You can’t be that obtuse. The Kurds are not remotely defending Iraq; they are defending their own territory - distinctly NOT pushing against ISIS controlled areas. In fact, they probably mostly believe that “Iraq” doesn’t exist anymore.
It’s not the ISF against ISIS. It’s the ISF against ISIS + Sunni Insurgents. And Sunni Insurgents includes well trained, former members of SH’s army. I’m surprised you haven’t learned that yet. Go back and read the NYT article i was talking about earlier.
No more comments about your Forbes Energy Sector Expert who seems to change his mind 180 degrees every few days?
Amid turmoil, Iraq’s Kurdish region is laying foundation for independent state
I can’t see how anyone could honestly say the Kurds don’t think this is a civil war and are pretty happy about it.
You know, Iraq Civil War I never really spilled over much into the Kurdish areas.
Also from your cite:
I’m sure NFBW will support such a referendum and eventual secession, even though that contradicts his earlier statements in this thread that that Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are trying to work together.
I can’t see how anyone can say that the Kurds have engaged in a rebellion and civil war against the government of Iraq? They didn’t drive the Iraqi troops out of Kirkuk did
They?
The case for Iraq Civil War II is falling into further decline if this turns out to be evolving. Negotiating the way to federalism after Sunnis and Kurds kill and capture the terrorists that invaded Iraq in the first place.
Negotiating an outcom is not civil war.
As I have been arguing it does not seem possible for ISIS and its Iraqi born collaborators to hold on to anything they have siezed.
Hence no civil war against the government in Baghdad just pursuit for federalism. And more autonomy for the Kurds.
No civil war unless Maliki decides to fight. And that scenario seems quite unlikely.
And they want Kirkuk and Mosul, I’ve read. If they got all the territory they want, Iraqi Kurdistan would border on the Kurdish bit of Syria, and they might have designs on that too. I see no reason why they shouldn’t have it, but Assad would object if he were in any position to object. OTOH, from Assad’s POV it might make sense to say to the Kurds, “If you defeat ISIS you can have the Governorate of Al-Hasakah!”
The Kurds standing to the side and protecting their holdings doesn’t change the fact that there is a civil war going on. When government troops run away and the Kurds moved in to take over Kirkuk, doesn’t it make it less of a land grab because they didn’t fight each other.
And what the Kurds want to “negotiate”, is the ability to do whatever they like without Baghdad approval. I know you are enjoying this new parroting back words thing, but that “you can’t see” my point, shows you aren’t very perceptive.
Once again you have failed to understand your own cite. There is no negotiation to end the current civil war. The negotiations are between the Kurds and Sunnis to cut the central government out of it. Maliki wishes there were negotiations ongoing, but from your cite:
Do you understand that? No talks whatsoever about federalism.
This civil war is underway. If negotiations ever result in an end to the fighting, they will end the civil war. And right now the most likely outcome is partition. If the Kurds and Sunni Arabs do drive out ISIS, they will have no reason to want back into a unified Iraq.
What contradicts this? (“It appears Maliki and Kurd and Sunni leaders are trying to avoid a repeat of the violence that occurred under US occupation”)
That was based on this: (“Quote: Late Tuesday, the prime minister appeared on television with Sunni and Kurdish leaders. They issued a joint statement about the need to close ranks and stick to “national priorities” in the face of the threat posed by the militants.”)
I’ve argued that ‘partition’ is more likely than ‘violent civil war’. Do you dispute that?
Here is my response:
("Do you have anything in mind for the US government to do something militarily to intervene in anyway to paraphrase it: (…“to bridge differences … over rights … to independently export oil and over territorial claims.”) between Sunnis and Kurds and Shiite?
We would not bomb Kurds or Simnis if they sought autonomy from Iraq. The question is wouid we recognized doing what Biden thought should be considered done a long time ago. Partition. ")
Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are can work together on resolving those territorial and autonomy issues even if it means there separate countries, but there may be advantages for a federalization or decentralization of authority that can be worked out without Civil War II that John Mace knew would happen long before it has not happened yet.
What would be the advantages to the Kurds of a federalist Iraq as opposed to their current de facto independence?
While I agree with most of your comment, we do have relations with India, but why an “alliance with Iran”? What good does Iran do, no benefit whatsoever.
Plus we barely support rebels in Syria, not even liberal ones, Assad gets plenty of dedicated support from the lovely bunch of Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, not to mention his military is far more powerful.
Your entire Civil War II collapses with your own words.
Answer this: Are the Kurds siding/negotiating with ISIS Sunni leaders that have seized control of one fifth of Iraq through terror and murder and seek to snatch all of Iraq for their caliphate?
Are are the Kurds negotiating with tribal leaders and legitimate leaders from the Sunni areas who will jointly destroy the terrorists in their midst?
I’m not seeing where the Kurds have aligned with the terrorists or conspired to start a civil war agsinst the government in Baghdad.
Do you think they are?
It dawned on me that even if an independent Kurdistan were to emerge from Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria, putting aside the oil, the country is geographically a shitty place-mountainous and land locked.
Unlike many on this board, I never bought the argument that Kurds or any other minority in the Middle East were all “good guys”. Not that anyone from anywhere is a bad guy. But Kurds are very tribal and clannish, and their human rights is not very spotless.
People in the West tend to be naïve, that any religious or ethnic minority in the Mid East are all sweet victims who are cuddly and lovable.
Are the Baathist supporters Iraqis? Are the Baathists supporting/involved with this attack? If both of those are “yes”, then this is civil war. Are any of the tribal leaders Baath supporters? If so then again, yes, the Kurds are negotiating with the “terrorists”.
Thanks for giving all us sheeple the heads up.
The other rebels groups have been fighting ISIS in Syria, including other Islamist groups. I doubt ISIS is supported by McCain, in fact he has made the argument that Obama was wrong, that not supporting rebels has not weakened Islamists, in fact ISIS has grown stronger despite U.S apprehension of arming rebels.
In many ways this supports the moderate rebels’ claims that they should have been more seriously backed by the U.S. Interestingly, ISIS has now gone into Iraq, a country the U.S has sacrificed so much.
This does not make McCain look bad at all, in many ways it makes his argument easier, that Obama’s policy of not fully supporting rebels has not stemmed the tide of terrorist groups, the opposite is happening in front of our eyes.
The problem, as usual, is that we weren’t sure where Western support would have ended up. So in “supporting the rebels” in Syria it wasn’t ever going to be simple to cut out the “bad ones”.
I would assume so, I read in an article two weeks ago that one of Saddam Hussein’s former generals and now head the Baath party, Izzat Douri has made a deal with and is fighting along with Sunni militants. Douri has eluded capture since 2003, and many remnants of the old regime would love to throw out Maliki and reverse the Iraqi govt.
More autonomy and the key point is getting the same autonomy for their Sunni neighboring region.
Do you even hear yourself? More autonomy than they have now which, btw, is basically complete?