Ace of Spades HQ

« Transcript: Ana Marie Cox's Open-Mike-Night Performance at the Dupont Circle Laff-Shack, circa 1997 | Main | McCain Floats a Trial Balloon »

June 10, 2004

Big News: Iraqis Say Shia-Kurd Dispute Resolved

One of the biggest problems confronting Iraq is the Kurdish question. Basically, the Kurds want strong minority rights and a great deal of autonomy over their own local affairs. The majority Shi'ites, quite selflishly, want to provide very little in this regard, and to put the Kurds into the position of a dominated and fairly powerless minority.

After 50 years of being dominated by another ethnic minority, the Shi'ites apparently feel that now it's their turn to start oppressing.

Obviously, because America is torn between two critical goals. On the one hand, we have to appease the majority Shi'as if there's ever going to be a stable, unified Iraq at all. On the other hand, we can't just sell out the Kurds in the interests of stability. We can't take a very large minority group and make them less free and less Western-liberal than they were under Saddam by putting them under the Shi'a yoke.

And the Kurds won't have any of that anyway-- they're threatening to secede if their interests are not formally recognized, which might actually be a great solution as far as Iraq itself goes, but of course the Turks and Syrians and Iranians are dead-set against that.

This is the one big problem that actually makes me wonder about the ultimate success of the Iraqi project.

Fortunately, the new Iraqi government says that it's reached a compromise with the Kurds on the question of federalism:

Allawi said he had sorted out the autonomy dispute in talks with Kurdish leaders, but gave no details.

"This issue has been resolved," he told reporters.

Obviously, I don't know what this means. I hope that the Shi'as understand that they can't simply have full power over the day-to-day lives of the Kurds, and I hope that the Kurds are willing to accept some diminishment of autonomy for the sake of peace.

Oh, and, by the way: Butt-sex, weiners, homos, and poopie-stinkies.

posted by Ace at 06:22 PM

Comments

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.

Posted by: Aaron on June 10, 2004 07:31 PM

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.

Posted by: Kerry Is Unelectable on June 10, 2004 10:23 PM

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.

Posted by: Smack on June 10, 2004 10:33 PM

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.

Posted by: Senator PhilABuster on June 10, 2004 10:39 PM

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.

Posted by: Alan M. Ray on June 10, 2004 11:29 PM

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.

Posted by: francisthegreat on June 11, 2004 01:11 AM

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.

Posted by: nathan on June 11, 2004 07:07 AM

Join the Linux community. Linuxwaves.net

Posted by: Hugh on July 5, 2004 05:31 PM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]

TJM acts like he knows anything about John Wick and screenwriting. It's embarrassing, really.

Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!

Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."

Batman fires The Batman
Batman is disgusted by the Joachim Phoenix version of Joker
Batman tries to fire Superman
Batman is still workshopping his Bat-Voice

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all

Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)

Sec. Army recognizes ODU Army ROTC cadets for their bravery and sacrifice in private ceremony
[Hat Tip: Diogenes] [CBD]

TJM gives you a brief tour of his movie collection.

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click
One day I'm gonna write a poem in a letter
One day I'm gonna get that faculty together
Remember that everybody has to wait in line
Oh, [Song Title], look out world, oh, you know I've got mine

US decimation of Iran's ICBM forces is due to Space Force's instant detection of launches -- and the launchers' hiding places -- and rapid counter-attack via missiles
AI is doing a lot of the work in analyzing images to find the exact hiding place of the launchers. Counter-strikes are now coming in four hours after a launch, whereas previously it might have taken days for humans to go over the imagery and data.

Robert Mueller, Former Special Counsel Who Probed Trump, Dies

“robert mueller just died,” trump wrote in a truth social post on march 21. “good, i’m glad he’s dead. he can no longer hurt innocent people! president donald j. trump.”

TJM has thoughts on Superheros and Iconography

Canadian School Designates Cafeteria And Lunchroom As "No Food Zones" For Ramadan
Canada and the UK are neck and neck in the race to become the first western country to fall to Islam [CBD]

Chuck Norris, Action Icon and 'Walker Texas Ranger' Star, Dies at 86

Podcast: Sefton and CBD have a short chat about Iran, the disgusting SAVE Act theater, Mamdani's politicizing of St. Patrick's Day, and more!

Official confirmation from the Joint Chiefs of Staff: the Warthog is now strafing Iranian fast attack boats