpreting it, and whether the information was manipulated.

 

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...ast/3294865.stm

 

Published: 2003/12/05 16:26:17 GMT

 

© BBC MMIV

Edited June 5, 2004 by Vigil

[Sasun]

Sasun, major political changes seem unbelievable until they happen one day. Like the 9/11.

That's true, but we can't expect new states to be created often, those things happen really rarely. It would be not just a major political event, but a huge event. Major states just don't want new states emerge, it has been the case forever (unless there is a significant gain or compelling reasons as in case of Israel, or as in case of persevering East Timor where there were no other alternatives left).

 

As you said such a state would be a very good tool against Turkey, Iran, Iraq, I would add Syria and the whole region. It would become the most loyal state to the U.S. fof some 10-15 years. And the U.S. definitely needs such a state in Middle East.

 

My rational is based on the logic that Kurds are more loyal to Americans as they see a need to have such a patron in creating their state. As soon as they have a state Kurds will no longer have this reason to be loyal to Americans. It's just realpolitik. If that is the case then Americans will never have any benefit from a Kurdish state. If a Kurdish state emerges without the US support that's another scenario, they might as well be allies if there are common intertests, but as it is now they are allies already, so why bother. All the US has to do is make vague promises once in a while or create an illusion of such an outlook.

[Armen]

That's true, but we can't expect new states to be created often, those things happen really rarely. It would be not just a major political event, but a huge event. Major states just don't want new states emerge, it has been the case forever (unless there is a significant gain or compelling reasons as in case of Israel, or as in case of persevering East Timor where there were no other alternatives left).

 

Unlike Europe where borders are now iron strong because of the Helsinki agreement, there is no security structure of this kind in the Middle East. Middle East borders are mostly resutls of wars, conflicts or seperate bilateral agreements and thus can be changed easily. Look at the numerous examples of border violation: Turkey's intrusions in Iraq (actually this actions harm Turkey as well because psychologically people start thinking that Turkish-Iraqi border can be changed), the Golan hieghts, the West Bank, Iran-Syria border is virtually transparent and there is more. If there is a major regional crisis with the invlovement of Syria, Iran and Turkey the region is going to have a new security structure.

 

My rational is based on the logic that Kurds are more loyal to Americans as they see a need to have such a patron in creating their state. As soon as they have a state Kurds will no longer have this reason to be loyal to Americans. It's just realpolitik. If that is the case then Americans will never have any benefit from a Kurdish state. If a Kurdish state emerges without the US support that's another scenario, they might as well be allies if there are common intertests, but as it is now they are allies already, so why bother. All the US has to do is make vague promises once in a while or create an illusion of such an outlook.

 

Americans are going to need one last big push in the region in some 5-6 years and they will need active and mobilized Kurds not just loyal.

When the regional structure is in place American are not going to need loyal any country, the structure itself will balance everything to their favour. Just put "a Kurdistan" on the map and see what's going to be the balance in the region.

Edited June 6, 2004 by ArmenSarg

[KnightOfArmenia]

Border changes are anathema to major powers; states are viewed as inviolable, so even wars are now accepted as not involving border changes by the major powers.

 

Why do you think the US accepted the fall of the USSR but recognized ALL the current borders of the individual states, despite the fact that they were made by the Soviets (and, in many cases, by Stalin himself)?

 

A Kurdistan gives a LOT of other stateless people ideas, and it hurts the US image for established nations (they create chaos, if they ever enter our nation all these little minorities will tear chunks off it, we should annihilate these people while we can to ensure our stability).

[Armen]

Border changes are anathema to major powers; states are viewed as inviolable, so even wars are now accepted as not involving border changes by the major powers.

 

Why do you think the US accepted the fall of the USSR but recognized ALL the current borders of the individual states, despite the fact that they were made by the Soviets (and, in many cases, by Stalin himself)?

 

A Kurdistan gives a LOT of other stateless people ideas, and it hurts the US image for established nations (they create chaos, if they ever enter our nation all these little minorities will tear chunks off it, we should annihilate these people while we can to ensure our stability).

What about Yugoslavia? It was cut into smallest possible pieces.

 

US accepted current Soviet borders because of the Russian pressure and many other more important reasons, which go back to the logic behind the Bolshevik design of internal Soviet borders. If you're attentive enough you will notice how the current border design complements the US efforts of political expansion in the region.

