Do people care enough about Iraq?

[Lance]

Why is it that everybody is so freaking happy about Kosovo but nobody gives two shits about Iraq. Does nobody realize that in camp bondsteel alone there are more than 13,000 troops mobilized. One of the largest freaking military camps in the world.

 

----------

Moderator Note: This thread was broken off from the Kosovo independence thread, and this post should be viewed in that light.

[thedarkshade]

Why is it that everybody is so freaking happy about Kosovo but nobody gives two shits about Iraq.

Probably because Kosova represent a new country born and being developed in a democratic way, according to all democratic international laws, and on the other side Iraq represent a country being destructed in a horrible and not-human way!

[iNow]

Why is it that everybody is so freaking happy about Kosovo but nobody gives two shits about Iraq. Does nobody realize that in camp bondsteel alone there are more than 13,000 troops mobilized. One of the largest freaking military camps in the world.

 

Not everybody who posts here is from the US, Lance. Why the hell should others care about how many US troops are deployed somewhere?

[Pangloss]

Probably because Kosova represent a new country born and being developed in a democratic way, according to all democratic international laws, and on the other side Iraq represent a country being destructed in a horrible and not-human way!

 

I think we're doing a lot more in Iraq than "destructing it in a horrible way".

[CDarwin]

I think we're doing a lot more in Iraq than "destructing it in a horrible way".

 

Oh, we don't need an Iraq debate in a discussion on Kosavo.

 

Unless, of course, someone wants to bring up the fact the US hasn't said word one about demands for autonomy (not even independence) by the Kurds of northern Iraq and southeastern Turkey.

[Pangloss]

I can break this off in a new thread if it persists, but let's see how it goes.

 

Unless, of course, someone wants to bring up the fact the US hasn't said word one about demands for autonomy (not even independence) by the Kurds of northern Iraq and southeastern Turkey.

 

US officials continuously state our support for Turkish sovereignty, the importance of Kurdish representation in Iraqi government, the position that the PKK and various affiliated organizations are terrorists and seeks the withdrawl of Turkish forces as soon as possible. That's a clear statement that we do not support a new Kurdish state. (And if memory serves, most Kurds don't support the PKK either.)

 

You may find this site to be more helpful than traditional/partisan media outlets on this subject:

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/ci/tu/c2784.htm

[CDarwin]

I can break this off in a new thread if it persists, but let's see how it goes.

 

 

 

US officials continuously state our support for Turkish sovereignty, the importance of Kurdish representation in Iraqi government, the position that the PKK and various affiliated organizations are terrorists and seeks the withdrawl of Turkish forces as soon as possible. That's a clear statement that we do not support a new Kurdish state. (And if memory serves, most Kurds don't support the PKK either.)

 

You may find this site to be more helpful than traditional/partisan media outlets on this subject:

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/ci/tu/c2784.htm

 

Hey, now, don't patronize. I know the US position; that was what I was alluding to. The US doesn't support self-determination for the Kurds, but does for Kosavo. Like you said, every situation has it's own merits, but I've yet to see any terribly strong reasons why an autonomous Kurdistan would be horrible for the Kurds.

 

And not supporting the PKK's violent tactics doesn't mean you don't support autonomy. The main Kurdish parties in Iraq all do.

[Pangloss]

Hey' date=' now, don't patronize. I know the US position; that was what I was alluding to. The US doesn't support self-determination for the Kurds, but does for Kosavo. Like you said, every situation has it's own merits, but I've yet to see any terribly strong reasons why an autonomous Kurdistan would be horrible for the Kurds.

 

And not supporting the PKK's violent tactics doesn't mean you don't support autonomy. The main Kurdish parties in Iraq all do. [/quote']

 

Oh I wasn't saying that you don't understand the situation, I was saying that it is couched in diplomatic rhetoric. So far as I know you're right in pointing out that USGov hasn't made a direct statement on Kurdish independence (perhaps I've just missed one, but I'll happily take your word on this). But that's how it goes sometimes -- they clearly feel that if they came out and actually made a statement saying Kurdish independence was a bad idea, it would conversely give the notion a boost. But it sounds from your post above that I've been stating the obvious. Sorry if that's the case.

 

Quite right -- Kurds have expressed majority support for autonomy, and often behave as if it's already the case. If it wasn't for the PKK and gratitude towards America they probably wouldn't even be participating in the coalition government. But there are good reasons why Kurds should not be an independent state. They mostly revolve around long-term economics (the oldest fields in the Middle East won't last forever, or so goes the thinking), and the simple fact that they wouldn't have a lot of friends in the region.

 

The Deputy Prime Minister of the coalition government is a Kurd, and recently said the following on the subject (source):

 

"Many of us have come to recognize that nationalism is both limiting and limited. While I as a Kurd always dream of a Kurdish state, and consider it a fundamental right of the Kurdish people, I have come to see that being part of the larger market of Iraq, with the protections afforded us by a democratic Iraq, offers the Kurdish people tangible advantages."

