Um ... isn't he actually pretty much DOING that, right now? Over Republican and American "conservative" rants, of course.
Also, you seem to suggest that the only impediments to such a bargain are all from this country. I think you'll find that the current regime in Iran is acting at least as cautiously as the Obama administration in this, again out of national politics concerns.
And preservation of the concept of Iraq that's been in place since the days of Prince Faisel and T.E. Lawrence following WWII, for its supposed value as an easily manipulated 'buffer' state, is STILL the rationale for our policies there.
I suggest you put your point to Professor Cole. I don't really understand where you get the notion that 'the Sunnis are more secular'. Sunni and Shia are like two large strands of DNA running thru the regions many, many, MANY sectarian variations on Islam.
What are you missing? A lot. Again, ask Professor Cole.
I agree with your characterization of ISIS over Professor Cole's over-simplistic description. However, what ISIS does that's most like guerilla warfare is use terror tactics, so to that extent Cole is correct. It's only when ISIS has succeeded in terrorizing an area like they've done with this minority sect on the perimeter of Kurdistan and succeeded in moving on from there to using the same tactics towards Irbil that we're likely to see the more conventional armed forces capacity of ISIS.
I'm inclined to go with Professor Cole's view, that it's pretty much the one politically safest choice for this administration, given the dynamics here as well as there.
I don't share what appears to be your concern, escalation, because that's not how Obama's been rolling over the first 5.5 years of his administration. My concern is with the trap we find ourselves in of having to on the one hand offer Kurdistan this sort of assistance while conditioning a 'secure' promise to one very scared province of more of it on the commitment to stay within a construct that was DESIGNED AT THE OUTSET (by the Brits) to be weak.
If we were serious about security for Kurdistan, the best approach would be to commit to supporting the idea of it as an independent Kurdish state. Kurdish people would then be far more likely to cast off their dependency as they'd be invested in the preservation of their homeland.
One of the biggest problems I have with what we're doing now is that I've little doubt that Obama himself and his key NSA and State Dept advisors are well aware of what would work best for preservation of Kurdish security, but are choosing to take the less controversial route to appease mostly Republican hawks and the silly center that never votes in midterms anyway. It seems typical of Obama to carefully and rationally weigh all the options and then go with the kneejerk one.
Ahh, but Israel, like Saudi Arabia, is considered something of an ally, which we're short of in the region, particularly in that those two are, along with Iran, the three most powerful and influential states in the region. We, of course, are allied with the two of those most oblivious to the interests of their neighbors.
Why in the world would you think your comment - which apparently you think is deeply incisive and sophisticated - NOT be "published" on such a website as Informed Comment -- despite that your own is the opposite of that? Also, your choice of online avatar name is highly suggestive of trolling. We're seeing a lot of this sort of unfocussed Chicken Little concern trolling lately, and that suggests a deep pool of scatter-brained ignoramuses you typify.
Your post if messily over-packed with rightwing memes. I won't go thru all of them, but one is this nutty notion that the Fed prints U.S. currency.
Um ... isn't he actually pretty much DOING that, right now? Over Republican and American "conservative" rants, of course.
Also, you seem to suggest that the only impediments to such a bargain are all from this country. I think you'll find that the current regime in Iran is acting at least as cautiously as the Obama administration in this, again out of national politics concerns.
And preservation of the concept of Iraq that's been in place since the days of Prince Faisel and T.E. Lawrence following WWII, for its supposed value as an easily manipulated 'buffer' state, is STILL the rationale for our policies there.
I suggest you put your point to Professor Cole. I don't really understand where you get the notion that 'the Sunnis are more secular'. Sunni and Shia are like two large strands of DNA running thru the regions many, many, MANY sectarian variations on Islam.
What are you missing? A lot. Again, ask Professor Cole.
I agree with your characterization of ISIS over Professor Cole's over-simplistic description. However, what ISIS does that's most like guerilla warfare is use terror tactics, so to that extent Cole is correct. It's only when ISIS has succeeded in terrorizing an area like they've done with this minority sect on the perimeter of Kurdistan and succeeded in moving on from there to using the same tactics towards Irbil that we're likely to see the more conventional armed forces capacity of ISIS.
I'm inclined to go with Professor Cole's view, that it's pretty much the one politically safest choice for this administration, given the dynamics here as well as there.
I don't share what appears to be your concern, escalation, because that's not how Obama's been rolling over the first 5.5 years of his administration. My concern is with the trap we find ourselves in of having to on the one hand offer Kurdistan this sort of assistance while conditioning a 'secure' promise to one very scared province of more of it on the commitment to stay within a construct that was DESIGNED AT THE OUTSET (by the Brits) to be weak.
If we were serious about security for Kurdistan, the best approach would be to commit to supporting the idea of it as an independent Kurdish state. Kurdish people would then be far more likely to cast off their dependency as they'd be invested in the preservation of their homeland.
One of the biggest problems I have with what we're doing now is that I've little doubt that Obama himself and his key NSA and State Dept advisors are well aware of what would work best for preservation of Kurdish security, but are choosing to take the less controversial route to appease mostly Republican hawks and the silly center that never votes in midterms anyway. It seems typical of Obama to carefully and rationally weigh all the options and then go with the kneejerk one.
Ahh, but Israel, like Saudi Arabia, is considered something of an ally, which we're short of in the region, particularly in that those two are, along with Iran, the three most powerful and influential states in the region. We, of course, are allied with the two of those most oblivious to the interests of their neighbors.
Why in the world would you think your comment - which apparently you think is deeply incisive and sophisticated - NOT be "published" on such a website as Informed Comment -- despite that your own is the opposite of that? Also, your choice of online avatar name is highly suggestive of trolling. We're seeing a lot of this sort of unfocussed Chicken Little concern trolling lately, and that suggests a deep pool of scatter-brained ignoramuses you typify.
Your post if messily over-packed with rightwing memes. I won't go thru all of them, but one is this nutty notion that the Fed prints U.S. currency.