If the reports are true, this means that the Islamic Republic of Iran is arming people who, had the Americans not intervened when they did, would have wiped out the Hazara, the Shi'a tribe of Mongol origin who, because they were Shi'a, in the eyes of the Taliban deserved to die. For more on this see Rory Stewart's memoir of walking from Herat to Jalalabad.

And what that means is not that Shi'a and Sunni always let bygones be bygones -- they don't, and in Iraq they won't -- but that, when the Infidels are around to fight and to kill, sometimes that is sufficient to overcome the hostility, the resentment, the hatred that one might otherwise expect to find.

This does not mean that sectarian fissures cannot be exploited. They can be, and should be. But for that to be accomplished most efficiently, remove the obvious Infidels in the midst. Let them be off-stage, supporting now this tribe, and now that, as the occasion warrants, but not being obviously and immediately in evidence.

Posted by: Hugh at September 17, 2008 2:15 PM

And what that means is not that Shi'a and Sunni always let bygones be bygones -- they don't, and in Iraq they won't -- but that, when the Infidels are around to fight and to kill, sometimes that is sufficient to overcome the hostility, the resentment, the hatred that one might otherwise expect to find.

Shi'a and Sunni aren't real muslims. according to imams of the Wahhabi sect. talk about real hatred.

Posted by: theygottago at September 17, 2008 2:32 PM

What this really signifies is that Muslims, like anyone else, are not so captive to theological doctrine that they won't betray it to pursue their own self-interests. It's not just "killing infidels" that will occasionally bring Shia and Sunni together, it's any areas when their self-interests coincide.

The Liberal/Left are stuck on their mantra that Islam is "not a monolith"....as if Sharia in northern Malaysia is as different from that of northern Nigeria as the Malay language is from Hausa. We know better.

In the same vain, some here feel that all Muslims are the identical and should be treated as such. This is folly. Muslims can sometimes be bribed, seduced, even reasoned with. Deri-speaking Afghan supporters of Karzai can be employed against Pashto-speaking supporters of the Taliban; Tunisians can be enlisted to work against the efforts of Saudis...and on and on.

Muslims are busy playing Liberal Westerners off conservatives. They aren't the only ones who can divide and conquer.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 17, 2008 2:38 PM

Muslims can sometimes be bribed, seduced, even reasoned with. Deri-speaking Afghan supporters of Karzai can be employed against Pashto-speaking supporters of the Taliban; Tunisians can be enlisted to work against the efforts of Saudis...and on and on.
-- from a curious comment by a poster above, the very poster who has spent the last several years denouncing the policies in Iraq that I have steadily promoted, based on the recognition that pre-existing fissures (ethnic, sectarian, economic) within the Camp of Islam should be recognized, welcomed, and exploited, often by doing nothing more than, as in Iraq, getting out of the way

Muslims can be rented but not bought. And Infidels do not need to spend more money to rent them. They have their own reasons for working against other Muslims, reasons that may be tribal (Shammar and Al-Saud), or ethnic (Kurds and Arabs, Berbers and Arabs), or economic (the "northern Arabs" of Syria, for example, against the "southern Arabs" of the Gulf).

The example given by the poster is Tunisia, and Tunisians who, he writes, "can be enlisted to work against the efforts of the Saudis." What exactly he means by this -- does he mean that Tunisian imams will rail effectively against the Saudis in French mosques, as perhaps Sarkozy believes? What, exactly?

In any case, Tunisians do not have to be paid to be anti-Saudi. Tunisia is a police-state, run by Ben Ali, the successor to Bourguiba. Like Bourguiba, and others in the Destour Party, Ben Ali wants to keep Tunisia as secular, in its practices -- especially in the treatment of women -- as he can. He must worry not only about the "radicalization" of locals -- hence the coming down hard on Gannouchi --- but also of the "radicalization" of Tunisians living in France and attending mosques that may have imams receiving Saudi payments. He has a stake in preventing that and need not be bribed to work against it.
'
It would be interesting to find out if the poster above has come round, at long last, with or without Western payments, to the notion, long presented here (and which he has been obstinately dead set against), that the most effective and cheapest way (and we need to keep our money for other things, not squander it on Muslims, whether for rent or not) to weaken the Camp of Islam is simply to allow its natural fissures to work their magic, as they will, for the spirit of violence and aggression, and the refusal to compromise, come naturally to Muslims because of the attidues and atmospherics of Islam, that emerge from the texts, and from societies suffused by, steeped in, both the letter, and spirit, of those texts.

