THOUGHT - Made In (the Republic of) China

I think it would be a lot of fun to go to some store around here -- say, a Wal*Mart -- and take a bunch of "Made In Taiwan" stickers off the merchandise. Then go to the Olympics in China, visit some of the shops there, and put those stickers on everything.

THOUGHT - Don't Squeeze My Goomba

I had a very philosophical rant today about Mario. Now think about it, here you have this man -- a plumber by trade -- running around to save a princess. Firstly, why is the princess in such dire straits? What exactly was she doing to get herself kidnapped in the first place? Where were her ever-vigilant 4-foot tall guards with their 3-foot tall mushroom hats? Dagnabit, ma'am, hire yourself a Swiss legion; and when you're playing football: wear some clothes and don't come off as such a ditz. All you do is bake cakes, pick peaches, and get yourself kidnapped.

I find myself wondering: is Bowser after her money; her power; or is Bowser just a pervert after some cross-species lovins? Or maybe Bowser has a thing for Victorian-esque dresses and is just seeking some fashion advice the only way he knows how: kidnapping people. Maybe, growing up, all Bowser ever learned from his parents was that force was the answer: so he's never known any other way. I bet if you exhaled fire with every breath, people might stay kind of far away from you -- that sort of isolation can be pretty rough on a little kid. Just because he likes the color pink and comes off as a bit of a bully, Mario has to go and be a hot-shot.

By "hot-shot" I mean this: he runs around and jumps on cute little critter's heads, squashing them down to a pancake. I mean, would you seriously go out and, say, jump on an innocent little bunny? Goombas really aren't so different from a bunny: all they ever do is amble about; and there are hundreds of them all over the place. And "goomba" is an Italian term for a very close friend, so really what Mario is doing is squishing cute little guys that just want to be his buddy. Then there's Koopas, wandering about with babbling mouths resembling little fishies... well... OK maybe resembling little turtles. Every Marylander should take dear offense every time a precious terrapin is lost beneath that pair of Italian shoes.

I'm really irked whenever Mario comes up to a flying critter. In these situations, Mario must either land on top of the hapless animal and jump off its head to reach the ledge on the far side; or Mario will fall to his doom. Clearly, option #2 is not a preferable choice for our "hero", so he runs off and leaps on top of a jovial beast whose only crime is enjoying the breeze beneath its wings. In its last for moments of life before an overweight plumber quashes his aviator spirits and sends him falling to his doom, I'm sure that critter wishes he knew what made it so bloody important that Mario had to get across that cliff.

What I want to know is just that: why does Mario HAVE to get across that ledge, anyway? Didn't Mario ever learn that he shouldn't go jumping off of cliffs? Or that cliffs are dangerous? I mean, he might miss the critter and then Mario would himself meet his demise. I bet Mario's mother would be disheartened to learn that her son ran off the edge like a lemming, and she would surely blame herself for never teaching him any better. "If only he joined the mafia like every other young boy, he wouldn't have gotten into this mess," she'd say.

Whenever I am playing Mario and come to a point where I have to sacrifice a koopa or a goomba to the great abyss just so I don't have to fall into the void myself, I always turn around and go back the other way. It's just not worth it, man... it's just not worth it.

DREAM - Weird dream...

I had a weird dream last night... it has been a long time since I've had a dream this vivid, which is rather odd because these kinds of dreams always seem to have a lot of things that actually happen in real life. I'm not sure if that's just causality, though: I think it so I make it happen -- sort of like how you don't notice some type of car until you get one, and suddenly it seems like they're everywhere. In this sense, I dream about things that I subconsciously know will happen anyway -- so when they occur I think "hey wow I dreampt about that".

My grandparent's house.

Basically, it took place in a house which I somehow knew to be in New York. It was an old house -- about 100 years old -- which was similar in design to the East Falls neighborhood in Philly, out near Penn Charter. Fitting, as the first two floors were nearly identical to the first two floors of my grandparent's house in East Falls (as shown in the attached image). The kitchen and hallway were the same and the staircase was there, though I can't recall much of the living room or porch or too many specifics of the 2nd floor.

It was a dark night and windy, but otherwise dry out with a relatively clear sky. For some reason there was a war on and I was dressed in military fatigues. The house was host to my platoon of about 25 people -- as far as we were aware, the home's owners were not around, so we occupied the house as a base. The commanding officer was reviewing documents in the kitchen and asked me to go upstairs to track down another officer whom was needed. I don't remember much of the CO, but I somehow knew what the officer I was supposed to track down looked like -- he was a fellow CE from Penn State whom specialised in hydrology.