[Sasun]

Unlike Europe where borders are now iron strong because of the Helsinki agreement, there is no security structure of this kind in the Middle East. Middle East borders are mostly resutls of wars, conflicts or seperate bilateral agreements and thus can be changed easily. Look at the numerous examples of border violation: Turkey's intrusions in Iraq (actually this actions harm Turkey as well because psychologically people start thinking that Turkish-Iraqi border can be changed), the Golan hieghts, the West Bank, Iran-Syria border is virtually transparent and there is more. If there is a major regional crisis with the invlovement of Syria, Iran and Turkey the region is going to have a new security structure.

Yes Armen, I see your point, but I am not talking about border changes but creation of a new state that never existed before as such. This would be a new international player, with as much weight as its size, population and resources could allow. In a world that is all in rivalry and contest nobody wants such a new power that is come to stay.

 

Americans are going to need one last big push in the region in some 5-6 years and they will need active and mobilized Kurds not just loyal.

When the regional structure is in place American are not going to need loyal any country, the structure itself will balance everything to their favour. Just put "a Kurdistan" on the map and see what's going to be the balance in the region.

For some time it might be beneficiary for the US to have a sovereign ally in the Middle East, but everyone knows that as time goes by alliances change and one time friends may turn into foes. It seems highly unlikely that this could happen.

 

Ultimately, we will have to wait and see if there will be Kurdistan.

[KnightOfArmenia]

The fact that there was a genocide in Yugoslavia helped. Besides, everyone in Yugoslavia wanted to be independent; they were independent states before being joined. The US still came up with a plan to keep Yugoslavia as a nation, but with very loose central control, and this was rejected out of hand.

[Stormig]

Turkey's problem is not Armenia, not Karabagh. It has a more dangerous threat to face. It doesn't fit the regional design of the West. I mean where do you put present Turkey? Europe? Middle East? The only way is to devide it between Europe and the Middle East.

I'm sure that preoccupies the hell out of a lot of people.

[Nakharar]

The various scenarios about the demise of Turkey and Azerbaijan is nothing but wishful thinking. It would be all the better if our conspiracy theory buffs would lay their pipedreams to rest. We will have to live with each other in some way or other. To all the armchair strategists out there: This not some strategy game where you can easily expend your characters to satisfy your empty rhetoric. Of course you all have the luxury of pontificating about the demise of others since you have nothing to lose yourselves and could care less about the sufferings of "real" people. But I doubt that it will stop you to take credit and gloat in your vainglory.

As for an independent Kurdistan, they can count themselves lucky if they can keep the present status quo. The Kurds really need to do some sucking up to the Americans if they do not want to face the wrath of the Sunni and Shiite Arabs in Iraq. Or a concerted action by Syria, Turkey and Iran.

Turkey's self-induced identity crisis is not only downright pathetic but also unnecessary. I have been there this February and I still don't get their obsession on being considered as Europeans. Nor do they fit in the category of the Middle East. They should realize that they do not belong to either part, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Their insular mentality can help them through this, if they can consider themselves to be distinct like the Japanese or the Swiss.

[THOTH]

Nice comments Nakharar.

 

I suggest that you my enjoy reading the book "A Fez of the heart" - I think you would enjoy it and get additional insight...

[Armen]

Nakharar, if you desperately want to participate in the discussion there is no need to be so tense. Take it easy.

You said "conspiracy theory" some two or three times and then developed one yourself.

Sure we are speculating. What do you expect?

[Armen]

Thoth, I have never seen a coward like you.

[KnightOfArmenia]

Hey, "Nakharar," if I were a ruder man, I'd say "screw you!"

 

I don't have anything to lose? My cousin is turning 18 in Armenia, and my uncle has already served. My older brother was visiting Cyprus when the Karabagh War broke out and served there for 8 months. Don't tell me that I have nothing to lose.

 

You're the same type of person who kept counseling Armenians against any action against the Ottomans because something bad might happen, who kept telling us how they were strong and we were weak and things would be good if we just kept quiet. Or said that Karabagh was a lost cause and that we should abandon it so our neighbors would think we were civilized. My name for people like that is "traitorous cowards." You're talking about what turkey should do to live well, how they should be, blah blah. If there was a little emoticon showing "disgust," it would go right here.