 

In short, it's a tough sell convincing the Kurds to give up 83% of their oil revenue (same source) in exchange for security in the region, but many Kurds do understand the value of that purchase. Every single person who lives in that region sees what has happened to the Palestinians, and want to do everything they possibly can to avoid that fate for their own people. It's a very strong motivator. (some commentary along those lines may be found here)

[Lance]

Not everybody who posts here is from the US, Lance. Why the hell should others care about how many US troops are deployed somewhere?

 

I never said you should. That never stopped the rest of the world from being pissed off at the troops we sent to Iraq. Whether they should or should not care is irrelevant because the fact is that the rest of the world does care.

[Pangloss]

So your point in saying that "nobody gives two shits about Iraq" was that not enough Americans care about the situation? I don't think that's accurate -- it's consistently been one of the top national issues for 5+ years now.

[Lance]

Not so much. It seems to me that some people have developed the opinion that we have overextended our reach and that we should not be so involved in policing the rest of the world, as with Iraq. Ever watch the movie Team America: World Police?

 

But on the other hand we have Kosovo and it seems to be overlooked that we currently have a huge force mobilized there. My state's national guard is now facing the largest deployment since WWII... to Kosovo.

[Pangloss]

Yes I have seen that movie, and it was critical of unilateralism, and I recall that it also parodied armchair ideologues who use cliches and witicisms to gain attention out of ignorance. Parker and Stone are radical moderates, and personal heroes of mine.

 

But I agree with your point about overextending our reach. I don't think we should have gone to Iraq either, and I agree with you that people seem to have generally arrived at that same conclusion. (Which seems in stark contrast with your OP, but okay. I'd be happy to change the thread subject, if you wish -- you were kinda stuck with the one I gave you, which may not be entirely fair.)

[Lance]

Nah it doesn't matter. To be honest I'm pretty ignorant to the situation. I have been completely cut off from the outside world for the last six months due to training.

[Pangloss]

Well I don't know about that, I think your observation about overextending our reach is quite accurate. In fact it's also extremely current, given comments yesterday from one of the generals that Iraq seriously stretched the capabilities of our armed forces (I'm afraid I can't find a link at the moment).

 

It also has currency in the way our behavior impacts other country's actions. Turkey made a statement yesterday regarding the Kurdish situation that would have been comical if it wasn't so serious -- they said they would set "no timetable for withdrawl from Iraq"! No, really, they actually said it that way. Talk about hubris! I could here West Wing and State Department employees cringing en masse from all the way down here in South Florida.

 

And I had no idea we were about to send troops to Kosovo, so that was interesting as well. For what it's worth, I wish you the best of luck.

[bascule]

I think it's pretty clear I'm passionate about Iraq. However just a few months ago there were murmurs about hostilities and potential armed conflict in the Balkans. A peaceful resolution (through continued balkanization!) is always welcome.

[Pangloss]

What did you all think about the dust-up this week between Obama and McCain over Obama's debate message that he would send troops back to Iraq if Al Qaeda resurged there?

[ecoli]

What did you all think about the dust-up this week between Obama and McCain over Obama's debate message that he would send troops back to Iraq if Al Qaeda resurged there?

I thought that was pretty niave of Obama, but my first thought was that before we brought our troops into Iraq, there was no Al Qaeda there.

 

I also he's setting himself up for the general election to get Republican votes. It's one of the reasons I don't like Obama, he says he's anti-War, but then goes on with this sort of thing. I'm surprized even Moveon.org has fallen for it.

[Pangloss]

Sure there was. They weren't operating there, but they had a presence, major figures were in-country, they had safe houses, contact with existing terrorist figures, etc.

 

But I don't think that's really the point of the discussion, and I think Obama cleverly changed the subject by bringing that up. The issue was whether he would return troops there, not why they're there in the first place. That's another subject, and changing the subject doesn't answer the question.

[ecoli]

Sure there was. They weren't operating there, but they had a presence, major figures were in-country, they had safe houses, contact with existing terrorist figures, etc.

I had heard that they weren't recruiting there either, at least not in any large extent. That is very different since our troops came in.

 

But I don't think that's really the point of the discussion, and I think Obama cleverly changed the subject by bringing that up. The issue was whether he would return troops there, not why they're there in the first place. That's another subject, and changing the subject doesn't answer the question.

I thought the sneaky part was his implication that there isn't currently Al Qaeda there. Which is, of course, untrue.

 

Would he put troops back if Al Qaeda returns? We'll they haven't left yet.

[Pangloss]

I had heard that they weren't recruiting there either, at least not in any large extent. That is very different since our troops came in.

 

Of course. And that presents yet another valid question for Obama -- would he send them back in if they were doing that. And he needs to not be dodging these questions by changing the subject.

[Mr Skeptic]

And he needs to not be dodging these questions by changing the subject.

 

I thought that's what good politicians do.