I came across this video on youtube today that turns around Bush's nine reasons for staying into nine reasons for leaving. It appears General Odom and I are largely in agreement. Here is a non-verbatim transcript of the video I believe accurately captures the essence:

General Odom, retired three-star Army general, highly respected intelligence expert, and head of NSA for three years, refuting reasons for staying in Iraq.

Claim #1: Withdrawal would create civil war.
General Odom: Civil war is already happening. The longer U.S. stays, the worse the civil war will be.

Claim #2: The world opposes withdrawal.
General Odom: Withdrawal would gain world support. European and other countries are engaging in schaedenfruede, that is, enjoying our pain in Iraq.

Claim #3: Withdrawal would embolden the insurgency.
General Odom: The occupation emboldens the insurgency. A wide spectrum of Iraqi's view the insurgency as a way to inflict harm upon the U.S. and benefit Iraq.

Claim #4: Withdrawal would create a terrorist haven.
General Odom: A terrorist haven has already been created by the U.S. invasion, and is now worse than a haven, it has become a training ground.

Claim #5: Withdrawal invites Iranian influence.
General Odom: Staying invites and increases Iranian influence.

Claim #6: Withdrawal spreads unrest to other nations.
General Odom: Occupation spreads unrest to other nations.

Claim #7: Withdrawal means more Sunni-Shiite clashes.
General Odom: Occupation means more Sunni-Shiite clashes. Plus, U.S. training of Iraqi forces makes such a conflict bloodier.

Claim #8: Iraq's police and military unready.
General Odom: The problem is not that they are unprepared, it is they are disloyal to the new Iraqi government.

Claim #9: Withdrawal dishonors troops.
General Odom: Withdrawal honors troops, who favor questioning U.S. Iraq policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjaOOHqrzEE&mode=related&search=

wilywascal,

You are right! People of this region during ottoman empire were living in peace. The empire was managed as a collection of autonomous states called "Velaiat". As an example the Kurdish region in Iraq was called Mosul Velaiat and it was manged as an "autonomous state". It was the Great Britain that conceived this failing system of centralized state in the region probable to make it easier to control them.

The same thing is true for Iran, where Reza Shah backed by Brits created the concept of centralized government that turned to become a totalitarian dictatorship for which the Iranian people are still paying the price.

Yes, they knew hoe to live together and it was through a federal system.

While this U.S. administration is still caught up in its own 'hubris' and in a 'state of denial', there is little hope of gaining acceptance of the reality, which precludes that any appropriate measures will be taken towards a solution. The U.S. administration has created hell in Iraq. The majority of Americans wish to extricate ourselves from Iraq, while the majority of Iraqis wish for us to leave. Americans are demanding a solution where there really are no good options remaining. After all, hope for salvation is futile when in hell. The dilemma faced is good reason to justify such cynicism.

By staying, I believe, as most Iraqis do, we remain a direct contributing factor to the violence. Indirectly, the U.S. embodies a kind of crutch, an impediment to Iraqi's resolving critical issues for themselves, thereby contributing to the sectarian violence. Iraqi forces are more likely to be regarded as an extension of the U.S. Iraq has now become somewhat of a terrorist's haven since the U.S. invasion, and it seems that maintaining U.S. forces there only exacerbates that phenomenon. Nearly every knowledgeable expert agrees that Iraq has made the U.S. less secure from terrorism. If the U.S. leaves, there is the very real danger that the sectarian violence could escalate out of control. If Iraq deteriorates into sectarian violence and becomes a failed state, or states (through official or de facto partitioning), the U.S. fears that Iraq will become a base for terrorists. The U.S. fears that leaving will cause us to lose face and allow the insurgents and terrorists to declare victory.