 

The point is that turkey is completely imploding. It's your wishful thinking to see it as a stable country, apparently. They have a history of military dictatorships and a populace that is severely fundamentalist Muslim (they haven't forgotten that they were the last Caliphate). Only recently a massive supply of heavy arms and rockets was intercepted on its way from turkey to Iraq; that means that the fundamentalists are in the army as well. Plus we have the extreme left Marxists and the revolutionary Kurds. That is called a hotbed for revolt; the only reason the nation exists is because the US has pumped billions into it over the years. With Iraq, the US doesn't need turkey anymore, so, quite simply, you'll see it implode over the next few years. Despite your warmest wishes towards our murderers.

Edited June 8, 2004 by KnightOfArmenia

[Sasun]

To all the armchair strategists out there:

For your information, we are not "armchair strategists" - we are internet sages, but sometimes we also do geopolitics, strategy and settlement of unsettlable international disputes on our spare time

And who might you be Nakharar? Nakharar of what country?

Well, at any rate say hello to the King and convey our friendly wishes.

[Nakharar]

Whatever you say Knight of Armenia. Don't spill over.

[Armen]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FF09Ak03.html

 

Guys, check out the map on the link.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

http://www.atimes.com

 

Middle East

 

SPEAKING FREELY

Northern Iraq - calm like a bomb

By W Joseph Stroupe

 

As negotiations at the United Nations on a new resolution for Iraq apparently near a close, developments with respect to the Kurds and north Iraq, where there has been relative calm until now, are looking more and more ominous. Recently, the People's Congress of Kurdistan (the former Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK), announced an abrupt end to its five-year ceasefire with Turkish forces, warning that it would soon resort to violent means to achieve its ends.

 

Within a few days of the announcement, Kurdish forces in southern Turkey did attack Turkish forces, prompting a violent response. Additionally, according to a recent Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty report, "Kamis Djabrailov, chairman of the International Union of Kurdish Public Organizations that represents the Kurdish minorities in Russia, Kazakhstan, Armenia and other CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States], told Interfax on 31 May that his organization approves the announcement three days earlier by the People's Congress of Kurdistan that it will end on 1 June its five-year ceasefire in hostilities with the Turkish armed forces."

 

Hence, the regional political, diplomatic and even military mobilization of Kurdish forces, in an attempt to secure its own interests as the June 30 date for the handover of sovereignty to Iraq nears, appears to be under way. In verification of that fact, on June 7, Masoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan threatened to pull out of the interim government unless the new United Nations Security Council resolution guarantees Kurdish autonomy and a veto over the direction of the interim government as promised in the draft interim constitution, which was very reluctantly signed by the Shi'ite representatives, but which is something the Shi'ite majority refuses to accept under any circumstances.

 

The Kurdish representatives also expressed their bitter disappointment over the fact that no Kurd was chosen to fill the positions of either prime minister or president. Hence, in the Kurdish view, their interests are being severely slighted as the June 30 date nears. Whether a political and diplomatic compromise can be reached that satisfies all the parties is not at all assured. The Sunnis and Shi'ites appear to be mostly content with the look of the new interim council and with Iraq's direction, but the Kurds are certainly not content. They have been marginalized before, by the United States itself, and intend to take care of their own interests, by violence if need be. This is indeed ominous.

 

The pointed Kurdish demands threaten to disrupt the relative contentment with the transition process, which now exists among the Sunni and Shi'ite populations, among Iraq's neighbors and within the international community at large. In actuality, there is little sympathy for the cause of the Kurds in Iraq and the surrounding region.

 

That is especially so in Turkey, Syria and Iran, where Kurdish groups are viewed as nothing more than destabilizing terrorists, threatening the national security of the three nations, which have recently deepened their cooperation in the effort to subdue such groups. And in Armenia and Azerbaijan, the last thing that is wanted is for such Kurdish groups to push the region toward violence and instability in the pursuit of Kurdish autonomy.

 

An independent Kurdistan is, therefore, anathema to all but the Kurds themselves. It is the United States which has greatly exacerbated the current situation by raising Kurdish hopes for an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Months ago, in the atmosphere of violent insurgency in Iraq and the approaching handover of sovereignty, the US-drafted interim constitution significantly raised such Kurdish hopes, giving them a veto over the direction of any Iraqi interim government, as well as over the final Iraqi government to be seated in 2005.