Going up the staircase -- again almost identical to my Grandparent's, I was heading up to the third floor when I called out the soldier's name. I didn't hear a response, but I somehow knew that he would be in the bedroom at the far-left end of the hall. I kept going up the stairs, wrapped around the banister, and here the 3rd floor was a bit different from my grandparent's house.

There were two doors on the right and a bathroom straight ahead -- the same as our house in Philly, but the left side was altered a bit. Here, there was a small nook just above the stairs which went to a door to the outside; and the bedroom was now down an elongated hall. The door to the outside had an odd look: not your typical house sort of door, but more like some mechanical contraption, albeit with a small window right at head-height. Outside was a small ledge, with an even smaller ledge leading along the right side (alongside the bedroom).

The real 3rd floor of my grandparent's house on the left; my dream's layout on the right.

In the floorplan image I have here, the left is the 3rd floor of my grandparent's house; the right is the layout in my dream. The two doors at right lead off to other rooms, the door at the top is the bathroom, and the door at mid-left (in the dream) is the door to the outside ledge.

I went to the bedroom and walked in on the soldier and a woman both sound asleep in bed. Yes, sleeping -- this isn't that kind of dream. I make some wise crack to wake them up, at which point the soldier leaps up -- dressed in boxers & an undershirt (I'm glad, too: I wouldn't know what to think of myself if I had a dream where a male was wearing anything less).

The woman, wearing nil, ran off like lightening into a closet or bathroom or something on the other side of the room. I can only assume it was a bathroom, as I know it had a window... not many closets have windows. Somehow in that fleeting second of blazing nudity, I recognised the woman as the "Baroness". Not sure why I called her that... and I'm also not sure how exactly I knew that her family was the true owner of the house which we were occupying.

The soldier was throwing on his fatigues and I made some joke about how he shouldn't bother to stop what he was doing, as by the time he got to see the CO, the CO would probably forget why he wanted the soldier in the first place. I forget how exactly I phrased it, but we both had a good laugh... it must have been funnier than how I typed it above, or maybe it was just the nature of the embarrassing moment which made any outlet of humor seem funnier. My duty done, I turned around and walked back down the hall, where I am confronted by the Baroness right by the stair -- near the door to the outside. Apparently when she ran into the side room, she hopped out a window, went along a ledge, and came back in through the door to the outside.

Now fully dressed, she apologised for meeting me in such a manner and formally introduced herself. She was in her mid-20's, fair skinned, dark brown hair, and had wavy hair that made me think of the style from around the 1940's. She wore a black dress with a white sash, with a gray wool overcoat -- also all in a 1940's fashion. I might best compare her to a young Jennifer Garner, but a bit different. At this point the soldier, dressed, showed up behind me and briefly got between me and the Baroness before (as if protecting his interest), but a second later stepped back to free up some space and let me chat to the Baroness.

There was a bit of idle chatter which I can't quite recall, but it was just a couple lines lasting maybe 30 seconds. I then pointed at the door to the outside and asked if it was a retractable bridge. How did I know it was that? Don't know. Why would I suddenly ask that, of all things? Not sure... but somehow I thought I knew what it was and curiosity got the best of me.

The Baroness was surprised that I would have known what it was, saying how no one knew what it was outside of her family. I said that I had seen the house in a photo once and that our families used to be friends a long time ago, so I remembered once learning about the bridge. I have no idea where this info all came from... I certainly can't recall such a photo or learning of such a bridge.

Excited, she opened a panel beside the door (it looked like a fuse box), flipped a switch, opened the door, and walked out onto a narrow bridge which was now emerging from the house -- apparently hidden within the floor directly beneath us. It extended out about 30 feet before the wind really started pushing it back and forth. The Baroness became worried and I yelled for her to bring the bridge back in before it got damaged, to which she complied and retracted the bridge.

This is what the river looked like.

The three of us stared across the way -- the yard below gave way to a wood fence (again: just like my grandparent's yard). Beyond the yard was a small, narrow street with crumbling pavement -- I assume it was crumbling because of whatever war it was that was occurring. Just beyond the street was the bank leading down to a river. The riverbanks were just like the Salzach in Salzburg -- moderately-steep slopes covered with bare grass.

