|
Saddam deserved to be overthrown.
His mass butchery warrants a death sentence as
well...preferably by poison gas, as thousands of
Kurds died at his hands. He laughs now at the absurd
notion that he will actually get a real trial for
his barbarism. His victims never got anything near
it. So America can praise itself for showing the
Saddams of the world that it truly is better than
them...in numerous ways. The more he squirms while
dying the better. A bullet or the gallows is too
quick a dispatch.
Having said this, there are and have always been
problems with America's actions in Iraq. The sad
news is that Great Britain's experiences in that
country during the first half of the last century
should have telegraphed at least some lessons to the
geniuses at Foggy Bottom setting policy. If those
lessons were sent, they weren't received.
Iraq has always been an artificial nation...no more
real than Yugoslavia.
Like the latter, Iraq was created out of the Mandate
for Mesopotamia, which the Brits received with the
breakup of the almost five century-old Ottoman
Turkish Empire after World War I. The Turks chose
the wrong side to be on and saw most of what was
left of their already over extended, evaporating,
multi-ethnic/national empire disappear as a result.
While related actions were occurring in Greece, the
Balkans, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, and
elsewhere as well from at least the 19th century
onwards, we'll focus here on just the two post-war
British Mandates, Palestine and Mesopotamia.
Briefly, just for the record, given the massive
world attention to the subject, it must be yet again
noted that Arab nationalism was awarded some 80% of
the Palestinian Mandate in 1922 when Colonial
Secretary Churchill lopped off all of 1920's
original territory east of the Jordan River to
create the Emirate of Transjordan for its Hashemite
Arab allies in the war. The latter were in the
process of getting their derrieres booted out of the
Arabian Peninsula by the rival clan of Ibn Saud...hence
Saudi Arabia today.
Twenty-five years later, Arab nationalism would be
offered about half of the 20% of the Mandate of
Palestine that was left after the creation of what
would later become Jordan. The Arabs rejected the
'47 partition plan--which would have resulted in
their obtaining some 90% of all the
territory--demanding the whole shebang instead. In
their eyes, kilab yahud--"Jew dogs"--could only be
conceived of as a subjugated, subject people (the
ruled...not rulers), and they--like scores of
millions of other non-Arabs in what Arabs declared
to be "purely Arab patrimony"--were entitled to
nothing when the Turks' empire collapsed.
The fuss over so-called stateless "Palestinians"
thus depends upon much of the world's ignorance (or
worse) regarding the facts dealing with actual and
proposed compromises. Much has been written about
this elsewhere (including by this author), so let's
move on.
The Balkan wars of 1912-13 helped seal the coffin of
the Ottoman Turkish Empire. This was followed after
World War I with the break-up of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire. Among the new states that
emerged was the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes
and Croatians--Yugoslavia--which consisted of the
two kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro, plus the
former Austro-Hungarian territories of Croatia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slovenia and Dalmatia. After
World War II, the multinational Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia was created and lasted until the wars of
1991-95 which resulted in the break-up of the
country. American foreign policy led the pack in
bringing about that dissolution, ostensibly to stop
ethnic cleansing and mutual massacres. While
America's ire (for a variety of reasons--including,
very probably, the need to show support for another
Muslim group while blasting away at specific Muslim
targets in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.) singled out
Christian Serbs, the reality was that Muslim and
various ethnic Christian populations had been at
each others' throats and trading atrocities for
centuries. Stephan Dusan of Serbia fought the battle
in the 14th century. The glue which held this
non-nation together was Marshall Tito.
Tito was a nom de guerre. He was born as Josip
(Joseph) Broz in Kumrovec, Croatia on 7th May 1892
and died in Ljubljana, Slovenia on 4th May 1980. He
ruled with an iron fist, and with Tito gone it was
simply a matter of time before the non-nation nation
tore itself apart. While some ethnic groups can and
do get along with each other to the point of forming
multi-ethnic nations, some groups should have never
been thrust into such a creation. Yugoslavia is an
example of the latter...as is modern day Iraq.
In a region in which Arabs claim sole possession,
some thirty million Kurds (the world's ancient
Hurrians, Kassites, Medes, Guti, and so forth)
predate them by thousands of years. Yet, to date,
Arab nationalism has been awarded almost two dozen
states--conquered and forcibly Arabized, since the
7th century C.E., with these processes still going
on--while the Kurds still remain without one.
The best chance all awakening nations had was after
World War I, with the break-up of massive empires.
Diplomats openly spoke of Arabia for the Arabians,
Armenia for Armenians, Judea for Judeans (Jews),
Kurdistan for the Kurds, and such.
Kurds were promised independence, and until the
Brits received a favorable decision from the League
of Nations in 1925 on the "Mosul Question"
(involving massive oil interests), this remained an
open issue. President Woodrow Wilson's famed
Fourteen Points had addressed their plight.