Posted by: Hugh at September 17, 2008 2:58 PM

Gosh, wasn't it just a couple weeks ago someone here commented that if we just left Sunni and Shia alone, they'd kill each other off?

In fact, wasn't the argument posed that we never needed to hit Iraq because Sunni/Shia would have killed one another off if we'd just stayed out?

Yea. That's the ticket.

This is why wars are not fought by "commenters."

Posted by: undaunted at September 17, 2008 3:09 PM

To all those talking renting, buying off muslims, what ever works and if its military along with renting, so be it. what price do you put on feedom?
so if going to Afganistan is enough to bring some stability and also creating strife among the taliban, as it keeps the violent jihad open enough for other Westerners to realize how violent islam can be. there are many fronts to fighting islam, the worst kind is to promote the kind that abbas brings, as the rest of the world falls asleep as creeping sharia comes walking in your town, province, state etc. The more islamists act out the more the rest of the sleepy world wakes up. Freedom is very expensive needless to say, enough to die for sometimes, thank God we have military men and women brave to fight for those who cannot or will not.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 17, 2008 3:17 PM

Lets see if i can get this right old arab muslim saying.
My cousin insults me i fight my cousin a man from my village insults me me and my cousin fight him.
a man from another village insults me my village fights them on and on in other words the enemy of my enemy is my friend are we really shocked here.

Posted by: spcbat at September 17, 2008 3:28 PM

If the reports are true, Iram makes itself more and more of a target. Stop them, and three conflicts (Iraq, Afg, Pak) will change for loss of curent arms shipments, and training.

Islam is the enemy, that must be the focus.

Leaders of countrys come and go,so do followers of islam, what is "frendly" now will change tomorrow.

Islam has remained untouched, that must change.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 17, 2008 3:31 PM

If we antagonize the situation with sunni and shi'a they will kill each other off thay have been useing our divisions against us it is time we do the same to them.
The divisions among muslim sects are great we just need to stop being the nice guys and start cia operations into createing greater divides.
Imagine in the war with iraq if we would have let the civil occur sunni versus shi'a it would have brought in sunni mujahdeen against iran saudi cash against iran balance to the area
and weakening of both sides as well as death to at the very least hundreds of thousands of jihadists.
This is where George Bush is a complete failure hes not this great master mind criminal hes dumber then a bag of hammers he is not smart enough to be a criminal he walked in to this war seeing himself remember as a savior in history books not seeing the great oppertunity to set islams attack on the west by a hundred years.
Bush is the dumbest war time president since johnson.

Posted by: spcbat at September 17, 2008 3:39 PM

HUGH: "It would be interesting to find out if the poster above has come round, at long last, with or without Western payments, to the notion, long presented here (and which he has been obstinately dead set against), that the most effective and cheapest way (and we need to keep our money for other things, not squander it on Muslims, whether for rent or not) to weaken the Camp of Islam is simply to allow its natural fissures to work their magic, as they will, for the spirit of violence and aggression, and the refusal to compromise, come naturally to Muslims because of the attidues and atmospherics of Islam, that emerge from the texts, and from societies suffused by, steeped in, both the letter, and spirit, of those texts."

RESPONSE: On the contrary, I'm more convinced than ever that your recipe for Iraq, abandoning it to the fanatics, would have been disastrous for US interests. Instead, we used Iraqis - Sunni and Shia - to beat down the most fanatical elements on both sides of the divide. Al Qaeda in Iraq is a shell of its former self, and the Mahdi Army is at least momentarily defunct.

How things play out in the end is another story. But today, instead of Iraq being the epicenter of the global Jihad as it would have become if you'd have had your way, it's an afterthought.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 17, 2008 3:40 PM

PS - "with or without Western payments"???

