Why are we holding Kurdistan?

Nation building anyone? More to come.

"Not all of Iraq is like Baghdad" -- Zalmay Khalilzad

Sanandaj

I am, as an Irishman and as a logician, not in favor of partitioning countries to cover up bad nation building or failed imperialism, but I have to wonder why the US is allowing Kurdistan to be held in to the current abortive version of iraq-oidia. Are we doing favors for our lukewarm ally, Turkey? Are we using kurds for bait in the "democratization" of iraq? Are we using kurds as a human shield until we can set up permanent bases in their confines? Have we promised their oil to some other faction? Have we promised their oil to some cronies of bushco?

Here's a link to Kurdistani news. Here's a link to blogs on Kurdistan.

Which way to the front?

Cunning Realist nails it again. When will our-war-prez and our-war-prez-wannabee be able to answer this simple question?

Coincidentally, I am reading The Assassin's Gate: America in Iraq by George Packer. Dubya and straight-talk are excused somewhat since apparently no one has known the answer during the period from March 2003 to the present. Dick cheney has known an answer at various times, but there seems to be no correlation to the facts on the ground.

Holy Mismatched Mustache

john bolton was on c-span this morning (with the beguiling greta wodele ).

Astonishingly, I found myself agreeing with him on 3 issues:

• We should withdraw (his word) from (the territory fka) iraq as soon as the surge is over, since we have no business in its civil war
  
• we should not pay 22% of all un membership assessments; we should pay only for those programs we are willing to sponsor
  
• the so-called noko agreement is only window dressing, as has been done before, changing nothing but the balance of kim's bank accounts.

It also looks like he is now a richard clark type loose cannon in bushco.