| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Kurds want autonomy, nothing less |
| 2004-06-12 |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #7 The Kurds didn't survive all these years by being stupid. Back out boys. Nothing in this faux Iraqi "Republic" that's good for you. Find out what it is that the Americans and Turks want and offer it to them. Bases, oil royalties, whatever, and promise it to them in exchange for your independence. Going along with this deal is like a girl going along with a mugger when he points a gun at her and says "get in the car". Her best chance of getting out of this unharmed is to put up her best fight before she gets in the car. Fight for your freedom now, it's only going to get harder if you go along for the ride. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-12 10:42:12 PM |
| #6 We promised we wouldn't divide Iraq. If Iraq divides on its own it is not our fault. Unfortunately it means the Arabs have failed the Democracy test if we get to that point. Independent Kurdistan depends upon an alliance with one of her neighbors or she'll be totally cut off. I would suggest Turkey since they are American allies (more or less). Kurds should be promoted to migrate from Turkey into Kurdistan. Kurds in Iran and Syria should be promoted to rise up and declare themselves part of Kurdistan. Then the US and Kurds play defense while the Iranians and Syrians send wave after wave. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-06-12 6:18:00 PM |
| #5 Isn't a large portion of the oil in Kurdish territory? They should have their referrendum, take their oil and leave the Shias and Sunnis to settle the old scores amongst themselves... Sure Turkey would be mad... So what... |
| Posted by: sonic 2004-06-12 3:48:12 PM |
| #4 That's the selling point, #3. A separate Kurdistan will re-patriate all Kurds living in other countries and get them out of those countries' hair. Think of the new Kurdistan like Israel - a home for all Jews who choose to call it home. That's how the US should promote it to our ME Muslim allies[cough "allies" cough] Also, Turkey and Syria should be advised that they more to fear from unhappy Kurds than happy Kurds, if you get my drift. Also, the surrounding ME countries but for Iran have Sunni majorities and they should have their dumb Arab eyes opened to the fact that a strong Kurdistan who are mainly Sunni, albeit nominally, are better for them than a Shiite dominated Iraq holding hands with a Shiite dominated Iran. There's a big problemo for Turkey, Egypt, Syria with the latter picture. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-12 3:31:50 PM |
| #3 I think that an autonomous kurdish state would be excellent leverage against that lovely ally of our turkey that hosed us during the invasion. The problem is how do we have a new nation that wont try to repatriate kurds and territory held by kurds from turkey? |
| Posted by: flash91 2004-06-12 3:16:08 PM |
| #2 Well said, #1, including your passage about "one can only hope" the USA will protect the Kurds when the need arises...and we can be guaranteed about the need arising. I would not want to be one of a handful of non-Arabs living in a Shiite town, nor would Bremer nor would Powell. Why does State Dept. think the Kurds should have trust in the Shiites? Do we see anywhere in the ME where Arab majority rule is "tolerant" of minority groups in their midst? Ask the Christians and Jews and Buddhists how welcome they are in Arab majority rule countries. Kurds are NON-ARABS like the aforementioned minorities. What is State Dept. thinking? |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-12 2:12:57 PM |
| #1 The Shi'a and the "experts" like Brahimi and this "regional expert" Alani, not to mention the US, had better think this through. So far, it appears that the Shi'a now believe they can do anything - and Shitstani seems quite willing to play the bully - cuz they view democracy as purely mob rule. The experts wave around in the clouds pontificating about whether referendums are the best means of ensuring the Kurds don't find themselves an oppressed minority in the new Iraq - meanwhile floating vague threats from the traditional external enemies of the Kurds. Everyone seems to maintain the fictional fetish of a "unified" Iraq. That's not the point. Iraq is a confabulation of 2 "incompatible" populations, Arab and Kurd, and the Arabs are split by sect. Only the Shi'a give a shit about whether they get payback on the Sunnis or not. The incompatibility is clear: one population gets it now and can conduct themselves in a civil tolerant democracy and prosper. The other is mired in the seventh century and may never escape it. Their society has been cast in amber for 14 centuries and it appears they will require at least 1 or 2 generations to change... maybe many more. The Kurds have the luxury, this time, of seeing it coming - and they are both strong enough and smart enough not to be complacent victims. Only a loose confederation of autonomous states, whether 2 or 3 is irrelevant to the Kurds, will work over the long haul. Might as well "get it" now and save the grief. The Kurds aren't going to just sit there and allow yet another subjugation to unworthy backassward Arabs. The US probably knows all of this very well, indeed, and is merely letting the Shi'a have their heads for now - to placate their "leaders" - with every intention of supporting the Kurds when the danger of the dreaded (and exaggerated) Shi'a "uprising" has passed. One can hope. But this makes the Kurds' decision to not sign anything that leads to their dhimmitude a very rational and intelligent stance. I love the big finish: "Alani says the broad autonomy the Kurds currently enjoy was introduced solely to protect them against the Saddam regime. Now, with him gone, Alani argues there is no longer anything the Kurds need to be protected from - and no need to maintain a 75,000-strong militia as well." Right, you betcha. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-06-12 1:25:48 PM |