Have I misunderstood, or are you suggesting here that I've possibly taken money to voice my support for the War in Iraq?

Posted by: Cornelius at September 17, 2008 3:43 PM

PS - "with or without Western payments"???

Have I misunderstood, or are you suggesting here that I've possibly taken money to voice my support for the War in Iraq?

Posted by: Cornelius

I did think that a confused word order, but I did not take it to mean that Hugh was implying that Cornelius was paid to voice an opinion. I took Hugh's statement to mean that Iraq would implode due to sectarian violence with or without Western payments.

My $.02

Posted by: Richard at September 17, 2008 4:03 PM

Al Qaeda in Iraq is a shell of its former self, and the Mahdi Army is at least momentarily defunct.

Cornelius,
But how much is the US expected to shell out to keep things that way? When the Mahdis want to come back they'll come back, unless someone has liquidated all Sadr-ites, including the children. The same goes for al Qaeda in Iraq. The Iraqis turned on al Qaeda only because al Qaeda began attacking Iraqis. As long as only coalition troops were targeted, the Sunnis had no problem with al Qaeda. At the very least, they didn't have enough of a problem with al qaeda to fight them. They might mutter on the sidelines but they had no problem with what al qaeda was doing. At least, there was no evidence of that.
How long before all factions decide not to waste ammunition on one another and train their guns on the West? Would this administration be bragging about progress if al Qaeda had been smart enough to enlist the Iraqis rather than bomb them?
Maybe that's what will do them in - they tried to start a civil war rather than get all Iraqis on their side. But how many coalition lives must be lost before that happens?

Posted by: PMK at September 17, 2008 4:05 PM

"On the contrary, I'm more convinced than ever that your recipe for Iraq, abandoning it to the fanatics, would have been disastrous for US interests."
-- from a poster above

I do not think I am alone in finding this a caricature of a caricature -- "abandoning" Iraq "to the fanatics" is a strange way to describe what I have advocated; there are various "fanatics" in Iraq, and some who are not so "fanatical" but, save for the Christians, they are all Muslims. Am I prepared to end the experiment in sentimental messianism that was based on some assumption that "freedom" can be brought to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East? Yes. Am I prepared to staunch the flow of men, money, and materiel in Iraq, because I don't think that Muslim peoples can have democracy transplanted, nor is the stony soil of Islam favorable, no matter how much watering with American blood, to the growth of that peculiar plant, advanced Western democracy.

As for the "fanatics" -- I suspect you think that is a very limited group, possibly consisting only of the on-the-run Al-Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia. But "fanatics" as we Westerners would define them comprise far more of the Iraqi population -- they can be found among the Sunni Arabs and the Shi'a Arabs, and if they end up, as I am convinced they will, reverting to type (aggressive, violent, incapable of real compromise) no matter when the Americans leave, why stay longer? Why build up the "Iraqi" army, which whatever other use it is put to, is likely to be a threat, in the end, to Infidels?

Finally, you have yet to tell me exactly how remaining in Iraq -- instead of"abandoning Iraq to the fanatics," as you put it in youyr characteristically comical, even grotesque and reductive version of my carefully-elaborated suggestions -- will lead to a weakening of the Camp of Islam. How will it make Islam less attractive to non-Muslims, in the way that the obvious spectacle of continued strife in Iraq will do? How will it lead to encouraging Sunni-Shi'a trouble outside Iraq, if the Americans succeed to dampening down such hostilities within Iraq? How will preventing Kurdish-Arab hostilities help bring the issue of Arab supremacism, as emblemized by the mistreatment, including mass murder, of the Kurds by the Arabs,help us? Would not the spectacle of Arabs in Iraq, supported by Arabs outside Iraq, suppressing a Kurdish attempt -- for the Kurds are a genuine people, with a language and culture specific to them, unlike that local group of Arabs, that hastily-concocted "Palestinian people," about whom so much is heard -- to achieve independence do a great deal to bring to the world's non-Arab Muslims the lesson that Islam is a vehicle of Arab supremacism, and the Arabs have always demonstrated an indifference to, or contempt for, non-Arab Muslims.