On the other bank was the first floor of what used to be a building. It was in ruins, with many of the walls still generally standing, but they were several gaping holes in the walls and one wall facing us was indeed gone entirely. Much of the rear walls (actually the front of the house, facing away from us) were also gone. The ceiling was completely caved in -- nothing at all was left of it. The house was generally blue-ish in color and much of it appeared to be relatively recent construction.

Through all the holes I could see waifs running all over the place in the ruined house on the other side of the river. They all ran off about a minute later, chasing some critter that ran outside and away from the building. Somehow I knew that this side of the river was the defacto "no man's land" between my side's army and whomever we were fighting. The only people left were the children whom lacked both supervision and an understanding of what exactly was happening.

After staring at the ruins a bit, I came to realise that the ruined modern building had actually been constructed on the foundation of an older building which had apparently been demolished. This original building's foundation led me to think that it was likely of a similar design as the house that I was in. Then I followed the thought process and realised that the retractable bridge used to connect with a receiving building on the other side of the river.

Somehow the three of us knew this to be important... but just as I was starting to make the connections as to how exactly it was so important to me, my bloody alarm clock woke me up: it was 7:50 and time to go to work. However, in that first split-second where you cross from being nearly unconscious to being awake, a thought flashed through my head: I have to go to New York.

This thought wasn't a "I have to go right NOW" sort of thought, but just that I need to get myself there within the next couple years. Now the trick is that I have no idea where in New York. It kind of felt like I was in Upstate or Western New York, but I have no connections there so that just doesn't seem right. I do have connections on Long Island... but since I've never been there, I don't know what it looks like to be sure. So I guess now I need to explore and chase down my dream... might sound weird, but I've done it before and have found places I've never been to, but have dreampt about. Causality, perhaps?

THOUGHT - Canonlove

Because this is long, nobody will read it. Therefore the moral of the story: I am now a dedicated fan of Canon. Maybe if I'm in the mood for the best cameras out there, I'll go Nikon... but Canon's customer service is definitely top-notch. Now the story that no one will ever read:

I used to have a Canon Powershot A95, which I put through considerable abuse (my camera frequently tasted the surface of concrete) and found myself periodically sending it away for warranty repairs. With one exception, of the three or four times I sent it in over a 2-year period: Canon repaired it for no charge. There was one occasion where it was pretty blatant that I dropped it... that one I had to pay for, but it was pretty reasonable. Each repair, the camera would get returned to me within a week or two; and I got continuous emails each time there was a status change.

For that reason, I went up to a Powershot A640 when I decided it was time for an upgrade. I've made sure to use the wrist strap -- for which I should probably thank Nintendo for training me to use those things with the Wii. It still took a lot... it's been dropped in glaciers, faced into waterfalls, sat in the sun in 100+ weather only to switch about 30 minutes later into a place with a wind chill of -40. It wasn't a surprise (especially thanks to the waterfall) that I'd have some problems... and sure enough I did.

One week without a camera and a warranty repair later, problem solved. The camera was fine right up through to December when I somehow got an eyelash on the lens... well more specifically, behind the glass but on the lens: so I couldn't get to it without dismantling the camera and voiding the warranty. In for repair, a week & a half later I have it back... but each image was blurry, the tones aren't balanced, and I have lots of visual noise. Send it back, they replace the optical unit, I get it back a week & a half later. Now it doesn't auto-focus: I just can't lock on to anything.

Now it's the end of January and my camera has been in for nonstop repairs for a month: I'm a bit annoyed with Canon. In my letter describing the technical problem, I mention how it might be more cost-effective if Canon just replaced the whole unit.

...I get a package today, a week & a half after sending it in, and to my surprise: not only did they replace it, but I got an upgrade to the new version which was released at the end of last year. Sweet. Canon not only saved a customer, but they've convinced me that I'm definitely with the right brand.

So that's my spam, and spamarific it is. Also, from events of today, I'd like to further thank the following products: G.I. Joe, Tums, the New Yorker, and Uncle Ben's Leather Shop.

POLITICS - Post your questions for the Presidential debates

Submit your questions here and vote for those which others have submitted:
http://dyn.politico.com/debate/

I will follow with the questions I have already posed...



Our road, rail, sea, and air transport systems are at and over capacity. How do you plan to address the looming transportation funding crises in the short-term (noting the pending expiration of SAFETEA-LU), and what long-term strategies do you propose to reduce our demand or increase our supply of transportation capabilities?



