Article

2004-06-09 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-06-09 12:48:59 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I'm not sure if this new NYT version of the story has been posted or not:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/international/middleeast/09KURD.html?pagewanted=2

Shiite leaders have said repeatedly in recent weeks that they intend to remove parts of the interim constitution that essentially grant the Kurds veto power over the permanent constitution, which is scheduled to be drafted and ratified next year.

The Shiite leaders consider the provisions undemocratic, while the Kurds contend they are their only guarantee of retaining the rights to self-rule they gained in the past 13 years, protected from Saddam Hussein by United States warplanes. The two leaders also asked President Bush for a commitment to protect "Kurdistan" should an insurgency compel the United States to pull its forces out of the rest of Iraq.

To assure that Kurdish rights are retained, Mr. Talabani and Mr. Barzani, whose parties together deploy about 75,000 fighters, asked President Bush to include the interim Iraqi constitution in the United Nations security resolution that governs the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty. But a senior United Nations official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said American officials rejected the Kurdish request because of concerns over offending the country's Shiite leaders.

Kurdish leaders say they are concerned that the new Iraqi government will not honor the interim constitution unless it is forced to. Iraqi leaders and United Nations officials say that under generally accepted principles of international law, the new Iraqi government will not be bound by any of the laws passed during the American occupation. Bush administration officials have maintained publicly that the interim constitution, as well as all the laws approved during the occupation, will continue to have legal force in Iraq after June 30. But privately, a senior official acknowledged that the interim constitution would need to be reaffirmed to have legal force.

I have zero respect for what the WH has done to the Kurds. Bush isn't even worried about Turkey, which is at least a half-hat ally. What's really pathetic is that Bush is pinning his hopes on Shiites. Hello, does Shiite loyalty and the Shaw of Iran ring any bells?

Posted by rex 2004-06-09 2:01:31 AM|| 2004-06-09 2:01:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I hope you're wrong Rex, but at least he won't pull out all troops, like Kerry has promised, throwing the country into a civil war, - and then institute a draft (as democrats are requesting) in order to send men to die under the control of the UN, while Koffie dines on foi gras. Oh..and then once Kerry depletes the oil reserves, gas prices will go through the roof (since the demand for oil won't go down no matter how much those using limos and lear jets complain about the SUV drivers) and the Democratss will blame it all on the previous administration.

Posted by B 2004-06-09 7:36:07 AM|| 2004-06-09 7:36:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Rex, I don't see the White House as having mistreated the Kurds. Like it or not, they will have to negotiate their relationship with the other groups in Iraq, and they are a minority. I would have preferred that a more federal structure be guaranteed, but I'm not sure that was realistically in our power - and I am dead sure it would not have passed in the UN, which means it would be very difficult if not impossible to get the oil for food scam etc. off the backs of Iraq.

Look at it from the other side: the Kurds have a strong, well-armed and well-trained fighting force, they have oil and oil income right now, and they have a significant number of top spots in the interim government, especially in the ministries.

Posted by rkb 2004-06-09 7:40:42 AM|| 2004-06-09 7:40:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 while the Kurds contend they are their only guarantee of retaining the rights to self-rule they gained in the past 13 years, protected from Saddam Hussein by United States warplanes

sooo...sounds smart to me that the Kurds just back out and refuse to play. Gets us off the hook from being involved in that decision and we can continue to protect the Kurds from the US warplanes that we fly from our bases located in the new Republic of Kurdistan. GW will have achieved his goal of introducing Democracy into the MidEast; it's a logical division of the country; and the inevitable Shia/Sunni "conflict" can be monitored by UN observers - allowing lavish expense accounts to keep flowing for the next 50 years and pleasing French and German politicians with the large amounts of money they can skim off the top of humanitarian aid and kickbacks from Iraqi oil contracts.

Did I mention that the New Republic of Kurdistan will have lots of its own oil?

Posted by B 2004-06-09 7:54:06 AM|| 2004-06-09 7:54:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Hello, does Shiite loyalty and the Shaw of Iran ring any bells?

George Bernard Shaw or Ellen Shaw (aka "Cyndi Lauper")?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-09 7:55:59 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-09 7:55:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 rex - Snipe, snipe, snipe. Zero respect for the WH, eh?

Spell out your plan, include all of the arguments against it and how you would resolve those issues.

Nobody on RB is a bigger believer than I am regards giving the Kurds something at least as good as they had during the No Fly years. Trust me on this assertion. I began spouting off in favor of partition about, oh, 13-14 months ago. Because, when you do the little exercise above, that's where you'll end up because the Shia are too bent upon running the show and fantasizing about Sunni payback to think BIG. They think small - befitting their manhood.

The Kurds have been screwed over by everyone on the planet, it seems. We should be different. They have earned it, in spades, and proven that they know WTF to do with freedom. And I don't think they should be held back while the dumb 7th century Arabs spend 2-22 generations figuring out how to do freedom and still be corrupt and tribal and manage to fuck the other sect at every turn.

So I'm actually with you regards the Kurds - but give the political crap a rest. Dubya doesn't deserve your shit. NOBODY in ANY position of power has even whispered, yet, what is obvious to anyone who follows it to the logical end:
Partition.