Afterwards, however, the Brits (whose navy--the main
arm of their empire--had recently switched from coal
to oil) feared Arab wrath elsewhere in the oil-rich
region, so decided to abort Kurdish aspirations. As
we have already seen above, this happened during the
same period that the Brits were shafting the Jews as
well, separating the lion's share of the Mandate of
Palestine from what was originally promised as the
Jews' National Home. Arabs regarded the creation of
an independent Kurdistan in the same light as they
did the proposed partition of Palestine, an
independent, non-Arab, black African Sudan, and so
forth: None but Arabs were to rule over purely Arab
patrimony.
The ancient and predominantly Kurdish areas of
Mesopotamia were thus added to the Arab center and
south to help make the resulting nation more
economically viable. The problem, of course, was
that Arabs--Sunni or Shi'a--had no intention of
granting fellow Muslim (but non-Arab) Kurds any
semblance of equality. And forget about folks such
as non-Muslim Jews, Assyrians, and such. For them,
issues related to the Dar ul-Islam also came into
the picture.
Over the decades, in Arab Syria as well as Arab
Iraq, Kurdish culture and language were suppressed,
Kurds were forced to embrace Arab nationalism, were
forcibly transferred from strategically important
areas such as oil-rich Kirkuk (the heartland of
ancient Kurdistan), were repeatedly massacred, and
so forth. The non-Arab Turks and Iranians were doing
a similar number on their own Kurdish
populations...which brings us back to the original
problem.
Having been denied their one best shot at
independence after World War I in Mesopotamia by a
coalition of British petroleum politics and Arab
nationalism, it was inevitable--in an era in which
other formerly suppressed ethnic/national groups
were reawakening and being granted political rights
and real estate--that revolts born of frustration
would break out elsewhere...in Turkey and Iran, in
particular. The consequences of this tragedy haunt
us today...at least some of us. But not the Foggy
Folks.
That brings us back to our starting
point...President George W. Bush's overthrow of
Saddam Hussein.
George the First's earlier war against Saddam (after
helping to build him up previously) resulted in tens
of thousands of Kurds being slaughtered with
American military might within a stone's throw of
the action. Having answered the President's call to
rise up against Saddam, the latter did nothing to
stop their slaughter afterwards. No fly zones set up
later on were established far too late to help
prevent what was all too predictable. In the '70's,
the American State Department was responsible for a
similar travesty. Having encouraged Mullah Mustafa
Barzani to lead a revolt against Saddam (he's been
around a long time), it pulled the rug out from
under Barzani's forces when America's ally, the Shah
of Iran, made his temporary peace with the Arabs.
Saddam unleashed his wrath against the Kurds, and
hundreds of thousands of them had fallen victim to
Arab (largely British-supplied) aircraft and
superior fire power decades earlier as well.
So, here we are today...The American death toll from
Dubya's just war against Saddam (no weapons of mass
destruction ?... just ask the gassed Kurds if he had
them or not) is now approaching two thousand. This
does not include the many others permanently maimed
and the massive economic costs. Predictably, Dubya's
approval rating for the handling of Iraq is
falling...38% in a recent AP-Ipsos poll. This gives
the jitters to fellow Republicans facing upcoming
elections.
All of this translates into America's exist from
Iraq sooner rather than later...regardless of
Dubya's protestations of "staying the course and
completing the job."
The first time around--in part, not to further anger
other Arabs--George the First allowed Saddam to keep
both himself and the bulk of his forces intact. Big
mistake, regardless of the excuses that were
offered. The Kurds and others paid dearly for this,
as we have already seen. Do the job right or not at
all...or, at least do it "as right" as possible. And
don't throw me the line about just needing to
liberate that giant oil well,aka Kuwait.
Now, however, as we prepare an exit strategy that
should have more carefully been thought out prior to
our latest invasion (there was, historically, no
reason to expect that a Western power would be
welcome by most of the Arabs, regardless of the
actual good that it was accomplishing for them),
someone needs to have the sense of justice to say
that America cannot make this yet another deja vu
for the Kurds.
America must throw its previously perceived,
immoral, and hypocritical practices of real politik
out the window now.
Too many Kurds have died as a result of such justice
for Arabs only double standards. The Foggy Folks
have already repeatedly told stateless Kurds that
they dare not dream of the same thing that those
very same Foggy Folks demand for
Arabs...independence. There is no American-sponsored
roadmap for the Kurds. But, in the Arabs' case,
state #22--and second, not first, one to be created
for them in "Palestine"--is considered a must.
The Sunni Arab approach to the Kurds is well known
and represents typical Arab murderous, racist, and
subjugating attitudes towards Kurds (and others as
well) even prior to the rise of the Baath in both
Syria and Iraq. Shi'a Arabs--while temporarily in
need of the Kurds to help balance
suicide/homicide-bombing Sunnis--offer Kurds a
long-term future not much better. And when America
exists the picture, expect this situation to rapidly
deteriorate.