Our present development patterns tend to involve signifant suburban growth at the cost of rural and urban regions. One side calls this the will of the free market, stating that such growth is beneficial in that it utilizes a surplus of land area to provide goods and services at reduced cost. Another side deems this unsustainable "sprawl" and argues that such development increases the cost of goods and services due to the increased demand on infrastructure. What side do you believe is more akin to your own viewpoint, and how would you intend to further your cause; or, alternatively, to reconcile the two arguments?




To receive federal funding, transportation projects are generally required to examine potential ridership based on existing data which is grown to the build-out year. Now consider a transportation line which is proposed to travel through a blighted urban area where population density is presently low, but redevelopment potential is high. This potential for redevelopment cannot be easily considered in ridership estimates, which can limit the project's viability and hence leave the area blighted.

In a similar sense, what if a transit line is planned to extend into a presently undeveloped region. Developers and the transit agency are willing to coordinate development around this new line -- a modern "streetcar suburb". This could target growth onto a more sustainable system, but ridership estimates for federal funding would likely result in a declined application.

On the one hand, such refusal to accept coordination between transportation and land use may run counter to a sustainable culture: forcing us to build new lines with limited development options. On the other hand, Alaska's recent attempt to build the Gravina Island Bridge to provide access to developable land raised significant concerns about pork spending. Do you believe greater emphasis is necessary on transportation and land use coordination? If not, why not? If so, how do you propose to improve such coordination whilst ensuring that federal funds are not over-dispersed (draining available funds) or given to projects with a limited potential to succeed?




Our current transportation investments result in skewed travel relationships. I can fly from Baltimore-Washington to Boston for less than it costs me to ride AMTRAK -- a transportation with a reduced environmental footprint and a mode which is not particularly likely to be directly involved in an event on par with 9/11. It cost me twice as much to travel on a mode that takes twice the time. Our subsidies toward roadways -- particularly parking -- has similarly resulted in a mode of transportation which, while convenient in that it provides direct point-to-point travel -- is extremely demanding on the environment and our energy needs. Clearly, I do not believe the status quo is adequate. Do you concur, and if so: how would you propose to adjust the public financing of various transportation modes? If you disagree with my viewpoint, how would you propose to maintain AMTRAK's competitiveness versus alternate modes such as road and air?



This question relates to the amount of transportation modes available to commuters -- disregarding freight. Do you believe it best to provide a single mode of transportation or a multimodal system? Consider that a single mode could provide for increased funding targeted toward capacity and operation improvements, and a multimodal system would involve distributed funding -- where each mode is not as capable as it could be if it were the sole mode; but the commuter has options available to choose from. The single mode system is, in general, similar to our present state: dependent upon the personal automobile. If you choose a single mode system, what mode of transportation would you choose to emphasize?

THOUGHT - A vote for Dodd is a vote for Capt. Murphy!

Is it just me, or does presidential candidate Chris Dodd look like Captain Murphy from Sealab 2021?

 

...get that man a jumpsuit

POLITICS - The Vote on Armenian Genocide

The nuts and bolts of the vote on Armenian Genocide:

First, I’ll describe just what exactly this is for those not in the know. Armenians are a Christian ethnic group generally located in the eastern regions of Turkey, near the aptly-named nation of Armenia. The short of it is that hundreds of thousands of Armenian lives were lost, and both viewpoints agree on that. I’m not here to say whether I agree with the vote or not; whether I think the incident was genocide or it wasn’t. Rather, I am aiming to at least share my crazy ideas about what the vote really means about the future. This is not just outlining our view on history: this is directly related to everything that is going on in the Middle East today and what is yet to come.

---------------------------------------------------

OTTOMAN EMPIRE
---------------------------------------------------

Let’s start with some history to bring everybody up to speed on the goings-on in Anatolia (the Turkish peninsula) from the turn of the 19th-20th century up until today:

In the early 20th century, Turkey was undergoing revolution. The Ottoman Empire was on its way out and the Turkish Republic was on its way in. Specifically, toward the end of the 19th Century, the Ottoman monarchy was losing more and more power to the populace. In 1908 through 1909, revolution took its hold and the monarchy effectively lost its power. By 1912, power shifted about and ultimately a group (the Committee of Union and Progress) emerged, wielding the majority of influence through to 1918. The Turkish War of Independence began in 1919, and the founding of the modern Turkish Republic took place in 1923.

