Paul, this is absolutely priceless!! I love it.

I shall certainly save a copy of this locally. Great stuff.

You know I'm jealous. I just wish I had written it. [chuckle]

Nice touch, Paul.

It might actually work.

Then again, Kim is as crazy as a shit-house rat. Like Nixon used to say, "Make 'em think you might just do anything."

He might hang up and W and fire a nuke into Seoul.

What are the odds?

Paul, Casey, Ara,

Most of the evidence from the Iraq war since last Wednesday shows that this is not just a parade of Brits and the US Marines and 3rd Infantry division from the Kuwait border to Baghdad, at which point they throw in the towel. So don't treat this as some sort of joke.

Some of the enemy forces have indeed surrendered with no fight at all. Other units are fighting as strongly and with as much determination as we would expect from our own combat troops.

We and our coalition will win in the end, but we may have to grind them down, one defended position after another. And when our forces arrive at Baghdad, there may be no popular uprisings to welcome us into the city. We may have to battle for it, building by building, block by block, as the US Army did in early 1945, recapturing Manila from tough Japanese naval forces that put up a tenacious resistance. Manila was all but destroyed in that battle. The same may happen to Baghdad.

Saddam Hussein knows full he has a price on his head and that our government means either to kill him or to haul him through the ignominy of a war crimes trial followed by imprisonment in a cage in Florida alongside the 'little pineapple', Manuel Noriega. So he has nothing to lose in slugging it out, and in and around Baghdad, his police have the means of enforcing loyalty. But such draconian measures may not even be necessary. The evidence supports that Iraqi troops and even some armed civilians are loyally supporting Saddam. Some of these Iraqis want to be 'liberated'. But there is evidence that many of them don't.

In addition, there is the question of troubles in northern Iraq, where the Kurdish population is totally hostile to the Turks who are now injecting themselves into the country and who do not want an independent Kurdistan. This despite the obvious fact that the Iraqi Kurds have enjoyed de facto independence from Baghdad since the US instituted the northern no-fly zone after the 1991 war against Iraq. At best, victory in Iraq will lead to a fragmented country, because neither the Kurds nor the Turks will allow northern Iraq to revert to control from Baghdad.

No matter what happens, the United States cannot fight this war to a draw, as it did in Korea in 1950-1953. It either must be a total military victory, including destruction of Saddam's government, or it will be treated as an utter defeat by other world alliances that are now challenging this country for the leadership of the world.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Paul, This is the making of a good political column. BTW, have you ever thought about changing careers and becoming a syndicated columnist?

Lord, Arnold, I know that. Can't I enjoy a little fantasy?

I think you're missing one factor: a lot of Iraqis aren't supporting Hussein, nor are they welcoming us. They're waiting to make sure that, this time, the Amis are staying. A lot of folks were slaughtered back in '91 after the uprisings that the US didn't support.

Also, I'm not so sure the Kurds are aiming for an independant state. Bush's people have been jawboning with the Kurds quite a bit, who (I believe) understand how paranoid Turkey is about an independant Kurdistan. I think the Iraqui Kurds see their best chance is to stay with Iraq within a federal structure. At least some of the Kurd leaders have publicly expressed their intention of not seeking independance.

I'm definitely with you on ending this war! I have to say it: I was wrong back in '91 when I said Bush Sr. made the right choice in not finishing the job then. Sure we would have gotten a ton of flack from the international community (like that's not normal). But look at what we're facing now. Ah, well, hindsight is always 20-20.

Casey,

Okay, go ahead and have a little fun. It certainly beats watching Michael Moore, the fat liberal clown, spout off on television at the latest dreadful Hollywood selfcongratulationfest.

The Kurds are one of the oldest self-contained ethnic groups in the Middle East. Their contiguous and mountainous lands occupy parts of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. I'm sure they know how to keep their tongues from wagging the wrong way in the presence of overlords like us who come among them from across the world and who wish to hear that everything in the Middle East is clicking along according to the master plan set in place by Richard Pearle.

They are Sunni Moslem, but are not Arabs and have their own Indo-European language. Why do you imagine they would want to live under the rule of Arabs, Turks or Iranians if they could have their own country after Iraq is beaten into the ground? In any case, they have been fighting for such independence since the Ottoman Empire broke up in 1919, and are almost continually at war with the Turks over autonomy for their lands in southeastern Turkey. Moreover, they have had de facto independence in Iraq since 1991, with our northern no-fly zone in place. These people are not exactly like the 13 Atlantic seaboard colonies that banded together in 1776 to form a single constitutional republic.

