dagblog - Comments for "Obama Losing Game of Chicken in Kobani"

There were reasons why the

moat — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 20:17:08 +0000

In reply to That's where it gets tricky.

There were reasons why the Kurds where not given land and by taking that area in northwestern Iraq made matters worst, not better. Besides, if they'd prefer arms instead of boots on the grounds, that says they know they don't have a legit claim to the land and can only keep it by armed force ... just what we don't need in the region another faction war over territory and religion.

Boots on the ground (if they were on offer) would not provide "legitimacy" by itself. What it would take is for enough of the neighborhood to receive more than they give up. A deal would have to be made.

It is true that the "delicate" balance of power that was established after WW1 was brought to an end by the Second Iraq War. That balance, however, was not all that delicate. From King Faisal through the history of the Baath regimes in Iraq and Syria it has been the story of centralized power ruling through force and terror. Turkey was carrying out ethnic cleansing at the beginning of their emergence as a modern state and continued the good work after getting a wink and a nod from the international community for it through the Treaty of Lausanne. The chaos has been there all a long, stored in a vacuum bottle.

In space, no one can hear you scream.

Now the area that used to be controlled by overlapping spheres of influence of various strongmen is the playground of an organized gang directed by cogent and seasoned soldiers. So the strategy taken by the neighbors and the international community to keep everybody as weak as possible in that region has backfired. Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Iraq, and Turkey are all fighting proxy wars that feed the negativity that ISIL is supported by.

We have voices in U.S. policy like Gelb and Briebart saying that maybe supporting Assad wouldn't be bad thing right now. I would rather see U.S. policy work toward negotiating the existence of Kurdistan than play footsie with one of the causes of that negative space.

Kurds are asking for arms to

NCD — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 00:53:12 +0000

In reply to That's where it gets tricky.

Kurds are asking for arms to defend themselves. They have a right to the land under their feet.

If we had left all the tanks and the heavy artillery to the Kurds and not Maliki's 'Army', ISIS would not have it all now, as Kurds don't run like the Shiite Iraq Army we armed and trained for 10 years at the cost of tens of billions.

From the looks of it, Iraq would be better off run by the Kurds, they are secular by nature, and do not want their region to be run by Iran, Turkey, Syria or the toothless idiots the Republicans put in power in Baghdad.

" ... The enemy of my enemy

Beetlejuice — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:20:31 +0000

In reply to NATO better realize it and

" ... The enemy of my enemy is my friend ... "

So long as Turkey can play both sides against the middle ... the old Ottoman Empire re-emerging, eh ??? Iraq and Syria use to be part of the Empire and I have pictures of an old Ottoman mud fort in Nairyah, Saudia Arabia near the Kuwait border.

What's interesting is how does NATO see this??? They're sending missile batteries to eastern Turkey so NATO troops may come under fire. If it's a ruse by Turkey to reclaim parts of their old Ottoman Empire that might get Europeans up in arms against Turkey.

That's where it gets tricky.

Beetlejuice — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:08:14 +0000

In reply to 15-20+ million Kurds wouldn't

That's where it gets tricky.

By arming the Kurds, those the US is seeking for Allies against ISIS would be fighting two foes ... ISIS and the Kurds.

"Kurdistan" only came into being because of Bu$h and Republican negligence. Gertrude Bell could have easily given them land of their own back in 1919/20 when they were carving up the Ottoman Empire, but she knew if they had done so, chaos would rule the region instead of peace.

There were reasons why the Kurds where not given land and by taking that area in northwestern Iraq made matters worst, not better. Besides, if they'd prefer arms instead of boots on the grounds, that says they know they don't have a legit claim to the land and can only keep it by armed force ... just what we don't need in the region another faction war over territory and religion.

15-20+ million Kurds wouldn't

NCD — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 16:16:37 +0000

In reply to This may sound callous, but

15-20+ million Kurds wouldn't still be alive today if they needed anyone's 'boots on the ground' because they have never had it. They also reject 'boots on the ground' from either the US or anyone else, they just want weapons to defend themselves (and autonomy, who can blame them).

It's the Republicans, the Pentagon and the incompetent corrupt government in Baghdad that want US boots on the ground.

And we will get just that if Americans put more Republicans back in charge of 'keeping us safe'.

NATO better realize it and

NCD — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:53:57 +0000

In reply to If that's his plan, then

NATO better realize it and soon. Of course Turkey is not being attacked by ISIS because Turkey is ISIS prime backer, ISIS is their proxy army.