Now bear in mind what is going on over in Europe at this time. European monarchies were on their way out, too: the populace was gaining greater power and the royal families were losing power. The monarchies, looking to distract the populace, targeted scapegoats and blamed all problems on them. Hence, Jews and Gypsies – common foreigners throughout all the empires – took the brunt of the blame. The Jews were a particular target due to their perceived wealth, which added to the differentiation between them and the common lower-classes of the general populace; and confiscated loot made for a nice donation to the Imperial treasury.

World War I occurred between 1915 and 1918. All the European empires were rife with xenophobia: each nation thought they were superior to the other; and at the start of the war, everybody happily beat their war drums confident in that they would easily defeat their inferior neighbors. Racism was a fact of life during this time, and the Ottoman Empire faced the exact same issues as the European empires. The Christian Armenians tended to be a rather wealthy ethnic group, which made them prime targets for scapegoats.

The Ottoman Empire had a number of laws which basically guaranteed equality regardless of ethnicity or religion. Ethnic groups recognized by these laws were called “millet”, and sure enough the Armenians were a recognized millet. This alone put the Ottomans above most Europeans as far as tolerance is concerned. However, toward the end of the 19h century, Sultan Abdul Hamid II took the loss of monarchial powers to heart: suspending the constitution and assuming dictatorial powers. A scapegoat was needed to distract the public and solidify their unity: hence the initial confrontations against Armenians during the end of the 19th century.

The efforts of Sultan Hamid II faltered, and the secular “Young Turks” movement led a revolution in 1908 – effectively ousting the monarchy. Sultan Mehmet V took power in 1909, but while the monarchy continued to exist, it had little power. The Young Turks were initially welcomed by religious and ethnic minorities, but during the revolution, a more hard-line offshoot came to power: the Committee of Union and Progress – largely led by three powerful men whom came to be known as the Three Pashas.

---------------------------------------------------
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
---------------------------------------------------

Turkey was still highly unstable and facing significant unrest, so the Committee saw the same need to distract the populace in an effort to rally them behind a common, unifying cause. Come 1915, accusations were made that the Armenians were preparing to ally themselves with Russia (Russia being a member of the Allied Powers during World War I, and the Ottoman Empire being allied with the Central Powers). Hence, from 1915-1917, a war was waged which, at its end, resulted in hundreds of thousands of Armenian deaths – far overshadowing relatively insubstantial Turkish losses.

Here is where the touchy issues really start: some see these acts as genocide and others see these acts as unfortunate incidents arising from a period of unrest, where xenophobia was common throughout both Anatolia and Europe. Both sides agree that hundreds of thousands of Armenians died; the difference of opinion is solely in context. Personally, I think both sides are right, but view any acts as performed by the Turkish government of old rather than its reformed modern incarnation. Regardless of viewpoint, the confrontation ultimately made its way to Germany, forming the foundations of Adolf Hitler’s planning for World War II.

After World War I, the Allied forces took control of Turkey and reinstituted limited power to the monarchy. Between 1919 and 1920, a military tribunal was set up by Sultan Mehmed VI to try leaders for their involvement in World War I. The Three Pashas fled the nation and the military tribunal effectively dissolved the Committee of Union and Progress. The Three Pashas were found guilty in absentia of violating the ethnic/religious tolerance laws. They were sentenced to death, but were never officially executed. Two were assassinated in retaliation by Armenian forces, and another died of disputed circumstances: potentially by a Soviet soldier or potentially by an Armenian assassin.

The Allied victory in World War I instituted harsh penalties upon the losing nations. This led to the rise of fascism in Germany, but also brought about some relative good with the rise of the Turkish Republic. The peace treaty which the Ottoman Empire signed to formally end World War I was devastating to the independence and economy of Turkey. The treaty ceded lands in the east to form the two new nations of Georgia and Armenia. Anger over the penalties accepted by the Sultanate prompted Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to lead Turkish revolutionaries against the Ottoman Empire, the Allied occupation forces (including British, Greek, French, and Italian forces), and forces from the ceded lands of Georgia and Armenia. Per the peace treaty signed in 1923, this revolutionary’s victory formed the secular and relatively peaceful state that is the modern Turkish Republic, ensuring tasty kebabs and döner kebaps for all.