 

Fearful of the influence of Shi'ite religious fundamentalism as the transition to sovereignty progressed, the administration of President George W Bush evidently saw the Kurds as an entity it could use to keep such Shi'ite influence in check, to limit its power in any new Iraqi regime, so as to prevent the formation of an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq. However, as matters are turning out, the most powerful positions being filled in the interim government are occupied by mostly secular Sunnis and Shi'ites.

 

So, the United States now has little use for the Kurds, who see clearly that once again they are being abandoned by the US. All the parties see the Kurds, therefore, as possible spoilers of the solution currently being put together under UN auspices. Hence, little sympathy exists for them. Realizing this fact, the Kurds are already resorting to threats and violence in an effort to get a satisfactory hearing. By its short-sighted, ad hoc approach to Iraq's complicated situation, first using the Kurds and then casting them aside, the United States may have sealed both its own and Iraq's fate.

 

There appears little hope that the Kurdish demands can be sufficiently taken into consideration without at the same time losing the already cautious and tentative support of the Sunnis and Shi'ites. And there also appears little hope that the Kurds will suddenly satisfy themselves with what the other two factions are comfortable in giving them. Hence, whether the Kurds might temporarily tone down their demands for the time being, or whether they more likely will ratchet up their demands as the UN negotiations proceed and the June 30 date nears, one thing that appears certain is that they will hold a major key to how events proceed in Iraq.

 

The United States has let loose a Kurdish "monster", not only on Iraq itself, but also on the region at large, a "monster" which cannot easily be put back into the box. If a diplomatic solution cannot be crafted that satisfies all of Iraq's three factions, and it is doubtful that one can, then a great deal of military muscle will be needed in the entire region to keep the disenfranchised Kurds "in check". And that muscle will have to come increasingly into play in northern Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

 

In the end, the handover of sovereignty on June 30 may not change anything, except that it may well accelerate Iraq's descent into sectarian violence, with Turkey and Syria cooperating militarily to secure their interests in northern Iraq by taking control of that region, and the southern regions of Iraq moving significantly closer into cooperation with Iran, with the US military caught in the middle. The relative calmness of northern Iraq is very likely to be much like the calmness of a large bomb - its calmness very deceptively masks the huge explosion which is likely imminent.

 

W Joseph Stroupe is editor-in-chief of GeoStrategyMap.com, an online geopolitical magazine specializing in strategic analysis and forecasting. He may be reached by e-mail at editor_in_chief@geostrategymap.com.

 

(Copyright 2004 GeoStrategyMap. All rights reserved.)

[Stormig]

They have a history of military dictatorships and a populace that is severely fundamentalist Muslim (they haven't forgotten that they were the last Caliphate). Only recently a massive supply of heavy arms and rockets was intercepted on its way from turkey to Iraq; that means that the fundamentalists are in the army as well. Plus we have the extreme left Marxists and the revolutionary Kurds. That is called a hotbed for revolt; the only reason the nation exists is because the US has pumped billions into it over the years. With Iraq, the US doesn't need turkey anymore, so, quite simply, you'll see it implode over the next few years. Despite your warmest wishes towards our murderers.

What a laugh. Anyone up for script of a movie, The Caliph and I?

[gurgen]

The Caliph and I?

[KnightOfArmenia]

Laugh or not. The fact that a religious fundamentalist party won an overwhelming victory in the elections, and the army having to warn the new government that it would launch a coup of the government became too religious and not "Kemalist" enough shows that the dream of a strong turkey is your fantasy, not reality.

[koko]

USA want to make the list longer of "allies":

Turkey, Israel,

Azerbadjian,

and now, Kurdistan.

a manufactured country

just like israel or turkey.

 

Scrw them!

 

why dont the persians let the kurds get independence in their country.

would they give it to them if they demanded? no.

The azeris are also trying to gain more armenian land.

would the iranians let the azeri-iranians get independence in Iran? No.

WHy should we let them have our land?

Edited June 9, 2004 by koko

[KnightOfArmenia]

Uhm, we shouldn't. LOL. I don't think anyone here would try to argue that.