|
We never should have invaded. Period. BUT...
Three things to keep in mind:
1)I never, ever suggested that we "force" anything on the Kurds, only that we make an offer to support their well-known aspirations for real independence.
2) We need to start from where we are now. There are no "do-overs" in foreign policy. We cannot undo what we have done, we can only move forward.
3) You are right. This is NOT a game. The goal of U.S. foreign policy is to protect the interests of the United States. In this case, I think that if the Kurds want a state -- then it is in our interests to help them. They are, after all, the only group in the Middle East besides the Israelis likely to form anything like a Western-style republic.
Confrontation with Turkey? I am not so sure that such a thing is inevitable. Under the right circumstances, an independent Kurdistan could be a help to Turkey -- in that it would form a counterbalance to the Arab powers and Iran. The Kurds and the Turks have common interests that could form the basis of an alliance -- especially if the U.S. acts as an honest broker (with the support of other NATO members).
Remember: the goal here is to limit the damage of what we have done, get our troops out of harm's way and try to salvage whatever good might come out of this mess. The Arab Iraqis clearly do not want us involved in their civil war. So, we should withdraw.
But we also have an obligation to the Kurds. I think we owe them something better than abandoning them to be part of the sinking ship that is Iraq -- unless, for whatever reason, the Kurds still WANT to remain part of Iraq.
We also owe ourselves and future generations of Americans the potential of another strong, democratic ally in the Middle East. The establishment of an independent Kurdistan might accomplish that. It is worth exploring it.
|