---------------------------------------------------
MODERN TURKISH REPUBLIC
---------------------------------------------------

The peace treaties which defined the Turkish Republic set in motion issues such as that regarding Cyprus, but that’s generally irrelevant to this whole article. What is important is that it was during the turmoil of the revolutionary war that the Kurdish ethnic group in the southeast made repeated attempts at autonomy. These attempts would continue to be made until 1937, when the government placed the Kurdish areas under martial law. Prompted by the polarization of the world during the Cold War (Turkey was a very important Western ally), Kurdish nationalism rekindled in the 1970’s and continues to this day. The more notorious of nationalist movements is that of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a group which aims to create an independent Marxist nation out of southeast Turkey and northern Iraq. The PKK is designated a terrorist organization by the USA, NATO, and the EU, among others.

And so now we come to 2003, when Operation Iraqi Freedom began its incursion into Iraq. Turkey was an important ally during the Cold War, and remained so during this war. After much negotiation, American forces were permitted to use Turkish territory to for supply movement and as a base of operations for the war in Iraq. Critical to these negotiations was a commitment from the USA that it would not support an independent Kurdistan. Access to Turkish soil and airspace was absolutely critical to the USA, as it provide access to the northern portions of Iraq.

Today, the Kurdish regions of northern Iraq are comparatively peaceful. The border passes to the north provide billions of dollars in revenue to the Turkish government; and are all that keep the US forces in the north supplied. Supplies must arrive from Turkey, as it would be too risky to ship supplies from the south (via Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or the Persian Gulf). Syria and Iran are not particularly friendly toward the US (well, personally, I think it’s more the other way around), so we cannot bring in supplies through those borders. The only remaining country is Jordan (which is cordial toward the US), but has generally declined military involvement as it aims to maintain peace with all of its neighbors.

---------------------------------------------------
THE U.S. VOTE ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
---------------------------------------------------

So now, after all that history, we finally come to the vote pending before Congress which would, if approved, formally recognize that what occurred in 1915-1917 was an act of genocide. That would make Turkey (or, specifically, the Ottoman Empire) responsible for what is widely considered to be the first act of modern, systematic extermination of a Human population.

Why now? It’s been 80 years and we’re only now, at a federal level, in a position where it looks likely that we’ll formally recognize the occurrence as genocide? Lo and behold, this is where modern politics comes to play with history.

As we all know, we are fighting an unpopular war in Iraq. “The time to stop the war was before we invaded!” Yes, we all know that, thank you Democratic rhetoric. I blame Republicans for leading us into war just as much as anybody else, but the Democrats are only pointing fingers; not offering solutions. Republicans are generally leaning toward troop increases, which – while not necessarily a good solution – is at least the best (read: “only”) real solution I’m hearing from anybody. OK I’m going to stop before I go off on a rant here, but basically the Democrats want us out of Iraq and they’re failing in Congress at any measures to do it.

The vote on Armenian Genocide may be the best indirect way the Democrats seek to end the war in Iraq. Already, Turkey has ordered that the ambassador to the US return to Turkey for consultations. This is among the strongest messages that a nation can send short of taking less-peaceful actions such as economic penalties or severing diplomatic ties entirely. Severing diplomatic ties is one step short of declaring war, sans the outright hostilities, and Turkey certainly does not wish to go to that extreme with a long-time ally.

Should the vote fail (meaning the USA continues to not recognize the incident as genocide), the Armenian population in America will be dissatisfied; but the world in general will continue on pretty much as it is right now. The war in Iraq will not be directly impacted.

There is a high possibility that the vote will pass and the USA formally recognize the incident as an act of genocide. Now the ball is in Turkey’s court as to how to react. They will react, but by how much is where the delicate politics of the Middle East comes in. The two most potent tools at Turkey’s disposal are the issue on Kurds and the use of Turkish airspace and border crossings.

Turkey has made numerous incursions into northern Kurdish Iraq under the premise of national security, seeking suspects accused of being aligned with the PKK. This generally fits in with the War on Terror and Turkey is a critical ally, so the US has turned a blind eye so long as incursions remain few and infrequent. The US needs to maintain peace with its ally, Turkey; but also with the Kurdish-Iraqi forces which maintain relative peace in the north – freeing manpower and resources to concentrate on the more chaotic southern regions of Iraq.

