Informed Comment

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Bush's Greater Middle East

27 Comments:

At 10:20 AM, johnMccutchen said...: I have a Palestinian friend who's been telling me exactly this for a couple of years.

At first I thought he exaggerated
At 11:09 AM, jeff said...: Leave it to you to sum the whole thing up in a picture......it REALLY is just that simple isn't it?
At 11:10 AM, jeff said...: the picture says it all
At 12:44 PM, Alamaine said...: Interesting map.

The notation indicating $500 / barrel for oil brings to light something that I've either missed or avoided: the true cost for oil IF this conflict has been about oil. We read various estimates of the cost of the conflict and now they're up to $1 Trillion, an amount that will have to be borne by American taxpayers and those abroad who support the Americans' debts. Nevertheless, the unseen tax on oil -- funding the conflict in its multitude of facets -- will be distributed in a variety of ways.

The question is now: Just how much does a barrel of oil cost, given the overall number of expenditures committed to securing each and every one?
At 2:19 PM, Kelly said...: When is his war crimes trial going to begin?
At 2:44 PM, soro derwê? said...: Beyond your party-political approaches there is a Kurdish dream of freedom. A "Greater Kurdistan" is only the expression of that dream. The Kurds have struggled in decades, if not centuries, to create a life for themselves free from oppression and occupation. Does any of you wish to live under foreign occupation? The Kurds have "lived" under occupation at least since the end of the First World War. As a result, kurdish culture, history and identity have been under constant attack; Kurdistan destroyed demographically; and Kurds as such experienced nothing but fear and terror. Does any of you wish such a "life"?

Freedom is a right, not a privilage. What you take for granted for yourself is also a right for others.

I thank Mr. Bush for putting an end to Saddam´s terror and encourage the US to do the same with Iran, Turkey and Syria. The whole humanity, not only the Kurds, will gain from a free Kurdistan in particular and a democratic Middle East in general.
At 3:05 PM, soro derwê? said...: I need to ask this: does the author of this map view it as a positive and exciting development or is he critical of it?

Why preserve a status quo that does not work? The Turks have failed in creating a new Turkish nation that would include the Kurds in northern Kurdistan too. They have intented to kill of the Kurdish identity. The Kurds are aware of their rather evil intentions and will not accept to live with such people. In south, Iraqi Kurdistan is taking shape, which in fact makes the Loussanne Treaty, on which the current borders rest, meaninglessif not invalid. The Syrian and Iranian regimes cannot be viewed as desirable by any way. All seem to speak for at least a "Great Kurdistan", which, I think, would blow fresh air into the region.
At 5:10 PM, CrackWilding said...: Alamaine, I'm not goint attempt an answer to your question, but I would suggest that what is happening in the Middle East is not so much about the *cost* of oil as it is about *control* of oil. Especially ten, twenty years, or thirty from now, when the cost rises high enough that the average consumer can no longer afford to drive anywhere, it will still fuel militaries (who will increasingly be fighting wars over control of the resource that powers them).

The Bushies, I think, see control of oil in its twilight as central to their continued program of military domination around the world, and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about strategic positioning for the future more than anything else. You can see this quite clearly on a map of the Middle East -- note the way the U.S. has Iran almost totally surrounded. Those who think they are leveling a serious criticism by complaining about pump prices are, I think, missing the point.
At 5:18 PM, InplainviewMonitor said...: Too tired to think

Sullivan's explanation for Rumsfeld's rhythmic prose is pretty good.

Andrew Sullivan. Too tired to think: team Bush loses its way
Now consider Donald Rumsfeld, the most incompetent defence secretary since Robert McNamara. He, too, has been there since the beginning, and despite very loud rumours a couple of months ago is still in his job. He has presided over an unprecedented attack on American soil, a torture scandal, and two wars, both of which are continuing. He is 73 years old.
His hours would make a man in his twenties feel drained.

Donald H. Rumsfeld. What We've Gained In 3 Years in Iraq
The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case.
Fortunately, history is not made up of daily headlines, blogs on Web sites or the latest sensational attack. History is a bigger picture, and it takes some time and perspective to measure accurately.
Today, some 100 Iraqi army battalions of several hundred troops each are in the fight, and 49 control their own battle space. About 75 percent of all military operations in the country include Iraqi security forces, and nearly half of those are independently Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-conducted and Iraqi-led.
The rationale for a free and democratic Iraq is as compelling today as it was three years ago. A free and stable Iraq will not attack its neighbors, will not conspire with terrorists, will not pay rewards to the families of suicide bombers and will not seek to kill Americans.
Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis. It would be as great a disgrace as if we had asked the liberated nations of Eastern Europe to return to Soviet domination because it was too hard or too tough or we didn't have the patience to work with them as they built free countries.
At 5:48 PM, SimoHurtta said...: Hmmm - interesting map.

