As far back as history records, a) there have been Kurds, and b) the Kurds have been subjects of another group of people. In school, when I read about ancient Iraq (e.g. George Roux's "Ancient Iraq"), it seemed like every single chapter devoted a sentence or two to acknowledging that there were Kurds around, but pointed out that they were now part of Empire ________.

So part of me would like to see an internationally recognized nation of Kurdistan. But another part of me knows that's not going to happen. The reason Iran, Turkey and Syria don't want Iraqi Kurds to have their own nation is because fo the Iranian, Turkish and Syrian Kurds who might start to think, for the first time ever, in all their 6000 year history, "Maybe we could do that, too."

In terms of regional stability, I'm inclined to tell the Iraqi Kurds to suck it up and make the Iraqi government work. Why? Because if the government holds up, they will live in a free country, an economically and militarily strong country (Iraq has the resources for both), and they can go to bed at night without their fully-loaded AK47s in their clenched fists. And it may not be in Kurdistan, but it will be in the greatest nation in the Middle East, far and away better than any of their neighbors in terms of basic freedoms.

This is only until the elections. After that it's anyone's game. Basically the Shia have agreed to honor the interim constitution up to the January elections, something they were required to do anyway.

The thing is, Iraq needs the Kurds economically, militarily, and (whether they recognize it or not) for a model of civic society. It's against Shia interests to start a fight with them now, when the Kurds are the strongest they will ever be relative to the Shia. I can't see them failing to recognize that unless this is all a game and they are being completely disingenuous biding their time until the opportunity to opress everyone else presents itself cleanly. Of course if that's the case there is nothing we can do about it. Leading horses to water and all that. The hope is that drinking is instinctive.

the Iranian, Turkish and Syrian Kurds who might start to think, for the first time ever, in all their 6000 year history, "Maybe we could do that, too."

But isn't revolution in Iran and Syria one of our goals? It seems that this would be ideal. I must admit that I'm becoming more and more confused about the exact goals of the administration in Iraq. Initially, I assumed that we were going to attempt to build Iraq into a successful modern democratic state that would be a magnet for the rest of the middle eastern population.

Shia and Kurds....Shia and Kurds...How can they have such differences, when only one letter seperates them from Shit and Turds?

Wankette HQ: Channeling Wonkette so you don't have to.

Well, a free Kurdistan would have several advantages for us: It would be a model of democracy, stable, an ally and it would automatically pacify the Northern part of Iraq, which it does now. In addition, carving out a free Kurdistan sticks it to the Iranians (always a good thing) and the Turks (good just this once as payback for their lack of support in Gulf war II). It would also take a share of the oil permanently out of the hands of the Sunnis.\

I agree that our goal now is a unified Iraq, free, democratic, stable and prosperous enough to start an Islamic Renaissance that will undermine Islamic support for Whahabbi terrorism. Historically, however, Iraq was always 3 seperate provinces under the Ottomans, and became a unified state only under British supervision after WWI. If the Shiites and Sunnis start to indulge in civil war, partitioning the country might be the way to go. Of course, we should try to prevent civil war if we can, but not at the cost of betraying the Kurds.

first, senator phil, that is one of the funniest things i've ever read.

second, we can't let the shia roll over the kurds because the kurds are just about the only consitently reliable and friendly group we have over there right now. they wouldn't take to kindly to a backstabbing.

but they also strike me as the most reasonable group. if they can get their basic freedoms recognized, and a guarantee to run their part of the country pretty more or less how they like, i think they'll be willing to be part of the larger iraq, and realize that it is necessary to go along with it at least for the time being in the name of stability and the greater goal of a free iraq.

An Iranian Kurd with a PhD in history told me that when he was young, he agitated for a free, independent Kurdistan. As he grew in wisdom and maturity, he noticed that Kurds are great at fighting other people for freedom...until they get it, and then they fall to fighting and squabbling among themselves. He is now convinced that there are few (if any) nations on this earth less suited to autonomy than the Kurds.
FWIW.

Join the Linux community. Linuxwaves.net