---------------------------------------------------
IMPACTS ON THE WAR IN IRAQ
---------------------------------------------------

In response to the vote on Armenian Genocide, Turkey has indicated that they may potentially wage a full-scale occupation of Kurdish Iraq. Such a move would completely alienate the Kurdish population against Turkey and destabilize the peaceful northern region. This puts the US in a real bind: support our Turkish allies in cracking down on PKK terrorists under the premise of our War on Terror, alienating our Kurdish allies; or support the Kurds.

We won’t go with the latter. Why? Turkey has a bigger stick. If we supported the Kurds, Turkey would play its ace: use of airspace and border crossings. This is somewhat unlikely in itself as Turkey gains billions of Dollars in revenue from these agreements, but if we supported the Kurds… I’d wager that Turkey would shut these down in a heartbeat. If Turkey restricts either (or both), that is the end of the war in Iraq as we know it. That’d end any support of the Kurds, too. That’s it, right there. There would only be two options:

The first option is to keep fighting the war from the south northwards, using Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf to import supplies. The southern and central regions of Iraq would remain about as they are, but the north would be shot straight to Hell. Public sentiment would go from little to none as even supporters of the Iraq War question what the point is if we can only win two thirds of the country. It’d be an incomplete victory, assuming we could actually win. Nevermind the diplomatic fallout in Turkey itself which would like give rise to anti-American and less-secular movements. We’d then come to option #2:

Option #2 is what we’d either be forced to go with pretty much right away, or it’d take a few months before everything worked itself out such that this becomes the only option. That is: a complete withdrawal from Iraq.

As for the future of Iraq, there are three sections to look at: Iraq generally consists of the Kurdish-aligned north, the Syrian-aligned west, and the Iran-aligned east. Let’s look at the north first:

Turkey would be very likely to continue the occupation of northern Iraq. This could continue indefinitely: the world may either turn a blind eye to it, causing northern Iraq to potentially become annexed to Turkey proper; or the world may begin negotiations to return the land to Iraq. The latter may be likely, as tensions over the Armenian Genocide vote would cool down after a couple years.

During that time, Syria and Iran will likely strengthen their respective influences over Iraq. If the northern region remains occupied or if Turkey succeeds in formally annexing the land, it may inspire Syria and Iran to potentially occupy and/or annex the remaining portions of Iraq. It is possible, given Turkey’s history as an ally of the politically-dominant US, that annexation could be a possibility. If this occurs, the US would face a difficult diplomatic effort in rationalizing the support of a Turkish annexation but not Syrian and/or Iranian annexations. The obvious objection is that the US just doesn’t like Iran or Syria; but that wouldn’t be appropriate grounds, internationally, to block such moves whilst permitting another. So begins the next stage of the great debacle that is the Middle East: the next showdown with Syria and/or Iran.

Now let’s backtrack a bit… what if we support Turkey in cracking down on the PKK? The war in Iraq will continue, but resources and manpower will be drained to nil. This effectively opens a third war in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq: now we’ll be fighting against Kurdistan. Manpower in the south is already short even with the troop surge: our forces address one fire whilst another one burns; they address that second fire while the first one rekindles. If they leave to go north, both of those flames will flare up and the war will be lost.

Unfortunately, we won’t formally end the war for several months at the least – likely not until January 2009, when the Democratic victor wins Presidential election. Not to sound all confident in the liberal party and what-not: frankly I despise all the candidates; but let’s face it: the Democrats are going to win. Until then, with the third front opened up, hundreds of Allied, American, Turkish, Iraqi, and Kurdish lives will be lost unnecessarily. It’s particularly unfortunate in that this is the most likely path that will play out, unless Turkey backs down from its threats and ultimately takes a minor reaction to the vote.

---------------------------------------------------
MY BEST GUESS
---------------------------------------------------

If I were a betting man, I’d say that the vote will pass, Turkey will press into northern Iraq, we will support Turkey and open a third front, there will be twice as many casualty reports hitting the news, and we’ll leave Iraq behind by the end of 2009.

We’ll negotiate with Turkey to leave Iraq, we’ll succeed with those negotiations, and Iraq will be left decimated. Iran and Syria will increase their influence indirectly, but they won’t make a formal attempt at occupation and/or annexation. Anti-American extremists will take hold in Kurdistan and the general Kurdish populace will strengthen their demand for an independent Kurdistan formed from land in Turkey in Iraq.

We’ll be set up for the next round of wars in the Middle East, likely to come around full-circle by 2012.

That’s my guess. Let’s see how it pans out.