Turkey will not be happy if it looses half of its area to Kurdistan. Who is going to take that area? Kurds do not have the military possibilities for that. If Kurds try it the “Greater Kurdistan” will be a province of Greater Turkey. Would USA help in creating “Greater Kurdistan” against its NATO ally and a potential future EU member? Hardly even Bush’s administration can be so crazy to try it. Or is it?
At 7:37 PM, Cyte said...: 1. Sunnis are not Al-Qaeda, why do you call them Qaedistan? Besides, Sunnis are against splitting. They mingle wherever they are. There are no Sunni areas of Baghdad, for example, but there is a Shiite area (Sadr City).

2. Why do you separate Iran from Shiitistan? The Grand Ayatollah of Iraq (Sistani) is an Iranian. Splitting Iraq is an Iranian plan tantamount to grabbing Iraq and the Gulf. Old Persian dreams of grabbing Arabia.

3. Iraq has at least 40% Arab Sunnis. Despite cheating, the UN-approved census of 2003 shows that Shiites are barely 40% of Iraq. They are not a majority. As expert, would you please expose the "Shiite majority lie" of Iraq?

http://faair.org/images/Iraq-Census-Total-2003.pdf
At 9:41 PM, InplainviewMonitor said...: soro derwê? said... Freedom is a right, not a privilege. What you take for granted for yourself is also a right for others.

There is a place in Faust on this: only those deserve life and freedom who are ready to fight for it every day. That is, Goethean freedom is a condition, not a right or privilege.

As for the neoconservative "freedom" which is served to the Iraqis, it turns out to be nothing esle than slavery.
At 10:09 PM, Juan said...: It's my editorial cartoon, guys. It is exaggerated for effect, and intended to show the worst-case end point of current policies. Pedantic complaints that the borders aren't drawn right or the statelets are called the wrong thing don't enter into the spirit of it! Get with it!
At 10:20 PM, Cheez Whiz said...: Juan, could you comment on the
so-called "advisory council" being formed for consultation on national security among the various sects in Iraq. It looks like it has pretty much no power (I'm not sure the UIA would have stood for it having any real power)...

Do Sunni Negotiators realize that they aren't going to get anything other than symbolic concessions from their Shiite counterparts, given the outcome of the elections?
At 11:22 PM, soro derwê? said...: InplainviewMonitor,

The Kurds have been fighting for their freedom every day in decades if not centuries. Doing that, they had also to deal with obstacles put forward to them by many others than the imidiate occupiers of Kurdistan. Don't think that we have forgotten the western support for the occupiers of Kurdistan.

Freedom IS a right. ANd humans are not animals. And power is not necessarily as hard as you think it to be. The stongest, therefore, is not necessarly the one with the biggest gun.

Your reality is making great poets out of the Kurds. No-one controls the winds.

But yes. Though everybody deserves freedom, those who "fight" for it will have it. But no. Not everybody is oppressed and who is to say that everybody that is "free" has or has not deserved it?

Joan,

Why is it a "worst" case senario? What interest can you possibly have in preserving the present states? I am not sure about the other "-istans" as I feel it is only a not so serious approach to real issues, but KURDISTAN alone is enough to put an element of democracy, balance and stability into the region. The Turkish and other objections to Kurdistan are not real. And even if real, not worth a penny as far as we Kurds are concerned.
At 11:34 PM, Fred in Vermont said...: The map could also be read as a justification for splitting up Iraq into Syrian, Turkish and Iranian dominated areas in order to prevent such a thing.
At 12:04 AM, InplainviewMonitor said...: At 4:09 AM, Juan said... It's my editorial cartoon, guys. It is exaggerated for effect, and intended to show the worst-case end point of current policies.

Yes, of course. It is just so sad.

At 5:22 AM, soro derwê?

Well, I did not know that you're Kurdish. In the West, that's neoconservative position. Anyway, the problem is, all this means big long war :-(((
At 2:43 AM, Murteza ali said...: Cyte, i see you are afflicted with the old "sunnis are the majority in iraq" disease.

the main symptom is a lack of understanding of basic facts. The sunnis are around 35% in iraq. but they are split between kurd and arab, with only about 15% being sunni arab.
the other 60-65%are shia ARAB. You claim that the UN says otherwise but the UN overlooked all the Iraqi elections and they would have noticed the cheating, If indeed it happened. Unless of course you are saying that the UN are liars, in which case their census isnt a reliable bit of evidence for you to use.

