Article

2004-10-07 Iraq-Jordan

Yawer Says Referendum in Southern Kurdistan Is "National Betrayal"

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 tipper 2004-10-07 04:49|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "The Iraqi president dismissed the suggestion by some countries of partitioning Iraq into three independent countries as nonsense saying that Iraq has been a unified country for centuries and it will remain unified for ever."

Just how do you figure on forcing that? The Kurds seem more united than any ethnic group in Iraq. If they decide to go only Turkey will be able top stand in their way and probably not for long.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-07 5:06:28 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-10-07 5:06:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Lol! Pres Ghazi Yawer is the token Sunni - the guy in the dress. And I'll bet he says this to all the ethnic groups who are happy to be out from under Sunni domination, the big flirt. Seriously, he should STFU and hope Allawi has the stones to clean up the Sunni Triangle - and I mean really clean it up - else partition and an independent Kurdistan are definite possibilities.

Of course, I would prefer that the Sunnis in particular, and the Iraqi Arabs in general, were not being allowed to hold the Kurds back. They were ready for independence 5 minutes after Baghdad fell. They deserve to be cut loose from their barbaric Arab neighbors and allowed to seek their own destiny.

Posted by .com 2004-10-07 6:24:42 AM|| 2004-10-07 6:24:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 ...the jihadis attempt to scoot out the back door, moving on to the next Islamic Paradise...

Yikes! Close the back door!

Posted by John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-07 9:30:37 AM|| 2004-10-07 9:30:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The Turks would be stupid to attempt to subjugate the Kurds. It would be a battle that would last for generations; a constant bleed of money and resources to oppress. The differences are far to great to see resoultion in the next century. With all we know today about these things - why would any leader knowingly create such a poltical hot potato? To hold it is to get burned.

It's unlikely, but if they are smart they will go to the bargaining table and cut their losses before their losses cut them.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-07 10:00:54 AM|| 2004-10-07 10:00:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 2b - thyeve got that bleed anyway, turkish kurdistan. From their point of view, if you have an independ Iraqi kuridistan, it gets worse. Go into Iraqi kurdistan, maybe you end it finally (let them hate as long as they fear, you know the rap) And you get some oil as a side bonus while youre at it. And you "rescue" some ethnic Turks in Kirkuk.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 10:12:56 AM|| 2004-10-07 10:12:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Seriously, he should STFU and hope Allawi has the stones to clean up the Sunni Triangle - and I mean really clean it up - else partition and an independent Kurdistan are definite possibilities.

well thats gotta be the deal right? Yawer gives cover for being tough on Fallujah, in return for keeping the country together. And he NEEDS to reassert what everybody knows, that the Iraqi govt want to keep the country together, AND IS THE BEST HOPE TO DO SO, to keep Sunni arab, and yes, Shia arab, support.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 10:15:29 AM|| 2004-10-07 10:15:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 and BTW, the Kurds are the only group that really has a shot at independenc (well the Shia would, but why go for that when they can try to rule the whole damned country) the Turkomen and the Assyrian Christians dont want an independent Kurdistan, and dont have the numbers or local majorities to be independent - they want a united Iraq.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 10:17:19 AM|| 2004-10-07 10:17:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Back in the Ottoman days the Turks should have played divide and conquer and used the Kurds and growing Jewish population in Palestine to overload over the Arabs.

Now its too late and a free Kurdistand is just a matter of time and bloodshed.

Posted by rjschwarz 2004-10-07 11:27:41 AM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-10-07 11:27:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 "The Iraqi president dismissed the suggestion by some countries of partitioning Iraq into three independent countries as nonsense saying that Iraq has been a unified country for centuries and it will remain unified for ever."

This is so funny. What was the place before outsiders came in and drew boundaries? And in the absence of actual, defined boundaries before their creation, how was it "unified"????

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-07 11:29:30 AM|| 2004-10-07 11:29:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Well, Bomb-a-rama, Iraq really HAS been unified for centuries.

It was unified under the British Mandate.
Before that, it was unified as a province under the Ottoman Empire.
Before that, it was unified as a province under the Persians.
Before that, it was unified as a province under the Arabs.
Before that it was unified as a province under the Byzantines or Persians. (Kept swapping owners.)
Before that is was generally split between the Persians and Romans or Seleucid Kingdom.

Unified as an independent state? Maybe under Babylon.

Posted by jackal 2004-10-07 12:53:44 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-10-07 12:53:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Liberal Hawk - I'm sure that's how the Turks see it. But it's easy to see, looking at it from a bemused distance, that the Turks will not be able to subjugate the Kurds. It isn't going to happen in this lifetime. To continue to attempt it, is like to trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, it's obvious to anyone with brains that it will never fit.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-07 1:12:17 PM|| 2004-10-07 1:12:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Why are we trying to force this single statehood. It's so obvious that it's a bad idea. It makes so much more sense to set up a federation of Sunni's Shia's and Kurds. Provide a congress that works together on issues like currency, trade and defense of borders but allow them to vote for their leaders separately, within their own culture. That way, cooperation is in their interests v/s the way they have set it up now, where cooperation is to be co-opted.

