What Not To Do...
By Gerald A. Honigman (08/05/05)
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.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/8607