If you can spell out exactly in what way an Iraq that remains united, and even prosperous, helps to weaken the Camp of Islam, then at least I would know what to respond to. So go ahead. Spell it out here. Perhaps you can do a better job than the Bush Administration. Tell us exactly your vision of Iraq, and exactly how it will help, not the Iraqis -- I'm indifferent to them -- but Americans.

Posted by: Hugh at September 17, 2008 4:34 PM

The Islamic Republic of Iran should be celebrating today:

"Arabs to hit polling stations en masse"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3598258,00.html

JIHADISTS CELEBRATE LIVNI WIN IN ISRAEL

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3598366,00.html

Posted by: Wild Jew at September 17, 2008 5:03 PM

To stop the iranians, we MUST IMMEDIATELY send a $250 billion USD weapons aid package to the taliban!

Oh hell, so what if our banking system flies to pieces!

Posted by: witness at September 17, 2008 6:16 PM

HUGH: "So go ahead. Spell it out here. Perhaps you can do a better job than the Bush Administration. Tell us exactly your vision of Iraq, and exactly how it will help, not the Iraqis -- I'm indifferent to them -- but Americans."

RESPONSE: A united, pro-Western Iraq will

a) not be an appendage of Iran, giving that country regional supremacy

b) not be an Al Qaeda terror state, a base of operations to subvert the "apostate" regimes like Jordan

c) provide the best means for insuring Kurdish autonomy

Now, let's talk about the Kurds...

HUGH: "How will preventing Kurdish-Arab hostilities help bring the issue of Arab supremacism, as emblemized by the mistreatment, including mass murder, of the Kurds by the Arabs,help us?

RESPONSE: Just like your grotesque assertion the other day that the development of cures for diseases afflicting the under-developed world is a mistaken use of R & D, so here we see another example of your convoluted ethics...

You are a supporter of Kurdish nationalism, not out of any affection for the Kurds as a people, but because their very existence is an affront to Arab nationalism. Fair enough.

As you've written above, you think it's been a mistake to have prevented Arab-Kurdish hostilities...that the mass murder of Kurds will help our cause, validating in the eyes of the world our 'Arab supremacism' contention.

No thought for the Kurds themselves. No thought for the moderate state they are constructing, one that last year beckoned Iraq's Christians to come and live peaceably as fellow citizens...

Wait, I remember...you wanted to withdraw from Iraq, watch the country go up in flames, and then re-involve America on behalf of the Kurds. Yes, that's it. Americans would watch in horror from their television sets as the helicopter evacuation of our embassy in Saigon was repeated in Baghdad. American prestige would be irreparably damaged by our "defeat" (I'm sure you could adequately explain to the world that it wasn't defeat, it was in fact a Machiavellian victory for America!). Tenuous allies would re-evaluate their relations with us just as some did after the fall of Saigon, our forces would probably be expelled from Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait to accommodate the new realities (Iran's regional ascendancy).

The American public would recoil at the thought of any further involvement in the Iraqi nightmare (just as we were allergic to foreign interventions for a full 7 years after the fall of Saigon)...

...and then, Hugh would emerge to convince a traumatized American public that we could determine events in Iraq without boots on the ground when we couldn't with them there, that we could save the Iraqi Kurds with an airdrop here, an airdrop there, that we could prevail upon the Turks to betray their national interests not only by accepting an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq, but by looking the other way while the Kurds engaged in an aggressive irredentism, incorporating Kurdish portions of Syria and Iran into their nascent state, so that the last great un-incorporated portion of the Kurdish homeland would be southeastern Turkey...but all this would be satisfactory to the Turks because, well, because Hugh says so.

You wouldn't pass geo-politics 101.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 17, 2008 6:35 PM

"No thought for the Kurds themselves..."