The NIE conclusion seems to be (from the select portions this administration has chosen to release) that we must stay to prevent that from happening. I tend to disagree, since it is our presence that has precipitated that very condition. There appears to be a kind of reverse logic here. Iraq plus U.S. equals terrorism and less security, so more Iraq plus more U.S. equals no terrorism and more security. Does that make any sense? And if you think I'm cynical, what about the U.S. administration mantra that, 'we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here'? First, this administration illegally invades Iraq on a false pretense; then totally botches reconstruction efforts because they are corrupt, rife with cronyism, and woefully incompetent; they manage to kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians along the way; now this administration insists on putting those same innocent and blameless Iraqi civilians in the middle of a battleground they themselves created in order to fight terrorists that probably wouldn't have existed had they not created the environment. It appears this administration has shifted immorality and unreality into high gear. "Full speed ahead, damn if we're damned". It isn't as if the innocent people of Iraqi have suffered enough already; no, they must suffer more. "Hey, that's O.K. Iraq, we're only trying to help you. Here, take some more of this chaos and you'll feel better in the morning."

As for losing face or claiming some kind of victory--isn't it too late for that, anyway? The U.S., or, more precisely, this administration, couldn't possible lose much more credibility in Iraq. Moreover, if we leave because it is the right thing to do, how does that cause us to 'lose face'? If it is morally right to leave, doesn't staying cause us to lose more face? And if we are only staying to claim some hollow, meaningless, Pyrrhic victory many years down the road, will we have not lost more than gained? What victory could be claimed by terrorists in Iraq, anyway--a failed, backward state engaged in perpetual sectarian strife? Wouldn't it be to the world's benefit to let terrorists claim the hollow, meaningless, Pyrrhic victory? To give them the rope and let them hang themselves, instead of letting ourselves be suckered into that same trap, as this administration is doing?

Besides, this whole terrorist threat is being exploited and totally overblown by this administration, similar to the threat of Communism during the McCarthy era and in Vietnam. The vast majority of Muslims are not sympathetic to al-Qaeda and their methods. They want peace and prosperity, justice and decent government--much the same things Americans do. al-Qaeda may represent a real threat, but exploiting it, exaggerating it, and overreacting to it is only counterproductive to achieving noble ideals and goals. Currently, the goals would seem mostly ignoble: war profiteering, oil profiteering, concentration of power in the U.S. government, loss of civil rights, less human rights, less open government, and imperial hegemony. All done in the name of our security, as we become less and less secure.

The U.S. carries a heavy responsibility for the turmoil in Iraq. However, Iraqi's can't place much reliance on the U.S. given the history to date; they must take matters into their own hands. Whether that entails partitioning Iraq or reaching some kind of consensus to keep it intact, Iraqi's must make those decisions for themselves, and the sooner, the better. The senseless sectarian violence in Iraq must stop; there are only losers and more losers. I think the Iraqi people are smart enough to figure that out for themselves. Kurds, Turkmen, Shi'a and Sunni all lived in peace before, and they shouldn't require a common enemy like a ruthless dictator to make it happen again.

Dr. Martin makes some good points, while Mr. Ettefagh is right to be concerned about economics. Still, this shouldn't be about U.S. desires, it should be and is about the people of Iraq, and the choices must belong solely to them. I don't think Mr. Ettefagh makes a compelling case that partitioning Iraq will lead to economic downfall. Certainly, the economic picture as it now stands in a united Iraq is deteriorating rapidly. It is doubtful anyone can say with any great certainty what the economic conditions in a partitioned Iraq will be. To a large extent, won't that depend upon the partitioning process and the people within each partition? How is that so much different than a united Iraq, where civil unrest must be conquered by its citizens before prosperity can occur? Pardon the facetiousness, but if the U.S. pushes Humpty-Dumpty off the wall, and all King George's men and all King George's horses can't put Humpty back together again, mayhap Humpty-Dumpty was destined to be broken apart.

Great Britain made great mistakes in the Middle East that a great many are still paying for dearly today. A prime example is arbitrary nations like Iraq, with little real thought or respect given for the rights and desires of the peoples who lived there. Israel is another example--30 years of forced Jewish immigration upon Palestine, drastically changing the demographic makeup with little thought or respect given to the original 90 percent non-Jewish indigenous population, and their rights and desire for nationhood. The Mandate required that they were responsible for protecting the interests of the people of Palestine, a task in which they clearly failed miserably.