There hasn't been one shot exchanged between ISIS and Turkey, although ISIS now cotrols most of the Syrian/Iraq - Turkey border.

US media, including NPR, are still repeating the BS that 'Turkey hates ISIS but.....yadayadayada". They don't hate ISIS Erdogran loves it, his own Sunni proxy army....... Assad of course has his and Iran's Hezbollah, a Lebanon base Shiite proxy army now fighting ISIS in Syria along side of Assad forces. Erdogran wants the US to be ISIS air force against Assad.

That's why Turkey won't let ammunition through to the Kurds in Kobani, Erdogran wants the elimination of Kurdish forces, and Assad, so Turkey is dominant across the region, ISIS is doing both.

If that's his plan, then

Beetlejuice — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:32:05 +0000

In reply to Erdogran's Plan:

If that's his plan, then Turkey is in for some serious troubles with NATO ... part of NATO membership is if your homeland is attacked, NATO will come to your rescue. So if he's stirring up the pot on purpose to destablise the area then he's putting NATO between a rock and a hard place ... as well as Turkey's wish to become an EU member.

This may sound callous, but

Beetlejuice — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:24:30 +0000

In reply to Obama Losing Game of Chicken in Kobani

This may sound callous, but it sounds like you need to refresh your memory with some wisdom from Gertrude Bell ... the British lady who was responsible for the creation of the Iraqi state with the Sunni minority holding all the political power leaving both Shiite's and Kurds on their knees.

If it weren't ISIS, it would be some other terrorist group advancing to fill the political void created by Bu$h ... who didn't have a clue he was upsetting a delicate balancing act created at the end of WWI to keep that part of the Middle East stable. And now that's it's been removed, all hell is breaking loose, which was foreseen if care wasn't taken to place specific characters in unique positions to keep the chaos in check.

Keep in mind too, the Kurds are only successful ... IF ... the US as boots on the ground in their area. Once the US departed, they're on their own to sink or swim ... and no Arab country will toss them a life preserver no matter what. If ISIS takes them out, it's a regional eyesore removed and then the land grab starts for the oil fields.

Hagel is amongst the deaf

NCD — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:04:11 +0000

In reply to What Hagel recommends, from

Hagel is amongst the deaf ,dumb and blind US/NATO leaders who can't see the obvious, that ISIS is supported and backed by Turkey, it's their proxy force fighting Assad. Assad has Hezbollah, Turkey has ISIS.

No surprise they won't let us use their air base, or get 'more invovled'. Incredible. Are Hagel et al really that dumb or just won't admit it to the press that Turkey, a NATO member is backing an organization that massacres people by the hundreds and beheads westerners?

From your link:

U.S. leaders have been urging Turkey to get more involved in the battle against the Islamic extremists who have stormed across Iraq and Syria and taken control of large amounts of territory near Turkey's border.

Hal, to fix the "Law of

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 12:43:23 +0000

In reply to I'm not one of those "if you

Hal, to fix the "Law of Unintended Consequences", if I stick my hand under a running lawnmower, it's either awful ignorance or worse stupidity or unbelievable willful self-mutilation. I can't fathom an administration & supporters that ignored recent Soviet history in Afghanistan to make even worse mistakes there and in Iraq. Nor the following Administration supporting Libyan & Syrian rebels in some bizarrely naïve expectation that democracy would bloom out of chaos from the barrel of a gun & not be co-opted by fanatics - am I the only one who recalls Khomeini's takeover & disappointments/bloodshed that followed?

I'm an admirer of Zbigniew Brzezenski for sucking the Russians into the briar patch, and the small irritation that Osama bin Laden was in no way dampened the benefits of destroying the $300 billion a year Soviet army & its deathgrip on East Europe and elsewhere. Even there, the "unintended consequences" of OBL that happened roughly 2 decades later on a small scale were simply magnified horrendously by our own incompetence or willful mismanagement.

We can't keep chalking up to honest mistake what's obviously dishonest self-destructiveness, whatever those perverse unstated goals are. If the President launches attacks with some silly claim that ISIL is critical to American security, we're halfway into the briarpatch ourselves. Once we've embraced deluded reasoning, our military-industrial-media complex will gladly take over - more money in taking down a civilization than in building one up, as Rhett Butler noted.