|
Michael Rubin's Article: A critique
Michael M. Gunter
3.3.2008
By
Michael M. Gunter |
|
 |
March 3, 2008
1. Although Michael Rubin makes some partially valid
points about the problems in fully implementing
democracy in the KRG, he exaggerates much of what he
writes and often simply misleads his readers. For
example, his claim that both the KDP and PUK “model
themselves after the Baath Party” is simply
ludicrous. Although isolated examples of torture by
KDP and PUK security agents have indeed occurred (as
documented by Amnesty International) no objective
scholar would go so far as Rubin has as to claim
that “torture is common in the KRG.” Rubin also
exaggerates egregiously when he complains about
“Kurdish double dealing with Iran” and Massoud
Barzani threatening to “sponsor insurgency in Turkey
if Ankara did not comply with his demands over
Kirkuk.” In truth, the one making threats over
Kirkuk has been Turkey who fears that if Kirkuk
joined the KRG it would facilitate KRG independence.
Indeed Turkey is on record as declaring that its
troops could be in Kirkuk in 18 hours if necessary!
In addition,www.ekurd.net
Rubin’s claim that
Barzani “welcomed PKK leaders to his territory” is
mostly propaganda. Everybody knows how the KDP lost
many of its fighters battling the PKK in October
1992. The fact that Barzani does not want to repeat
this intra-Kurdish bloodletting for the benefit of
Turkey does not prove that Barzani welcomes the PKK.
Rather it shows how the Kurds have matured to the
point they no longer will allow Turkey to exploit
Kurdish divisions to the advantage of Turkey.
Indeed, if Turkey has not been able to eliminate the
PKK during the past 25 years, how can anyone
reasonably argue that the KRG should or else it is
welcoming the PKK?
1(b) Has the US changed its policy towards the
Kurds? Everybody remembers how the US deserted the
Kurds in 1975 and again in 1991. The Baker/Hamilton
Iraq Study Report released in December 2006 scared
many Kurds that the US was about to desert them
again in the name of achieving Iraqi unity. However,
this has not happened and is unlikely to happen, at
least to the extreme as it did in 1975 and 1991. The
Kurds should realize however that both they and
Turkey are friends of the US. And Turkey is a much
more powerful and important friend. Therefore, the
US must perform a delicate balance between the two.
So sometimes it might seem to the Kurds that the US
is deserting them when actually the US is simply
having to compromise between the two. The Kurds
should realize this,www.ekurd.net
argue their points
diplomatically with the US, but realize that they
are not always going to win. That is the way in real
life. What is ultimately important is that the Kurds
remain one of the best friends of the US. Then the
Kurds will not be deserted again and can continue to
nurture their new freedom. Indeed, the US friendship
for both Turkey and the KRG will tend to help make
Turkey more reasonable in its dealings with the KRG.
2. I have largely answered this question in #1
above.
3. Rubin errs badly when he writes that Barzani “now
charts a course to become a new Yasser Arafat,”
argues that “Iraqi Kurdistan’s actions suggest that
it is far from trustworthy,” and questions “the
reliability of Iraqi Kurdistan as a US ally.” Who
supported the US in March 2003 when the Turks said
“no”? By helping to open a northern front against
Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi Kurds won the admiration
of the US government and its people. Today while the
Iraqi Kurds almost unanimously support the US, less
than 10 percent of the Turks still do. Who is the
real trustworthy ally?
As for Arafat, what did he ever do for the US except
give his verbal support to Saddam Hussein during the
1991 war over Kuwait? The Iraqi Kurds, of course,
supported the US. Moreover, Rubin fails to mention
how Arafat failed miserably in trying to make the
transition from guerrilla fighter to statesman,
while both Barzani and Talabani have succeeded
admirably to the extent that Talabani today is
actually the president of Iraq, while Barzani is the
president of a semi-independent Kurdish state.
Rubin claims that in July 2003, “KDP officials had
used [a border] checkpoint to facilitate Iranian
infiltration.” Actually in July 2003, the US
apprehended “Turkish commandos in Sulaymaniya who
were apparently seeking to carry out sabotage acts
against the KRG. In truth, of course, both Turkey
and the KRG have to deal with Iran because it is an
important regional power. Rubin is on weak ground
when he tries to criticize the KRG for interacting
with Iran when Turkey does the same thing.
4. As a neocon (neoconservative) and member of its
think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, Rubin
is a paid consultant of Turkey, paid in part to make
Turkey’s propaganda case against the KRG. Although
there is nothing illegal about this, it should be
recognized for what it is. Therefore, Rubin’s
article should be approached with extreme caution
for it is certainly not an objective scholarly
analysis as it claims to be.
Furthermore, it should be noted that neocons like
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith are
the very ones who made most of the mistakes the US
blundered into when it overthrow Saddam Hussein. The
Richard Perle faction of the neocons to which Rubin
belongs has had lucrative consulting deals with
Turkey. Rubin also served in the office of neocon
Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans that played
a role in generating the 935 misstatements on the
basis of which the US went to war in 2003. Indeed,
US General Tommy Franks (who led the US invasion
forces in 2003) famously called Rubin’s neocon
colleague Douglas Feith “the dumbest bastard,
dumbest [expletive deleted] on the face of the
earth.”
5. As for Rubin’s claims that Barzani and Talabani
are corrupt, the two Kurdish leaders must remember
that in the US it is very difficult to libel a
public person. This means that once you are a
political figure, exaggerations and outright lies
are all part of the political rhetoric one must put
up with. Everybody knows this and takes such claims
with appropriate skepticism. As former US president
Harry Truman once said: “If you cannot stand the
heat, get out of the kitchen.” Barzani and Talabani
must remember that Rubin is simply a paid agent of
the Turkish government when he dabbles in
anti-Kurdish diatribes and not lend him legitimacy
by climbing down in the gutter with him to argue.
As far as who is or is not corrupt, Rubin first
should try to explain the actions of the Turkish
state in such notorious cases as Susurluk in 1996
and Semdinli in 2005. He might also examine the
financial corruption of such recent Turkish leaders
as Tansu Ciller and Suleyman Demirel. Muammer Kaylan,
a respected Kemalist journalist, has cited just such
corruption cases as contributing to the rise of
Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AK Party and decline of the
secularists and military in Turkish politics.
MEI Book Launch with Michael M. Gunter.
Michael M. Gunter
Professor of Political Science
Tennessee Technological University
Cookeville, Tennessee
You may reach the author via email
at:mgunter(at)tntech.edu
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 