You think the shia segregated themselves in sadr city voluntarily? are you serious? the place is a slum, if anything it was a ghetto where saddam imprisoned the 3 million poverty stricken shia.

Ive been to sadr city... NO ONE would choose to live there if there was an alternative.
At 2:49 AM, Murteza ali said...: By the way cyte what use is a report supplied by Saddams baathist ministries.

Its like asking a Kurd to count how many arabs and kurds live in oil-rich kirkuk.

Not very independent is it?
At 3:32 AM, Spin proof said...: Soro Derwis is correct: there is a given right of self-determination.

However, the issue is confused in reality with:

1) The current leaders of the Kurds in Iraq publicly refuse independence on the basis that they do not want a tiny country surrounded by enemies.

2) The right is not exclusive to the Kurds. The Arabs and Turkmen in the enormous land the Kurds want will fight Kurdish rule to the death.

3) The rest of Iraq will be far better off without the Kurds. Their current warlords have primitive tribal/fuedal mentality which can not be reconciled with the concept of a nation, Iraqi, Kurdish or whatever.

4) Being free from Iraq does not necessarily mean freedom. The Kurdish warlords are perfectly capable of opressing the Kurds and killing them in large numbers. Just check the names of top officials and look for Barasani and Talabani.

5) The Kurds are not "occupied". They have exactly the same rights as all other Iraqis, and have for centuries reached the highest positions in government.

6) I personally think that the Kurds should be forced to become independent even if the do not want to.
At 12:41 PM, Kelly said...: I appreciate these points made by Spin Proof. He is exactly right. The Kurds have always had a choice just like everyone else in Iraq. They could cooperate with the system or buck it. Just like people here in our country have a choice. Are there groups of people here who have been discriminated against, beaten, harrassed? You bet! But, how have they handled this? Just look at Martin Luther King, Jr. for the answer. The point is, the Iraqis needed to solve their problems among themselves without the interference of a nation 6,000 miles away and without George W. Bush who had no legal authority to "march into Baghdad" without cause of an immediate threat or danger to OUR country, and there was none. Freeing the Kurds from oppression is not a good enough reason for us to kill 100,000 innocent Iraqis, not to mention spend billions of dollars and lose the lives and limbs of our sons and daughters.
At 2:48 PM, Cecil said...: I don't know if your map was inspired by the one which was allegedly circulated in the U.S. senate
(http://tork.blogspot.com/2006/03/map-of-kurdistan-distributed-at-us.html ) ;but, something like this would make the current situation in the Middle East a Sunday school picnic compared to the level of problems which would be brought to bear on the West and its' interests.

Iraq was the first, Iran looks to be the second and this would certainly be the third strategic blunder.
At 6:13 PM, chris rushlau said...: Your map is an out-of-the-side-of-your-mouth comment on the effect of the Last British Colony being wedged in the side of the region like a huge splinter, that is spreading infection and tissue breakdown across the torso of Asia. To interpret my own poem, always a dangerous thing, the national borders in the region would be viable if the whole region didn't have to be on a permanent war footing because of the ongoing amphibious assault that is Israel. I think if you ask any Kurd in Iraq which is a greater policy crisis, independence or Israel, they would select Israel.
At 1:19 AM, The Wrath said...: I agree, the ethnic mess that is Iraq is largely the fault of the British who tossed three ethnic groups together like that under Gertrude Bell and Winston Churchill (who, despite his contemporary reputation, had a penchant for royally screwing up in the Middle East-- Gallipoli, Iraq...). We're stuck with that mess.

I can sympathize with the Kurds' desire for their own country, but in practice this can be a very messy thing. The United States of America, after all, sits on a large tract of land that was populated by the Native Americans, whose surviving descendants still occupy big tracts of land where they are the majority. Should the US break up in such a way as to provide land for them? What about blacks in the US, who have been screwed for centuries and have as good a claim as anyone to their own country? Should they have one? There's a significant Aztlan movement in the SW for an independent mestizo/Native American territory to undo the results of the Mexican War (not return the land to Mexico, as some people mistakenly think, but to have it be basically independent of both the US and Mexico). India is a patchwork of different ethnic and cultural groups with quite a few in the south, north and east wanting their own countries.