I get it - and I guess you do too. They will, soon enough.

Posted by .com 2004-06-09 7:59:27 AM|| 2004-06-09 7:59:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Partition. I get it - and I guess you do too. They will, soon enough.

Amen, dotcom-brother.

Posted by B 2004-06-09 8:02:36 AM|| 2004-06-09 8:02:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 B - Lol! I am certain it's better that the Kurds refuse to sign any arrangement that makes them subordinate to either Arab group. Iraq is one of the confabulations of the Brits & French (Sykes-Picot Agreement) in the Middle East. It has no more logical association than did Yugoslavia. Maintaining this fiction created on a bar napkin over drinks is important to, um, whom? Beats the hell outta me.

Pfeh, bro, time for the politics to get real!

Posted by .com 2004-06-09 8:18:09 AM|| 2004-06-09 8:18:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 .com --

Agree with you thoroughly. Partition is the logical outcome. It's the will of Allan.

Posted by Infidel Bob 2004-06-09 9:36:58 AM|| 2004-06-09 9:36:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 I see spirited haggling over tea, not people storming out of the rug shop, quite yet. The Kurds will have opportunities to "make their own arrangements" with respect to the rest of Iraq if/when the situation falls below their acceptable minimum. Their relationship to the rest of Iraq is almost like ours -- our main interest is that the place not be a threat, and it would be swell if they return to being a major oil exporter, while they're at it.

Time will tell, but I'd bet that in the end Shi'a political bumbling -- much in evidence for the past few months -- will give way to a savvier pragmatism, and the Kurds and Shi'a will arrive at a modus vivendi. The advantages thereof are simply so obvious that even the Shi'a leadership won't fail to recognize them. Patience.

Posted by Verlaine 2004-06-09 9:40:10 AM|| 2004-06-09 9:40:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Now that we are so buddy buddy with our "allies", I fear things will actually start to fall apart. I feel badly for the Bush administration. It has been pressed into international cooperation and there is little principle guiding decision making any longer. I so hope we make sure the Kurds get full autonomy/a Kurdistan. Otherwise, the behavioral training message is complete: get violent and get a reward, cooperate with good will and get sh*t on (again).

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-09 10:33:26 AM|| 2004-06-09 10:33:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 I also feel that Kurds do ofcourse have the *right* to partition and nobody doubts that it'd be good for them.

But if you are talking about a democratic Kurdistan accomplishing in any way to satisfy the goal of "bringing democracy to the Middle East", then I don't see why a Kurdish democracy would be considered to accomplish that, when the Turkish democracy, located in almost the same spot, failed to do.

Iraq-as-a-model-of-democracy seems to me to make sense as the concept of a new thing only if you are talking about an *Arab*-majority country being such model. In that respect what'd be good for Kurdistan doesn't necessarily seem to be what's best for either the rest of Iraq or the rest of Middle east. Or the war on Islamofascism.

But hey, it should be the Kurds' choice which way they'll go.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-09 11:02:35 AM|| 2004-06-09 11:02:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 i for one am not sure it would be good for the Kurds. What happens to the 800,000 Kurds of Baghdad? Refugees for the new Kurdish state to absorb, or "left behind"? And what happens to Kirkuk? Without Kirkuk, Kurdistan has left even more thousands of Kurds behind, and most of the Norths oil as well. With Kirkuk, Kurdistan has an ongoing border dispute with rump Iraq, and large and restive arab minority, a large and restive Assyrian Christian minority, and a large and restive Turkish minority. And its landlocked, by the way, with all routes to the outside world passing through hostile neighbors.

Nah, the Kurds are much better off INSIDE a federal Iraq. This is pressure to make sure they get that, thats all.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-09 11:50:27 AM|| 2004-06-09 11:50:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Liberalhawk-
Where will all that justifiable Kurdish anger go if they are forced to submit once again to a Shia OR Sunni controlled Iraq? Too much history...

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-09 12:24:40 PM|| 2004-06-09 12:24:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Part of this may be that the WH wants to force the Kurds and the Shi'ites to work through their issues now, rather than later. If there's a little bluster and tussle before an agreement is worked out, then the Iraqis will own whatever solution they come up with. That would be a good thing.

Now that we are so buddy buddy with our "allies", I fear things will actually start to fall apart.

I'm not worried. GWB is (metaphorically speaking) the best chess player, and the best poker player, in the world, and he's never more dangerous than when his adversaries think they have him cornered.

Posted by Mike 2004-06-09 1:19:30 PM|| 2004-06-09 1:19:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 jules - they will suppress their anger and look for the next available chance for change. When youre a tiny oppressed minority, you have to be rational - you dont have a choice. And sometimes you have to put up with shit. Believe me, some of us know from this.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-09 1:46:23 PM|| 2004-06-09 1:46:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 "They will suppress their anger and look for the next available chance for change."