I was against the war in Iraq; bad as Saddam Hussein was, he was no real threat to the U.S., as 3 months of UNMOVIC inspections immediately preceding the illegal invasion should have proved fairly conclusively. It was well known before the invasion that Iraq and al-Qaeda were at cross-purposes, and there was never any real evidence of any link connecting Iraq to 9-11. Yes, something needed to be done about Saddam, but I don't think crippling sanctions that amounted to collective punishment or an illegal invasion were the right answer. I often joked before the invasion, "What happens when (since there never was any question of 'if') we 'win' the 'war' in Iraq and it turns out there is no WMD? Do we just say 'oops', very sorry about that, my bad, and leave?" What astounds and shocks me--and I am an American citizen--is the whole lack of accountability by this administration, our media, and the public for this colossal failure of the highest magnitude. I mean, we illegally invaded another sovereign nation under a false pretense, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, ostensibly because we are the 'good guys'. I don't hate my country, I am as patriotic as the next guy, but the current crop of leaders we have in this administration and in Congress are sorely misguided and just plain incompetent, to put it mildly.

Why bother with the past, why not just concentrate on the future? Well, it should be pretty obvious by now that forgetting or ignoring the past creates problems, and keeping it in mind facilitates solutions.

Anyway, once the war began, I thought--and still think--that while the sum is always greater than the parts, and keeping Iraq intact should be encouraged, it must ultimately be up to the people of Iraq. The first democratic vote should have been on this very issue, because anything else might prove just a tremendous waste of time, money, and lives. Such a vote would have been beneficial no matter what the outcome; it could have helped deter some or maybe much of the violence that has been ongoing. At least, Iraqi's would have better known where they stood.

I also believe that, even should Iraqi's decide to remain one nation, the creation of autonomous or semi-autonomous regions that represent its inhabitants ethnic, religious, or cultural backgrounds should be an option given to the people of each region. Perhaps such regions could be created with the caveat that they be granted the opportunity to achieve statehood after a certain period of years--say (every) 20 years or less. Incentives could be given to encourage Iraq to remain united, while the security and interests of each group would be protected. After the end of that (each) period, every regions citizens could vote whether or not it was in their best interests to remain part of Iraq, or become an independent nation. It seems to me that something similar as this would provoke greater cooperation and peace among the different peoples of Iraq, while perhaps offering the greatest hope of preventing the divisions that still appear inevitable otherwise. Barring such a solution, or at the very least Kurdish autonomy, I would favor allowing the creation of a Kurdish nation in northern Iraq. I would also favor allowing much of the Kurdish part of Turkey to become part of that nation, although that is unrealistic at this point in time.

Iraqi leader et al,

No one objects to Iraqi people making money and conducting comfortable lives. But, it should be honorable based on respecting human rights and democratic values. Yes, Saddam provided prosperity to Sunni minority while Kurds were being exterminated and Shiites totally repressed. That was blood money. What I am advocating is to create a platform for ALL Iraqis to benefit and not a sect or clan. My argument is that it could only be accomplished when liberty and workable democracy is established in Iraq. Such system can be achieved under a loose federalism structure as Iraqi's are composed of three groups with diverging values and goals.

It is very possible that after decades of living under a loose federalism and experiencing democracy, Iraqi's could improve their bonds based on a stronger voluntary union. Look at EU as an example that souverainete states are getting together to create a stronger block. The difference is that each state is enjoying full liberty and democracy already.

We need to send President Bush, Laura Bush, the two Bush girls, Mr Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Mr Cheney, Mr Rove, maybe Denny Hastert and Joe Lieberman to the front lines, in appropriate ealry design bullet proof vests and ill-equipped Hummers, all to do what you're suggesting. I love the columnists who suggest we can't "cut and run" and suggest instead that we keep our young people in the military in harms way so they can be killed to correct those clowns mistakes. Maybe you, too, could join the crew I have named above of first rate idiots who, along with the neocons we could add like Wolfowitz & Co. to the newly created battalion, to rectify the situation. Remember, needlessly killing our young people isn't something we like to mention when proposing solutions about messes created by Bush & Co. like Iraq or Afghanistan; it's all lofty ideas and solutions. The alternative is to let the locals solve their own problems and for our government to work on real strategic solutions to existing problems, like learning how to act like diplomats and working out real strategic solutions that don't involve stupid loss of life. What's really behind all this, if you really think about it, is oil and nothing more; no one would care a fig for any of this if it weren't for the oil. Once we figure out how to divorce ourselves from using oil, these places will become minor players in world affairs.