The point being, that many ethnic groups are aiming for this sort of independence, and this could lead to the break-up of lots of countries, including the US, which may become especially vulnerable as we become so ethnically varied. I don't have an easy answer, I do think the Kurds *should* have had an independent country in the 1920's, but the British screwed them then. If there is an independent Kurdistan that can be economically flourishing, fine, but the truth is that many of the most intense Kurdish demands will likely not see the light of day. Kirkuk in particular, will likely have to become an open, shared city-- it has had historical settlement by and belongs to the Arabs and Turkmen (as well as the Assyrian Christians) as much as to the Kurds, so it may have to become something like a second Jerusalem. There may be the potential to forge an independent Kurdistan, but it's gonna be the ultimate walking-on-eggshells diplomacy. Again, the British are in large part at fault here.
At 4:56 PM, Dara said...: @The Wrath

How can you compare the Kurdish people's fate with that of the Native Americans or the Afro-Americans???

Kurds, unlike the Native Americans, are the majority in their own lands...

Kurds, unlike the Afro-Americans were not slaves deported to Kurdistan - Kurdistan is their native land... And has been for the last 6000 years! See Mr. Mehrdad Izady's work and research for further information...

Kurds are make up a staggering 40 million world-wide... About 25-30 million of these live inside Kurdistan, whereas about 10 million live outside of Kurdistan... These were mostly deported or have fled from prosecution at the hands of the occupants...

In Turkey, is was till 1991, forbidden to speak Kurdish - since 1923...

In Syria it's still forbidden to be Kurdish - and 300 000 Kurds were made state-less, their passports were confiscated. Do you know what that means? NO right to education, NO right to health care and NO right to OWN or ORGANIZE anything in Syrian Kurdistan. And they have to go OUT of Syria every 3-6 months to re-enter their own homes, because non-citizens only have a 3-6 month visa...

IS THAT SICK OR WHAT???

How about Iran? Kurds there are not allowed to publish in Kurdish... Women in Kurdish culture are free and wear what they find suitable for themselves - but in Iran they are forced to do so... In fact women are also prohibited from singing in public... Kurdish culture is based on dance, music and singing - denying us this right, means ETHNOCIDE... THEY ARE KILLING OUR CULTURE... :(

Iraqi Kurdistan is the only part of Kurdistan which stands a real chance at becoming a land free of oppression, force, deportation and terror... Iraqi Kurdistan, Southern Kurdistan - will be the ideal every Kurd, from East to West will want to see a reality...

Kurds are not going to stand the ridiculous mess the Brits created in 1923...

United we stand...

Bijî Kurdistan!!!
At 11:02 AM, Cem Kartal Canturk said...: Hello,

I read all comments under this topic. About the map, I can just say, its a dream. Its a dream and its a fantastic dream. Why? Let me tell you.

1. Turks are one of the greatest martial nation in human history. A member of NATO and as some people said before me an EU candidate. Do you think its easy to take half of country like this? I can just laugh it, and laugh it with my ass.

2. Kurds have no rights in Turkey? If you don't live in Turkey you may believe this lie but its not the truth. In Turkey there is a cultural harmony. Kurds are a part of it, like others Cherkezs, Lazs, Tartars, Fallahs, and everyone has same rights in Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's Laic Democratic Turkish Republic. Turkey's 8th president Turgut Ozal(RIP)'s ethnic root was Kurd, and he was a president. Isn't it strange if you think that Kurds has not equal rights with others in Turkey?

3. But why Kurds are problem in Turkey? Why other minorities not? Let me tell you the reason. Because a big majority of Kurdish minority is educateless. For example Kurdish highbrows are the people who knows how to read or write. They are bloody educateless. Turkey gives every oppurtunity and same rights with others but they are going to mountains instead of school. Why they are going to mountains instead of school? Because school is difficult to them. Its difficult to read ABC. Its difficult to multiply 2 and 2. Kurds are people who likes to joy like Gypsies. life is just joy to them. They make music. They dance and life goes to them, but what about work? They have same fate with gypsies because of ethnic characteristics.

Shortly, Kurds are not enough to become a nation. Kurdistan is a neverland such as PeterPan stories.

Kurdistan will never exist. Because Kurds are the people not physically and mentally enough to realize that...

Thank you for reading.
At 7:50 AM, Çok ?yi Kürtsiken said...: It's a lie to speaking Kurdish is forbidden in Turkey. If you have little information about Turkish hospitality you don't believe this lie.

Terrorist Kurds need mercy of other nations to take support. So they say this kind of lies.

I seperate the Turkish Kurds from Terrorist Kurds. PKK is a terrorist organisation and the Kurds are who comment in this page supports PKK. It means they are terrorists.

TÜM BÖLÜCÜ KÜRTLER?N ANASINI AVRADINI S?KEY?M.

Informed Comment

Sunday, March 19, 2006

27 Comments:

Get my Widget