Thread: Iraq/Dinar News. 09/05 to 01/14/07

Kurds could stabilize all Iraq


Sunday, November 19, 2006

Times Union - By Harry Rosenfeld

With Baghdad in the grip of chaos, the best Gen. John Abizaid, America's commanding general in the Middle East, can recommend for a long-term solution permitting a withdrawal of U.S. forces is building up the Iraqi army.

Trouble is that this approach has not worked for all the years it has been the bedrock of U.S. strategy. Recall President Bush's incantation that Americans would step down only as Iraqis stepped up.

The incessant and cruel bloodshed in Baghdad demands to be controlled and the Iraqi government has shown its incapacity to do so. Substantial U.S. reinforcements for the 141,000 troops in country are not a realistic prospect. The U.S. armed forces are stretched to their limit. In any event, many more Americans would not be welcomed by Iraqis.

Training of Iraqi army and police by the Americans has been extensive. The result has been to undermine its very purpose, unintentionally helping to strengthen sectarian Shiite militias, whose members have largely infiltrated the forces. Sunnis view both the police and army as mostly if not entirely doing the bidding of various Shiite factions. This contributes to the continuing rising slaughter of civilians and the steadily increasing American casualties from more frequent attacks.

In this crisis, which could in the worst case result in Iraq becoming a failed state, the U.S. should turn to the Kurds, who in their virtually autonomous enclave in northern Iraq have amassed a reputable and disciplined force of 60,000 to 100,000 men known as the Peshmerga.

Numbers of them have been trained over a dozen years or so by American instructors. During the American invasion they played a key role, taking control of the major northern cities of Mosul and Kirkuk.

In the past nearly four years of turmoil they have protected Iraqi Kurdistan as a haven safe enough to attract Iraqi Sunnis fleeing for their lives. Yet Kurdish troops have been largely limited in their operations by the U.S. to their three home provinces -- because of unease among Iraq's neighbors.

The Peshmerga could have greater credibility with both Shiite and Sunnis than either would have with forces mainly made up of members of the other's religious sect. Although the Kurds are Sunnis, they are not Arabs and have their own quarrel with Iraqi Sunnis. Under Saddam Hussein, Arab Sunnis were shipped wholesale to Kurdish areas to dilute Kurdish dominance in the oil-rich territory in the northern part of the country.

As to their relationship with the dominant Shiites, the Kurds share with them the distinction of having been the targets of Saddam's oppression. Up to 150,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam's minions.

Unlike the Sunnis and Shiites, the Kurds are strong supporters of the Americans, who sheltered them from Saddam's attacks since 1991 with a no-fly zone. That permitted the Kurds to establish self-rule and develop their cultural identity.

The Kurds are not the perfect solution, but they would be an immediately available stopgap to restore Baghdad, the epicenter of the various insurgencies, to a tolerable level of life. Their expanded role might serve to compel the necessary compromises to stabilize the country that the ineffectual al-Malaki government has been unable to undertake.

Employment of the Peshmerga, nominally a part of the national Iraqi army, outside of its home grounds would come with a cost. In Iraq itself, it likely would engender fears of the Kurds winding up in any eventual settlement with a greater share of the national pie -- meaning oil -- than their 4 million portion of the national population would warrant. Shiites are the most numerous, Sunnis the second most.

Iraq's neighbors, for their part, are what customarily is described as "restive" whenever Kurds are involved. That's because 41 percent of Kurds live in Turkey, which has fought a long intense battle to keep them from autonomy or secession.

That goes to a lesser degree for Syria, with 6 percent of the Kurds, and Iran, with 31 percent.

U.S. diplomacy would have to reassure the Turks, who are allies, that the wider employment of Kurdish troops, and perhaps additional training of more of them, would be strictly limited to containing the destabilization of Iraq, which also threatens Turkey.

As for the Syrians and Iranians, who are fishing in Iraq's troubled waters, the Kurds' wider deployment would serve as a warning to them to help facilitate compromise rather than continuing to encourage disorder in Iraq.

Times Union

Originally Posted by michaeljordan

Forget November

At Least December Rhymes With November

What Rhymes With January?

Damn It

not necessarily so fast. actually the iamb can release any hold they have on the currency at any point in time. i look at the postponement of the meeting as a precautionary step in case what comes about is a salvation government which remains to be seen so far.

Originally Posted by Socata 850

< snip > Now normally, this would have the exact opposite effect on the price of the dinar versus the dollar. As dollars became harder to get the price should be going up as far as the exchange rate against the dinar. But instead of going up it continues to fall. < snip >

I had one other thought / idea about the change in exchange rate in these recent auctions. I believe that the rate is controlled by the CBI and so I wonder if they are finding that they need to continue to offer a slightly "better" deal to the banks in order to continue to get the volume of exchange that they want to see. As I understand what Wm.K has been saying, the CBI will try to bring in their "targetted" amount of dinar as inexpensively as possible. Thanks.