To Dr. Amir Matin

What is wrong with Iraqis making money and improving their lives? What is wrong with more employment in Iraq? Who cares about Taiwan and Hong Kong when my fellow Iraqi country men have no jobs?

It seems that the great despising Dr. Amir Matin has not read the article it the way it was intended.

The writer has clearly indicated that the opportunity must be seized for the Iraqi people to make money....for themselves, if only to reduce unemployment, better their lives and restore their dignity. As another reader has indicated above, Iraqis cannot eat or wear liberties and freedom!

I despise this way of thinking. I am surprised some people, taking themselves for intellectuals, could descend to this level of reckless judgment. Hundreds of thousand of innocent lives are at stake, wills of millions of hopeless souls are in play and you are talking about making money. I would use more colourful words, but I must leave it to you to speculate.

If you like to talk about money, let's start with a brief lesson on economy. Many recent researches have demonstrated that liberty is the basic ingredient that fuels economical, social and technological growth in today's global structure. Some obvious examples are Hong Kong, Taiwan and UAE that demonstrated tremendous progress and growth while being much smaller in size and population compared to their neighbouring countries with similar cultural and ethnic background. However, these mini-states have a major advantage: they enjoy relative liberty and people have their minds free to innovate and create opportunities without facing hurdles from their state. UAE which is really the collection of few cities is being governed as federal state and it is doing remarkably well.

Sustaining economical growth and creating the foundation for creating jobs and opportunity requires freedom and liberty for the entire population. The first step to liberty is to respect and tolerate each other's opinions and rights. This is exactly what is lacking in Iraq. Sunnis have no respect for Kurds and Shiites rights and opinions and Shiites have no respect fro Sunnis opinion. Shiites are overwhelmingly religious dreaming of a religious state based on Shiite's way of interpreting Islam. Both Sunnis and Kurds sharply object such system of governance while Sunnis may opt for an Islamic system based on their way of interpreting Islam, which in some cases comes in sharp contrast with Shiite's interpretation. On the other hand, Sunnis are still nostalgic about their glorious past of subjugating Shiites and Kurds and cannot accept to see Kurds and Shiites enjoying extended rights and power to administer their affairs.

Under such circumstances only a loose federalism with strong federal regions can work to allow each group regulate their way of life. Unfortunately, Sunnis strongly object such a model fearing eventual disintegration if Iraq. I have a theory that persisting fears are self-fulfilling because you take so many steps to avoid the fear that you will eventually make it happen. This is happening in Iraq right now. Sunnis fear of disintegration forces them to reject federalism, which in turn results in leaving no choice for Kurds than breaking away from Iraq.

In reality, there is another choice: emergence of another tyrant leader that terrorizes people to a level that they subjugate to his will and forget about their natural rights. He could unite them under his sword. History showed repeatedly that such model is not sustainable. Look no further than Saddam in his court cage.

Realistically, there are two choices: Either all parties abide by a loose federal structure or they should prepare to mange the eventual disintegration of Iraq in three states of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis or two states of Kurds and Arabs. Either of these options will provide a suitable infrastructure for peace and liberty which later fuels economical growth

Correct! First of all jobs and work and positive deeds, which sum up to security. How can you run a democracy without production (and taxes)? How can you have political parties, NGOs and civil society if there is no regular funding for it all, which has to come from the people?

An excellent point of view and a direct hit to the root of the problem.

The war was won against a cream puff army, but where is the peace?

With 3 years and still going, we are at half-time of WWII already......and the opponent wasn't quite the fighting machine of the German/Italian Axis....

Yes, jobs and work is needed to restore dignity of people (and I am affraid the reader above, Michael Shalom has confused it with throwing money at it the problem. It is not about throwing money at the situation, it is about being productive.
If Palestinians had productive jobs and better living standards, would they volunteer to be suicide bombers or throw rocks?