I am not sentimental about the Kurds, but I do hope for an independent Kurdish state. Such a state, you seem to think, is impossible, or even harmful. I think it both possible, and useful. And I still maintain that, given total Kurdish dependence on American military aid and diplomatic support, the Kurds will be happy to do what they can in Iran and Syria, and be willing --begrudgingly willing -- to rein in those who wish to make territorial claims on Anatolia. The existence of an independent Kurdistan, with its own oil, does not necessarily threaten Turkey, especially if Turks are encouraged to invest in Kurdistan, and instead of crushing it, to come to regard Kurdistan as an economic partner and even, possibly, an ally. Furthermore, any Kurd now in Turkey who feels the need to live in a state run of, by, and for Kurds, can now find that it exists, and the case against Turkey in Anatolia becomes less compelling than it would be without that independent Kurdistan. You think this all impossible to achieve and you accuse me of being cruelly indifferent to Kurdish desires. I claim it is you who are cruelly etc.

As for the same old s.o., I'm too tired to bother. I've posted it all here, in your direction, so many times before.

Posted by: Hugh at September 17, 2008 6:59 PM

For the record, that scenario I offered above was a pre-surge one, when Hugh was advocating withdrawal at the height of Iraq's insurgency 2 years ago. Of course the dynamic is entirely different now on the heels of the effectiveness of the surge, which Hugh naturally opposed.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 17, 2008 7:01 PM

The "surge" changes, in the long run, nothing. Wait until the Americans leave. Sooner or later, they will, and then what do you think will happen?

Posted by: Hugh at September 17, 2008 7:04 PM

There you see it folks, enunciated once again, Hugh's delusion that the Turks, so pathologically fearful of Kurdish separatism that until very recently, they could only refer to the Kurds as "mountain Turks", could be prevailed upon by an America who just walked away and left the region aflame - to betray their officially enunciated policy that Iraqi Kurdish independence is a mortal threat to Turkey's territorial integrity.

He interprets my desire to see Iraqi Kurdistan flourish as a moderate and autonomous region to be cruel....simply because it is absent formal independence, which every actor in the region, Turk, Arab & Persian, violently opposes. Hugh would rather see it aflame to prove a point.

Furthermore, Hugh again shows his disconnect by insisting that the Kurds will do our bidding "given total Kurdish dependence on American military aid and diplomatic support". But were we to have followed his advice and withdrawn from Iraq at the height of the insurgency, our influence over the Kurds would have been as compromised as our ability to help them in the face of external (Turkey, Iran, Syria) and internal (Ansar al Islam, AQI) threats.

His math doesn't add up folks. I hope you all are getting the picture.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 17, 2008 7:21 PM

Hmmm I was going to say something about the surge, but I think I will catch a different bus...

Someone, something, sooner or later, is going to have to step on Iran. Sooner rather than later...later equals more dead coalition soldiers and Israeli's, and means more power for Iran...

Posted by: duh_swami at September 17, 2008 8:36 PM

DUH SWAMI: "Someone, something, sooner or later, is going to have to step on Iran."

One thing Hugh and I can agree on.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 17, 2008 9:21 PM

I would like to see an outcome in Iraq that leads to a weakening of the Camp of Islam. I have said, for more than four years (beginning in late February 2004, after Saddam's sons had been killed and he captured) that I thought this could best be achieved by considering that, with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime, the transfer of power from Sunnis to Shi'a was now inevitable, and could not be undone. I further claimed, and reiterated often, and do so now, that the Sunnis will never acquiesce in their new, inferior status, and the Shi'a will never give the Sunni Arabs what they want. I further said, repeatedly, and do so today, that the Kurds will never accept anything less than total autonomy, and most will not be satisfied until there is an independent Kurdistan, which controls Kirkuk and, most likely, Mosul. And having tasted a life free of Arab domination (in fact some Arabs now flee to Kurdistan for a safer existence) they are even more unwilling ever to become part of an Arab-dominated Iraq again. And the mere attempt by the Arabs to squash Kurdish independence, or Kurdish control of Kirkuk or Mosul, will raise in the consciousness of the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs, the whole question of Arab mistreatment of non-Arabs, and Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacism.