The Kurds adjusted to the absence of a Kurdish
roadmap by promises of meaningful autonomy in a
loosely-structured, federal Iraq. Those promises,
too, however, are not written in concrete, and the
State Department continues to treat its most loyal
friend and ally in Iraq not much better than the
British did in an earlier era: It uses and abuses
them...done not to anger Arabs, but also to not
anger Turks who fear what an adjacent, independent
Kurdistan might mean for their own huge Kurdish
populations. While these Turkish fears must be
positively addressed, they cannot dictate Kurdish
destiny. The existence of an independent, Muslim
Albania did not stop America from promoting the
cause of Muslim Kosovar Albanians at the expense of
Serbs. Or promoting the cause of another state for
Arabs in Palestine at the expense of the Jews and
their sole, tiny, vulnerable state, etc., etc., and
so forth.
So, here's the deal.
America will probably be out of Iraq within two
years. The current civil war will expand and will
increasingly pit Sunni Arabs against Shi'a Arabs.
Which brings me back to non-nation nations.
Kurds deserve a fate better than having to be tied
to murderous Arab chauvinists of any stripe. While
Sunniis and the Shi'a blow each other apart, leaders
of both are on record denying Kurdish aspirations to
equality. The Shi'a have been trying to nix the
federalist promises and seek to create an "Islamic
Republic."
America must reject the Foggy and Big Oil-dictated
policies of the past and insure that before it
leaves the scene this time, the Kurds won't have to
pay the piper yet again. Arab leaders have already
declared that the Kurds will be targeted, since they
have continuously been the staunchest supporters of
America in Iraq.
There are a number of ways that we can accomplish
this.
Instead of demanding the integration of Kurdish
forces into an "Iraqi"--i.e. Arab-dominated--army,
America could allow Kurds the ability to better
defend themselves. We do this for numerous Arab
regimes who still have Israel in their sights.
It's time, for example, for Kurds to have air
squadrons stationed in their own areas manned by
Kurdish pilots, and for the establishment of a
Kurdish armored corps as well. If all goes well--and
this depends upon the Arabs, not the Kurds--these
units will be local, national guard-type forces
contributing to the overall security of a unified,
federal Iraq. But, if history repeats itself, and
the Arabs seek revenge (as has been already
promised) against America's best friends, the Kurds
will have the means to defend themselves. This is
the least that America can do for a people who truly
deserve a roadmap but whom America still declares to
be unworthy. This would be the best choice, since it
would involve minimal American forces stationed in
Iraq.
Another tempting alternative involves the
establishment of major American air and other
military bases in Iraqi Kurdistan--similar to
Incirlik in Turkey. This would have several
benefits. For one thing, it would help ease the
fears of the Turks that Iraqi Kurds will in some way
"infect" Turkish Kurds. And it will send a message
to the Arabs to keep their hands off of the Kurds as
well. Arab tanks, helicopters, and fighter bombers
are less likely to attack Kurdish villages with
American forces stationed nearby. And it gives
America a valuable presence in a strategically
important region at a time when that same American
presence is increasingly unwelcome elsewhere. The
disadvantage is that it will make the Kurds even
more hated in the long run by the Arabs...so America
must make this a long term commitment and must be
willing to turn over such bases to the Kurds
themselves if it ever withdraws. Or, it could follow
my first suggestion and at least create Kurdish air
and armored corps before closing such bases.
Minds better than my own may come up with other ways
to deal with this issue. But one thing is certain...
America must not repeat its shameful policies of the
past which have treated our Kurdish friends worse
than Arabs who deliberately blow us apart. The same
State Department, which rejected the Jews' right to
a state in 1948, continues to see justice only
through Arab eyes regarding the Kurds as well.
It will take an American President strong enough to
oppose the Foggy Folks to accomplish this.
Unfortunately, the man now in office (whom I voted
for), is intimately tied to Arab oil interests--as
are some of his closest friends, James Baker in
particular. Baker's law firm represents the Saudis.
Dubya has already backed off from at least implied
assurances given to Israel in April 2004 regarding a
quid pro quo in terms of Sharon's Gaza
withdrawal...and for similar reasons.
But America's soul is at stake here.
It's time for the media, academia, and other
would-be sources of ethical enlightenment to speak
up as loudly and forcefully for Kurds as they have
done for the creation of the Arabs' 22nd state. It's
time for the Kurdish cause to constantly make the
editorials and the news the same way that of the
Arabs has. And it's time for the American Congress
to make demands as well.
It will cause lasting harm to the greatness of
America if the State Department and those tied to
Big Oil are allowed to stain our nation's honor yet
again with the blood of the Kurds
It's time for America to illustrate, far better than
it has up until now, how to treat a friend...in this
case, friends who have willingly endangered their
own lives even further by allying themselves to us.
Ed: Views are those of individual authors and not
necessarily those of American Daily.
www.americandaily.com
Top |
® 