Has the U.S. government made any effort to buy any other Iraqi product, except oil (say, marble and construction stones or ......)?

A very sensitive analysis. As so many times, Dr. Ettefagh sees the larger problem with full clarity and shows the simple, existential elements, which produce it.

Let Iraqis solve their problem for themselves. Look what happened after the British imposed their will of enforcing the state of Iraq the way they thought was best for them. We people never learn, just like kids who do the same mistakes their parents did because they do not want to be tought. What a race we are!!!

This is misleading and wrong !
If money could resolve the problem, by now there Isreali-palestian issue would have long been addressed. When it comes to Middle East, I am sorry, money can not help.

Money talks. Some one should tell Bush that people cannot eat or wear freedom! and if freedom means unemployment, then .....someone needs to go back to the drawing board.

The writer is correct. The fight is only about control and money in a poor country. Reminds me of Congo, Liberia and Sierra Leone where different groups fight over resouces like gold and diamond deals.

Jobs and material belongings will cool people's head. The fighers are probably the unemployed people with no hope on the horizon.

More from this writer please! Thanks.

Very thoughtful and clear, very logical.
Thanks. The Yanks should hire you as a consultant.

Good analysis. Partition is not an answer. To resolve the problem you have to follow the money. In this case that means jobs and oil wealth.

I really enjoyed this analysis. Thanks.

Why Kurdistan insists on Kirkuk

By Nechirvan Barzani

The deadline for the draft of Iraq's new constitution seemed likely to be missed yesterday but I am hopeful that agreement can be reached soon. With our colleagues in the Shia-dominated United Iraqi Alliance and with other groups we are making progress in designing a new, federal and democratic Iraq. Amid the finger-pointing that often accompanies negotiations, some blame Kurdistan for the delay. In fact, those causing the most difficulties are unrepresentative Sunni Arab politicians nostalgic for the Iraq of Saddam Hussein.

We are negotiating in good faith because a new constitution, a fresh start, is in our interests. The Kurdistan Alliance includes Kurds, Turkmen, Chaldo-Assyrians and others. It holds 77 seats in the 275-strong Iraqi National Assembly. Its duty is to advance Iraq's democratisation and end the centralised despotism of the Ba'athists.
However, we are not in Baghdad to negotiate away Kurdistan's rights. We must keep the autonomy with which we have been able to safeguard our region's security, ensure relative prosperity and educate our people so that women as well as men play an equal role in society and politics. We have and shall maintain the highest standards of protections for national and religious minorities.

We must have restitution for the wrongs committed against our people. In Kirkuk, an integral part of Kurdistan, historically and geographically, our people were expelled, and the provincial boundaries manipulated. There must be a timetabled referendum, on a fair suffrage and with the right boundaries, to enable the Kirkuk governorate to join the rest of Kurdistan.

Critics cynically suggest that our position is motivated by oil, specifically the oil fields in the city of Kirkuk, and by a desire for independence. We certainly regard it as an outrage that one of the world's largest oil fields sits astride a disgracefully and deliberately neglected city.

In truth, oil has so far been a curse for us all. Had there been no oil, Mr Hussein and his Ba'athists would not have fought us over Kirkuk, carried out expulsions, infused the region with settlers or gerrymandered the boundaries to tip the balance against the Kurdish and Turkman peoples. Properties were confiscated, and citizenship and other records falsified. Even the name of the Kirkuk governorate, within which the city lies, was changed. When Mr Hussein fell, only a handful of Kurds were working in the oil industry. The reversal of Mr Hussein's crimes must be de jure, democratic, transparent and enshrined in the new constitution.

Kurdistan is willing, however, to separate the issues of territory and oil. The benefits of oil should be fairly distributed. Revenue sharing must be equitable, and no Baghdad government must ever again be able to blackmail us (by depriving us of our per capita entitlements).

Regional ownership of natural resources is critical to the creation of the strong federal regions that will give all Iraqis the decentralised democracy and new voluntary union, the truly shared country, that we need. Detailed mechanisms to ensure revenue-sharing may be worked out now or later.