I wrote repeatedly that I thought this was not a bad thing, but a good thing, if one defines "victory" in Iraq for America as an outcome which weakens the Camp of Islam. I noted how the Sunni-Shi'a split in Iraq would not go unnoticed, that the Sunni suspicion of the Shi'a (Mubarak called them meretricious; the Saudis treat them with contempt in the Eastern Province, and watch them closely; in Lebanon the Sunni Muslims have no reason not to add fear to the contempt they used to feel for Shi'a Arabs. I claimed, and claim, that Sunni-Shi'a hostilities, at whatever level, inside Iraq will help to keep them going, or to get them started, or to enlarge them, in Saudi Arabia, in Kuwait, in Yemen, in Bahrain, in Lebanon, in Pakistan.

I further added that I thought that despite the vast and costly efforts made by American troops, essentially the payment to the "Awakening" tribes was temporarily effective against Al Qaeda in Iraq because the latter had already overreached and antagonized Sunnis, but that in the end, with Al Qaeda taken care of, the Sunnis would turn to what they see as the Shi'a attempt to ignore American attempts to create "fairer" (whatever that means, given that in the entire history of modern Iraq various versions of Sunni rulers lorded it over the Shi'a)and, failing to obtain the satisfaction they sought, revolt -- in ways little and big.

And I further claimed that this was inevitable because Islam encourages violence and aggression, and the lessons taught as to how to pretend to make deals, but never to truly compromise, with Infidels are lessons taken in, and applied to relations with other Muslims of different sects, or different tribes, unless the presence of Infidels served to temporarily unify Muslims.

The poster above will have none of this. His vision of the future, of an Iraq where the "surge worked" (meaning: where violence is down because of American efforts) consists of "a united, pro-Western Iraq" which, he further tells us, "will

a) not be an appendage of Iran, giving that country regional supremacy

b) not be an Al Qaeda terror state, a base of operations to subvert the "apostate" regimes like Jordan

c) provide the best means for insuring Kurdish autonomy"

Let's see. Whichever party wins, the Americans have to leave Iraq, if only because the damage to our military, and the drain on our resources, is too great.

Let's see what all this means, about Iraq being an "appendage of Iran" (this was never in the cards) or not becoming an "Al Qaeda terror state" (I haven't any idea what this phrase means, and I see no signs of any "Al Qaeda terror state" anywhere, and in any case, Al Qaeda does not quite exhaust the threat from a world-wide Jihad, that exists wherever there are Muslims intent on doing their duty to remove all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam), and I do not see why an Arab state in Iraq can "provide the best means for insuring Kurdish autonomy" -- that is, presumably better than an independent Kurdistan.

But there's no need to make a final judgment. Just pull up a chair, and sit and watch what happens in Iraq, and elsewhere, and see what policy you think in the end -- whether adopted or not -- made more sense all along, , with results more beneficial to Infidels, which means less desirable from the point of view of those inhabiting the Camp of Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at September 17, 2008 9:23 PM

HUGH: "...the mere attempt by the Arabs to squash Kurdish independence, or Kurdish control of Kirkuk or Mosul, will raise in the consciousness of the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs, the whole question of Arab mistreatment of non-Arabs, and Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacism."

RESPONSE: Nonsense.

If the Arabs crush the nascent Kurdish state, it will barely be a blip on the Muslim radar. When do Muslims give a damn about inter-Muslim carnage? It's only when the infidel inflicts pain that Muslims become galvanized.

The Kurds of Iraq were slaughtered in '75, when the Shah of Iran abandoned them in a trade with Iraq for control of the Shat al Arab. Nobody gave a damn.

Saddam gassed the Kurds in '88 at Halabja, instantly killing 5000. It was a crime of epochal and infamous proportions. Barely a peep from the Muslim world.

But this time around, Hugh assumes there will be an incredible awakening among Muslims to the evils of Arab supremacism as the Kurds play the sacrificial lamb. In reality, all that will happen is that Kurds are slaughtered anew.

HUGH: "Let's see what all this means, about Iraq being an "appendage of Iran" (this was never in the cards)..."

RESPONSE: Besides the United States, Iran is the most influential country in Iraq. Without America there - as Hugh has advocated for years, Iran's influence would be unchallenged. The leading Shia cleric of Iraq - Ayatollah Sistani - is Iranian. The Shia majority in Iraq share their confessional identity with Iran. In a civil war with Sunnis - which is what Hugh wants - the Shia would inevitably turn to their benefactors in Tehran, only increasing Iranian influence. The writing is on the wall.

