Kristof is with me, who is, like England, with the terrorists

Nicholas Kristof makes an extremely sober case for withdrawal in Iraq. He even manages to write it in such a way as to heap praise on to David Petraeus. He does, however call for an American troop presence in Kurdistan looking forward, which is, to my logic, not necessarily a good idea. Somebody who knows the terrain better than I do should probably chime in here, but it seems to me that--though Kurdistan is uniquely stable and uniquely friendly to the United States--the would still be a pretty bad optical problem if our troops picked the one semi-prosperous region in the country and fought along side them against incursions from Turkey or from greater Iraq.

It's my understanding that the situation to the south of Kurdistan might well spread and ultimately involve the Peshmerga, who are a formidable, and well-organized force unto themselves and who may in the end be better off without the whiff of American might behind them. Just thinking out loud, perhaps as part of my rigid adherence to the whole "get out of Iraq" idea.

Comments

[JimPortlandOR]

Spellcheck on aisle 5 in headline.

I guess I'll disagree on US forces and the Kurd area of Iraq. If we depart entirely Turkey (and Iran) will be foxes hunting the rabbits, perhaps with Sunni's being the dogs in the fray. If we abandon yet another democratic group cynically (Hungary, Cuban Invasion, Shia after Iraq/Kuwait, etc.), we will never be trusted again (we should not be, anyway).

We should provide at least air cover to the Kurds, and that requires a local base and protecting ground forces.

[I've been watching TNT's 'The Company' and I'm still embarrassed at the awful things we've done in the name of freedom].

But, generally, I'm a get completely out guy at the moment. Recent reports indicate that we may not be able to protect the land supply routes from Kuwait, and that Basra is completely lawless.

[Sandyiz]

thats for sure, bro