Probably they will for a while...but when you've been crossed again and again, and believe there is no hope in the hand you're dealt, you may no longer watch and wait. I am concerned that disempowering the Kurds as this stupid resolution does will spur them on to a new, violent creativity, as seems to happen so often over there.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-09 2:22:52 PM|| 2004-06-09 2:22:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 I agree with you #17. Kurds are no shrinking violets. As well, Kurds are excellent fighters when push comes to shove. I think Kurds everywhere have been watching the Iraq issue very closely. I hope the West does not betray their hopes for a Kurdistan because Kurds in Iraq can become as empassioned a foe in the future as they have been a loyal ally in the past and present.

#6 I'm not sure that the WH "gets" it. ie. the need for partition. I think that President Bush is very idealistic and he believes in the idea that we can love our enemies as long as we have tolerance for one another and choices to lead our own lives as we please. I believe that historical tribal rivalries and violence have no place in W's Christian world view of the future. Sniping,political crap...maybe Wolfowitz reads our forum [he apparently reads blogs]and will get a dose of realityspeak instead of idealismspeak. I think W's heart is in the right place, but I fear he is ignoring reality.

Posted by rex 2004-06-09 3:26:13 PM|| 2004-06-09 3:26:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 my sense is that the kurds have managed to deal quite pragmatically with oppressors in the past. They rose up against Iraq when they had Iranian and Israeli support in the '70s. When they were betrayed they went quiet. Obviously against Saddam in the "80s they had their backs to the wall, and lashed out. Backs to the wall is different from ordinary suppression.

What do we think a Sistani backed Shiite regime would do to the Kurds? Take away regional autonomy? Or commit genocide, a la SH? If the former, i think theyll be pragmatic and play the game. If the latter theyll rebel, but i dont think A. Sistani wants that or B. That we would let him get away with it (this aint Sudan) or C. that he thinks he would get away with it.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-09 4:05:11 PM|| 2004-06-09 4:05:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Liberalhawk-

Please answer my original question. Of the 3 major groups in Iraq, who gained the most power and who lost the most: the religious zealots (Shia), secular de Sades (Sunni), and LOYAL coalitionists (Kurds)? Is this not rewarding despicable behavior and punishing valiant behavior?

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-09 4:32:00 PM|| 2004-06-09 4:32:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 first i dont agree that ALL Shia are religous zealots. As for Kurds losing, you are using the northern no fly zone as a baseline - Im not sure that we would have maintained that forever. You also forget that many (MOST?) Iraqi Kurds did NOT live in the Kurdish autonomous zone. again, 800,000 in Baghdad, and thousands in and around Kirkuk.

We SHOULD not be rewarding or punishing particular groups in Iraq. We should be setting up a democratic, federal Iraq state.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-09 4:49:02 PM|| 2004-06-09 4:49:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Will you take that stance consistently, to its furthest limit? Free political participation in Iraq for all, including terrorists and torturers? You are correct saying that OUR job is to [help] set up a "democratic, federal Iraq state"; but do you actually believe that you treat people who behave nobly and people that behave savagely the same? Are they equally suited for leadership roles?

This line of argument suspiciously like Marxist doctrine-you don't earn what you create, you earn what others create.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-09 5:20:44 PM|| 2004-06-09 5:20:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Most democracies exclude convicted felons from the vote. I presume terrorists and torturers will be convicted of crimes. Its also a fact that we excluded ex-Nazis from politics in Germany, though we allowed lower level ones back in after a while. I have no problem with the exclusion ALL baathists from political participation (though i dont think thats where things are headed) But I dont judge peoples right to participate politically by their religion, ethnicity, or their class - all law adult citizens of sound mind and no criminal convictions have a right to participate -thats not Marxism, thats basic democratic principle. We judge people as INDIVIDUALS, not as members of groups.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-09 5:25:34 PM|| 2004-06-09 5:25:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 No argument with that-I hate collective guilt, too. But let's try to focus on the question of whether the Kurds are getting a fair shake here.

Kurds and Shia both were sh*t on by Saddam. Now he is gone and everyone wants to have a voice. Shia enjoy being the majority of the population-already a power card. Kurds, as a minority of the populace, have always had to struggle for their share of the pie-their equal rights (which based on your usual line of argumentation-making sure the little guy doesn't get jipped-should appeal to you). They also have suffered mightily from Shia/Sunni ethnic discrimination. If they are not represented in the highest areas of the government, what do you imagine will happen to them? It's amazing that you imagine they are going to come out ok, given the history in Iraq. A better understanding of human nature wouldn't hurt, Liberalhawk.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-09 5:34:57 PM|| 2004-06-09 5:34:57 PM|| Front Page Top

17:09 Liberalhawk
17:09 Liberalhawk
09:50 Shipman
09:50 Shipman
10:56 ConservativeView
16:31 Anonymous5231
19:50 CrazyFool
13:34 jules 187
09:18 Bill Nelson
09:08 .com
09:05 Phil Fraering
07:44 Howard UK
06:42 .com
06:36 Baltic Blog
06:03 .com
05:42 Anonymous4617
04:42 .com
04:24 Anonymous4617
03:56 .com
03:33 Super Hose
02:06 Mark Espinola
01:42 Dar
01:19 .com
01:08 Rafael