My bet is that what they want from us -- above all -- is a large supply of our fine guns and ammunition, the better to shoot both at Baghdadi Iraqis and at the Turks, whichever ones show up in their gunsights. A tough and unforgiving people occupying a tough and unforgiving piece of landscape. The fact that they are still there after thousands of years means that nobody who overruns those lands keeps them in check very long.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Ara,

Just a side thought. It was probably the Kurds who did the job on most of your grandfather's fellow Armenians who got killed in that part of the world in April 1915.

The Turks were the ones who uprooted them from their ancestral lands, largely because the Armenians sided with the invading Russians in World War I. But the Kurds of those years often acted like brigands whenever Christian folks in distress such as the Armenians fell into their hands along the unmarked mountain dirt roads of southeastern Turkey. Then they gave them the old 1-2-3 -- robbery, rape, slaughter.

What do you know about these folks? Your grandfather must have given you an earful.

Yes, the history I've read indicates that the Kurds really whomped hard on the Armenians during the genocide, but don't overlook what the Turks did to them, which was horrid.

Nevertheless I must point out, Arnold, that Kurdish leaders have publicly stated on more than one occasion that they're willing to give up a sovereign independent nation in favor of a Democratic Iraq. Now of course it's not clear, and won't be, if they really mean it or if all Kurds are down with the plan. But so far it looks good.

Getting Saddam includes, to some degree, selling out the Kurds -- they have a de facto nation right now, and by taking him out they'll lose that. For the greater good of the region, that's acceptable, but I damn well hope they get as much as possible under the new regime.

This whole enterprise may go badly. I continue to believe it's worth a try, though, since it's the only long-term hope we have for making the region less dangerous.

Let's hope we don't get egg on our faces.

Dean,

The Kurds have a de facto country; they always have been a nation. These terms are often confused in this country, but I use them in the European sense, which is probably more applicable in a situation as tangled as that of Iraq -- assembled as it was by the British Empire for the administrative convenience of that estimable worldwide venture.

It has not been explained to me why getting Saddam must nessarily involve selling out the Kurds. Nor am I comfortable with the rights of a small people being sold out for what purports to be the greater good of a region. If this principle ever is seriously applied to the State of Israel, their ostensible supply of 250+ nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, along with the Jericho II and Jericho III long-range missiles to deliver them onto the heads of the appropriate parties, may be put to use. The same as I would do if Wisconsin were treated according to a similar standard.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Regarding the Turks: it has always been clear, I think, that the Turks made their support contingent on denying the Kurds sovereign independence. Word from the Kurds was that this was also acceptable to them (or their elected leadership, anyway), if it meant being rid of Saddam, and a democratic Iraq. So while this is in a sense selling them out, it's part of the bargain they made with us in order to get our assistance in ridding them of the Baathist regime. And if the Turks wanted a short-term occupation of Kurdistan, well, that frankly sounded nasty, but if the war planners thought they could make it work and found it necessary to shorten the war and lessen losses of American lives, I would reluctantly mute my criticisms.

With the Turks not lending substantial assistance, my view of letting the Turks have their way is much dimmer.

In short, my ultimate interest is in minimizing the loss of American lives and enhancing American security. My secondary objective is for the freedom of all peoples, including the Kurds. The real world of politics requires compromises.

But it requires a lot less compromise with Turks if the Turks aren't playing ball.

Dean,

If getting together with the Turks at the expense of the Kurds truly served the military interests of the United States in this war, I too would mute the criticism that I offered in my post.

But right now, I sure as hell see little evidence on the part of the Turks that they intend to do anything in this conflict but to hint at assistance they have no intention of carrying out.

Clearly, their sole interest in the Iraq war is taking control of part of northern Iraq. This hardly squares with the principles that we announced as part of our reason for going to war.

In any case, insofar as I know, the US 4th division is still parked offshore, possibly nearing the Persian Gulf, but maybe even still in the eastern Mediterranean. And right now, they are needed along the northern approaches to Baghdad. And it is obvious they are not going to get there by way of Turkey.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold, last word I heard was that they were transiting the Suez Canal and would enter from the west, perhaps through Jordan, though my memory is fuzzy on the last. I was just skimming over some bulletin a couple hours ago and caught that.