Originally Posted by shotgunsusie

not necessarily so fast. actually the iamb can release any hold they have on the currency at any point in time. i look at the postponement of the meeting as a precautionary step in case what comes about is a salvation government which remains to be seen so far.

Exactly right, keep an eye out for the NSG (National Salvation Government)

Here are the dates we need to keep an eye on

1. NOV. 20 - EU meeting

2. NOV. 29 - DEC. 1 - WTO meeting

3. DEC. 11-12 - IAMB meeting

So far I have not seen any changes in the dates.
and we want to see that R/V

Originally Posted by PlatanoKing

From the UNSC press release:

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NOON BRIEFING
BY STEPHANE DUJARRIC
SPOKESMAN FOR THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
U.N. HEADQUARTERS, NEW YORK
Friday, November 17, 2006
OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS

UP TO SECURITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER IRAQ FORCE: Asked about the extension of the multinational force for Iraq, the Spokesman said that Iraq has sent a letter on the matter and it is up to the Security Council to consider it.

U.N. CONTINUING WORK IN IRAQ: Asked about UN efforts in Iraq, the Spokesman said that the United Nations continues its work on the political level, on human rights, and, through the International Compact for Iraq, in bringing Iraq’s neighbours to support its stabilization and to bolster its economic development. He added later that more than 300 UN staff are in Iraq.

ARCHIVES

which, the signing of happens at the end of november.

Originally Posted by Dinar-Excited

Hi Everyone,

I just wanted to ask what kind of RV date may we be looking at. I was basing my thoughts of an RV on the IAMB meeting but as that has been postponed until December 2007. Is the Compact still going to be signed on the 30th November? Dose anyone have dates on the big important meetings that may influence an RV?

Thanks,

Dinar-Excited

Do Not concern yourself with this IAMB. Remember a lot of disinformation will come down the pike. The escape claus here is that Iraq can vacate it at anytime. Plus the other a few posts back that declares a turnover by years end. If anyone seriously thinks they are going to hang this out there for another year, IMO you are being fooled. And as I just read they are just going to monitor it not control it.

The question was asked, how important do you see the FIL (and HCL). Since I have never mentioned these issues, they wanted to know how important did I see them.

As with our Federal Reserve System, the CBI is a completely independent organization from the GOI. Political statements, laws and overall organization is eventually important. However, what we are wanting and observing is monetary control by the CBI. We might like to think that this or that politican makes a great deal of difference, but this might not be so. The CBI is set up similiar to our Fed System and they are "insulated" from the political system. They will manage the money supply, interest rates, reserve requirements and EXCHANGE RATES depending on their policy. Additional laws passed, meetings held, conferences conducted and political statements do not control these people. They are running their "own" program. Now this is not bad. This is actually good. The rates of exchange will adjust, (I think Higher) and they are taking the necessary steps to make this happen. Thank You.

Originally Posted by PlatanoKing

From the UNSC press release:

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NOON BRIEFING
BY STEPHANE DUJARRIC
SPOKESMAN FOR THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
U.N. HEADQUARTERS, NEW YORK
Friday, November 17, 2006
OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS

UP TO SECURITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER IRAQ FORCE: Asked about the extension of the multinational force for Iraq, the Spokesman said that Iraq has sent a letter on the matter and it is up to the Security Council to consider it.

U.N. CONTINUING WORK IN IRAQ: Asked about UN efforts in Iraq, the Spokesman said that the United Nations continues its work on the political level, on human rights, and, through the International Compact for Iraq, in bringing Iraq’s neighbours to support its stabilization and to bolster its economic development. He added later that more than 300 UN staff are in Iraq.

ARCHIVES

I believe I remember those exact words being used since they started requesting an SBA or at least for a year now.

Originally Posted by Wm.Knowles

The question was asked, how important do you see the FIL (and HCL). Since I have never mentioned these issues, they wanted to know how important did I see them.

As with our Federal Reserve System, the CBI is a completely independent organization from the GOI. Political statements, laws and overall organization is eventually important. However, what we are wanting and observing is monetary control by the CBI. We might like to think that this or that politican makes a great deal of difference, but this might not be so. The CBI is set up similiar to our Fed System and they are "insulated" from the political system. They will manage the money supply, interest rates, reserve requirements and EXCHANGE RATES depending on their policy. Additional laws passed, meetings held, conferences conducted and political statements do not control these people. They are running their "own" program. Now this is not bad. This is actually good. The rates of exchange will adjust, (I think Higher) and they are taking the necessary steps to make this happen. Thank You.

The CBI is running on IMF's program. The CBI running its own program is an illusion. You wouldn't even see the on-going revaluation without the IMF's green light. We know this for a fact.