I supsect that some dipwit back in the beginning stages was too LAZY to do the really hard and contentious work that was necessary to figure out where the lines would be drawn. It ate into lunch time and it was too hard...so much easier to lecture from the podium with lofty talks of cooperation - and allow be long gone when reality sets in.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-07 1:40:31 PM|| 2004-10-07 1:40:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 oh..and I forgot the main reason they probably started walking down this stupid single statehood path.. they didn't want to anger our "friends" the Turks. Well, that paid off well, now didn't it.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-07 1:42:25 PM|| 2004-10-07 1:42:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 jackal> Actually I think that Iraq was three or four separate provinces under the Ottoman empire.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 4:40:11 PM|| 2004-10-07 4:40:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Provide a congress that works together on issues like currency, trade and defense of borders but allow them to vote for their leaders separately, within their own culture
By geography? What happens to mixed sunni/shhite cities, like Basra, Hilla, Baquba, and most important Baghdad? What happens to Kirkuk, with Kurds, Sunni Arabs, Turks, and Assyrian Christians? Mosul with the above groups too? Or do we have them vote by ethnicity and religion? Emphasizing the differences? What about people who DONT identify so much with their group, or who are children mixed marriages, as some Baghdadis are?

Partitioning Iraq would be a nightmare. We didnt avoid that ONLY to satisfy the Turks - (not that wouldnt have been important anyway - Turkey IS one of our most important allies in the region, even if theyre not as reliable as we would like) It would piss off the Sunni AND Shia arabs as well - both of whom want a united Iraq. A free Kurdistan means you lose Iraq. Which, if your goal is democratizing the region, is pretty stupid, since you need to democratize an ARAB state to have a model for the region. If all you want are new bases its also stupid, since you end up with a landlocked ally, surrounded by enemies. Not a real smart place to put your bases, huh? Oh, and you piss off the rest of the arab world, too, confirming their worst fears about your desire to carve up their states - now their are some folks here who dont give a damn about arab hearts and minds, so i guess to them this isnt an objection.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 4:50:16 PM|| 2004-10-07 4:50:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Sigh..Ok...but if you are going to make me type it, do me the favor of actually reading it. Ok?

In a federation, you wouldn't have to have geographical boundries - you could have political/cultural ones that could be fluid much like we do here at home. We divide our own districts up, based on differing needs. For example: urban v/s rural, minority v/s majority. There will always be places where they overlap - that's why we allow the readjustments every so many years. Sure, there is alway gerrymandering problems - but overall, it allows people to have representatives that represent their unique interests, instead of just allowing the desires of the urban centers to rule all things for everyone.

Ok...now, I'm not going to spend 1,000 words to make the above example apply in every way possible to the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds..so use your intelligence to fill in the gaps and save us both the effort of pounding each and every possible way this example isn't perfect.

So, you make the primary divisions (most of which would be fairly obvious, Kurds in north..etc) understanding that the edges need to be fluid so that the poltical process can ultimately determine where the dividing lines will go. That way it's done over generations and based on reality - rather than two guys working off a napkin at lunch.

The difference between Iraq and the US is that the differences in these three dominant groups are so fundamental and the numbers are so uneven (more shias etc) that a method needs to be set up to allow each group the ability elect individuals - from the city govn't all the way to the top spot - who represent their religious and cultural needs.

Why do I say they need to take this concept beyond local politics? Let me put it this way, LH. What if, the number of Muslims extremists suddenly outnumbered the number of other Americans in the US and you woke up one morning with the realization that, after the next election, Sharia would be implemented - burkas, stonings and handchoppings now legal - Would you be willing to accept that? I wouldn't. That would be cause for civil war in my book.

It's not like the differences between these groups are minor disagreements like more or less taxes - the differences are so fundamental that it would be akin to you being forced to be suddenly ruled by evangelical Christians or fanatical Muslims.

Americans keep saying - hey we can do it - so should you. But these peoples are centuries behind us. The multicultural thing isn't going to happen. And all of those who cheerlead and say, yes, yes, you can!! - will be 10,000 miles away when it doesn't work and the blood begins to flow.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-07 6:10:54 PM|| 2004-10-07 6:10:54 PM|| Front Page Top

11:22 tu3031
11:22 .com
11:13 WhyNot
18:34 Sock Puppet of Doom
18:18 DustbinUK
23:37 ex-lib
17:25 jules 187
17:20 BigEd
10:55 lex
06:54 Poison Reverse
02:39 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:24 Super Hose
00:08 tu3031
23:58 BigEd
23:53 BigEd
23:50 WhiteHouseDetox
23:38 Mark Espinola
23:37 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:36 Pappy
23:33 Asedwich
23:33 tu3031
23:24 Bored with knee jerk reactions.
23:20 Bomb-a-rama
23:19 Bomb-a-rama