The currently exploited oil field in Kirkuk may be organised to generate federal, regional and local revenues for the benefit of all in Iraq. But Kurdistan must have full ownership of our currently unexploited natural resources, to consolidate our development and ensure that we never again suffer the predations of a genocidal regime in Baghdad. Kirkuk is but one of Kurdistan's red lines in the negotiation of the permanent constitution. We must keep the legal autonomy that our region has had since 1991 when the US, Britain and France established a safe haven in Kurdistan. A small number of competences, such as foreign policy, should remain the exclusive competence of Baghdad. We must control our internal security, including the lawful army of Kurdistan, the peshmerga.

The system we propose of regional ownership of natural resources occurs in many leading oil-exporting federations and is a view shared by some of our leading Shia Arab colleagues.

Kurdistan's leaders do not have a free hand either to forget the past or to remake the future. The decision to accept the constitution will not be made by me or the president of Kurdistan, but by our National Assembly, and by our people voting in a referendum. If Kurdistan's red lines are not met - a fair referendum in Kirkuk, control of our natural resources, recognition of our lawful army and meaningful law-making powers - our people will reject any new Iraqi constitution.

Last January, 2m Kurdistanis voted in an unofficial referendum on independence: 98 per cent wanted to separate from Iraq. If my colleagues and I are to persuade them to be part of a new Iraq, they will have to believe that their rights will be protected. That is why we are working hard to get a a­viable and lasting settlement.

The writer is prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Kurdistan mature for independence

By Behrooz Shojai
Globe Political Desk

Globe Editorial

We have recently witnessed two emergent countries in Europe. Monte Negro voted for independence and Catalonians voted for extended self-governance and recognition of their national identity within the confines of the Kingdom of Spain. In both cases the referendums are binding and aimed at essential changes in the political shapes of the countries.

Kurds already have had a similar referendum, yet not binding. There are striking differences between the Kurdish and the Montenegrin referendums; in the case of the Kurdish one, more than 97% voted for independence, while in the Montenegrin referendum less than 60% were pro-self-rule, yet it led to independence.

Referendums of this kind are either consultative or binding. In the Kurdish case it was neither of the two. The political establishment in Kurdistan took advantage of it as a means of bringing pressure to bear on parties during the negotiations with Baghdad. But it should bear in mind that the Kurdish people have spoken; they do not wish Baghdadi suzerainty and they definitely do not wish to be ruled by the central government there. Thus the Kurdistani referendum was consultative and not just a power demonstration by the establishment. It is a signal to our political parties that their efforts should be concentrated on the delicate path towards self governance.

Now, some independent groups and individuals advocate independence already now and consider the referendum as binding, forgetting that we are going through a very sensitive process. The way towards independence is through two very crucial fundamental processes; the national institutionalization and a legal divorce from the illegitimate marriage with the illegitimate state of Iraq.

What in fact, alongside our hostile neighbors, distinguishes us from Catalonia and Montenegro is these two processes. We lack well-functioning institutional bodies in Kurdistan, which can correspond to a democracy, in which the rule of law, the notion of citizenship, the existence of a real opposition and a functioning electoral system are consolidated.

The two local governments have newly been unified. The unification has to be implemented to the lower levels of the unwieldy bureaucracy. The issue of Kirkuk and other Kurdistani areas that are out of the KRG control must be settled through negotiations. Only through a peaceful process we can achieve the support of the international community. For these negotiations we really need the best experts in Baghdad. It is one thing to declare independence and achieve it, but a much more difficult task to maintain it. Without support from the international community (read the West and the US), there will be little chances for a tiny Kurdistan surrounded by hostile neighbors to survive.

The Kurdish people have expressed their opinion; they want independence. The Kurdish authorities should take this opinion into consideration and work for it; i.e. consolidate the national institutions and get the negotiations about Kirkuk, Khaneqin, Shengal and other areas started. The Kurdish nation is aware that what Montenegrins and Catalonians achieved is what they also deserve. But yet we are not ready for such a complicated enterprise.

Another excellent analysis by Dr. Ettefagh.

As Clinton said, it's the economy, stupid!