USA Iraq forces withdraw to Kurdistan for the duration

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by armchair_jihad, Jul 25, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Interesting article in the NYTimes by the former US ambassador to Croatia, seems like the smart move to me.

    in full (registration required)

    'Seeing as we cannot maintain the peace in Iraq, we have but one overriding interest there today — to keep Al Qaeda from creating a base from which it can plot attacks on the United States. Thus we need to have troops nearby prepared to re-engage in case the Sunni Arabs prove unable to provide for their own security against the foreign jihadists.

    This would be best accomplished by placing a small “over the horizon” force in Kurdistan. Iraqi Kurdistan is among the most pro-American societies in the world and its government would welcome our military presence, not the least because it would help protect Kurds from Arab Iraqis who resent their close cooperation with the United States during the 2003 war. American soldiers on the ground might also ease the escalating tension between the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey, which is threatening to send its troops across the border in search of Turkish Kurd terrorists using Iraq as a haven.

    From Kurdistan, the American military could readily move back into any Sunni Arab area where Al Qaeda or its allies established a presence. The Kurdish peshmerga, Iraq’s only reliable indigenous military force, would gladly assist their American allies with intelligence and in combat. And by shifting troops to what is still nominally Iraqi territory, the Bush administration would be able to claim it had not “cut and run” and would also avoid the political complications — in United States and in Iraq — that would arise if it were to withdraw totally and then have to send American troops back into Iraq.

    Yes, a United States withdrawal from the Shiite and Sunni Arab regions of Iraq would leave behind sectarian conflict and militia rule. But staying with the current force and mission will produce the same result. Continuing a military strategy where the ends far exceed the means is a formula for war without end.'

    Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia, is the author of “The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End.”
  2. Utter nonsense. The US has a pile of potential bases - Kuwait for a start. The missed opportunity with the S Iraqi Shia'a will also go down as one of the major US diplomacy cock-ups of the post war period.

    That said a three state solution is probably sensible now - and would serve Turkey right for not helping in the first place.
  3. I have said before I am convinced that the US promised the Kurds their own state to obtain their assistance and also told Turkey they would 'Get them' into Europe.
    Is Galbraith any relation of the elderly Galbrath who passed away this year having been a senior advisor to US Presidents from FDR to Kennady ?
  4. And what happens when Turkey, a member of NATO and potential EU member, attacks the independant Kurdistan? Or, in the event of a Kurdish attack on Turkey, could the US and UK be compelled to act with force against a state it created if Turkey invokes Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty?

    Just wondering...