|Those Kurds are getting uppity!||dr hoo|
Jan 9, 2004 6:53 AM
|Check out this article:
Kurds' Wariness Frustrates U.S. Efforts
Reluctance to Yield Autonomy Brings Prospect of Two Governments in Iraq
Also consider this bit of info:
Kurdish official Calls for Campaign of Civil Disobedience
Nushirvan Mustafa, the number 2 man in the Kurdish Patriotic Union, has demanded that the Interim Governing Council recognize Kurdish plans for a loose federation and a Kurdish super-province by February. If it refused to do so, he called on the Kurdish leadership to announce a campaign of civil disobedience and resignation from the Interim Governing Council, along with refusal to serve in the interim ministries and a boycott of the forthcoming elections. (-az-Zaman.)
So, what does this bode for Iraq going forward? It does not seem good, considering that the US, many Iraqis, Syria, Turkey, and Iran do NOT want to see Kurds with a state, not that an "autonomous Kurdish region" is a state. But it has enough of the characteristics of a state as to not matter politically.
It seems like this is the logical result of invasion. It is another step towards destabilization of Iraq and the region. I am becoming increasingly convinced that history (say in 20+ years) will see this invasion as one of the biggest blunders in American foreign policy of all time.
|All along, I've thought that the...||Dwayne Barry|
Jan 9, 2004 7:21 AM
|potential of a military move for independence by the Kurds is the biggest potential land mine in the whole Iraq situation.
Militarily, I'm sure we could handle it, but politically it would certainly couch us heavily in the "oppressor" role. Not to mention, the problem of it spilling over into Turkey. And in this case we really would be. We would be forcing a group to be part of a promised democracy that they didn't want to part of.
Seems like so many of the modern day problems are related to the arbitrary drawing of state boundaries with little regard to ethnicity. I mean given the track record in Iraq, if you were a Kurd or a Sunni would you think you'll get fair treatment in the coming democracy (if it ever happens)?
|re: Those Kurds are getting uppity!||purplepaul|
Jan 9, 2004 7:37 AM
|As someone who went on record in support of the war and believed we would find WMD, I must say that all signs point to "I've been duped."
Not 100% sure of the WMD, but I'm coming to the conclusion that our government was more sure than not that Saddam was not an immediate threat. Therefore, I have to say that this war was unnecessary. And unnecessary wars are about the biggest blunder a country can make.
Here's how I see it: Saddam was trying to develop his WMD but could not because, despite the despicable efforts of some of our "allies", the UN sanctions were working. The US Government saw that key allies were losing conviction, so they threatened war. Suddenly, the reluctant allies realized we were serious, and gave less resistance to sanctions. That's where it should have stopped. We would have gotten what we wanted, tougher sanctions, the world community would have gotten what it wanted, no war, and hundreds of American soldiers would still be alive today. Not to mention the billions of dollars we'd still have to give to the wealthy.
Now, should I be proven wrong, in that there was serious intelligence indicating that reasonable minds could conclude that Saddam was a threat, I'll admit I was wrong. Again.
|Well the way I remember it going down...||Dwayne Barry|
Jan 9, 2004 7:55 AM
|was that months before the war started, Bush (and Saddam) basically turned it into a pissing contest. When Saddam so foolishly didn't back down it was a forgone conclusion we were going to attack them. Once Bush started down that path he was dependent on Saddam backing down, which amazingly he did not.
I don't know if the motivation of the Bush adminstration was ever really WMD, it certainly wasn't freeing the oppressed Iraqi people, yet both of these were the selling points of the war once it became more and more likely.
I think it was always about Saddam and Iraq being a target of oppurtunity to secure our interests in the Middle East as Saudi Arabia is becoming more and more uncertain. By removing Saddam, and setting up a pro-west government in Iraq we get a place to put our bases, etc. for decades. Plus I really do think some people believe that once muslims see the light of democracy, it will take hold and we will ultimately be safer in the long run.
The truly amazing thing in this whole thing is once Bush started the tough-guy rhetoric that eventually led to war, that Saddam didn't back down at some point, especially given the fact that he apparently didn't have WMDs.
|who didn't see this coming?||rufus|
Jan 9, 2004 8:18 AM
|oh, that's right, the bushies. i guess they figure they can just strongarm them into place like they do everything else.|
|Dwayne's got it right, IMO.||Jon Billheimer|
Jan 9, 2004 9:13 AM
|With respect to Bush's foreign policy strategies and the central role that an invasion of Iraq plays, Dwayne's take is spot on. One philosophical corollary of the whole plan is the fatal neocon conceit that foisting an American-style and American-led "democracy" on a country such as Iraq will set off a democratic domino reaction throughout the entire Middle East, and that all the oppressed muslims will joyflly join together in pro-American gratitude over being liberated. Guys like Wolfowitz--and Bush--actually believe this!|
|it was written in the tea leaves||Starliner|
Jan 9, 2004 9:15 AM
|This is no surprise. The Bush braintrust, such that it is, operates in a two-dimensional world. The "logic" you refer to would have required an equation that is beyond the scope of their thinking.
i Yet isn't it all worth it to be rid of an evil dictator and to have stopped all his torturing and killing and replace it with Freedom... (triumphant musical interlude)... so now let's continue our rightous crusade against tyranny and despotism and the terrorism it spawns, eastward without pause until we reach the eastern shores of North Korea!