But to Hugh, "this was never in the cards."

HUGH: "I see no signs of any "Al Qaeda terror state" anywhere..."

RESPONSE: There was one in Anbar province in 2005, and had we left then as Hugh advocated, there would have been no "Anbar Awakening" to drive them out. Let's face it folks, the troop surge was the deciding factor in the ability of the Iraqi Sunnis to overcome Al Qaeda.

HUGH: "I do not see why an Arab state in Iraq can "provide the best means for insuring Kurdish autonomy" -- that is, presumably better than an independent Kurdistan."

RESPONSE: I do.

Contrary to Hugh's wishful thinking, an independent Kurdistan is opposed not only by Iraqi Arabs, but by Syria, Iran, and - most importantly and most vehemently, Turkey. Turkey has drawn a red line and threatened to go to war if Iraqi Kurdistan declares independence. They've even threatened intervention if the Kurds incorporate Kirkuk into their self-governing region.

Yet, to reiterate, in Hugh's universe, Turkey can be prevailed upon to betray their stated policy, to let the Iraqi Kurds not only have the oil fields of Kirkuk, and their independence, but - and this is where Hugh's imagination really gets the better of him - to shatter the principle of territorial integrity by allowing the Kurds to seize Kurdish portions of Syria and Iran, establishing the precedent whereby Turkey itself would be dismembered as the Kurds claim the last - AND LARGEST - element of greater Kurdistan in the Turkish southeast...to fulfill their age-old aspiration for a homeland of their own.

It doesn't wash, people. The Turks will NEVER buy in. They'd sooner go to war...as would Iran...and Syria. The Kurds would be out not only independence, but the autonomy they enjoy today.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 17, 2008 10:30 PM

A clash of enlightened titans.

To Hugh, my respect.

To Cornelius, my thanks for presenting the positions I hold, so well and so eloquently.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at September 18, 2008 3:29 AM

...“The Revolutionary Guards actually sell the weapons to the Taliban, who apparently pay for them in drugs, not cash," A.B. added... (from the article)

Attention anyone who believes that Iran is not "actually" supplying arms to any and ALL Islamic terrorists, then I have a bridge that I would like to sell to you.

Someone needs to put up a giant neon sign at the Iranian border. "Get your Islamic terrorist bombs, amunitions, and weapons here".

Posted by: Spot on at September 18, 2008 8:09 AM

Let them arm one another to death. They can only kill each other with their arms. Use them against the West and suffer the consequences.

The cursed Middle East would not be called Dar Al Suicide Bombing without the arms. All power to them.

Posted by: American at September 18, 2008 11:31 AM

Thanks Davey for the kind words.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 18, 2008 1:42 PM

Is there no limit to the cowardice of the United States of America? For 29 years now Iran has been waging a totally one-sided war on this country, taking over a US embassy, blowing up 3 others, blowing up 241 US Marines, hijacking TWA 847, holding American hostages for 7 years, executing 2 of them and torturing 2 others to death, blowing up American GIs in Khobar, aiding the 9/11 hijackers, aiding attacks on American soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and through it all, this so-called "home of the brave" have been shrinking from the fight. What are we paying nearly $600 billion every year on defense for? What is this enormous heavily armed military for? Is murdering Serb Christians and brutally eradicating Christianity from Kosovo to please the Muslims all it is good for? What will it take for this so-called "superpower" to start defending itself? Hezbollah suicide bombers who are already here among us detonating nuclear bombs smuugled in from Iran throughout this country? Won't it be too late then?

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at September 18, 2008 6:20 PM

What will it take for this so-called "superpower" to start defending itself? Hezbollah suicide bombers who are already here among us detonating nuclear bombs smuugled in from Iran throughout this country? Won't it be too late then?

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

It may be worse than you have said. New nuke weapons are now available to them.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/the-next-presidents-next-war/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/02/invisible-nuclear-threat/

Posted by: Spot on at September 19, 2008 8:48 AM