posted
So, I just wondered what people here felt about kurdistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan). I think it is great, being an Iraq success story and all (how few of those we have). It seems to fit alot of what Card says the Iraqis need to do (step up and take responsibility), yet he has not mentioned it. Nor is it getting the media coverage (I guess violence gets the ratings, not to mention Democrat votes).
[ February 20, 2007, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Nathan B. ]
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kurdistan is a success story because it is wholly unlike and rather distinct from the rest of Iraq. It's not a success because of anything we have done there, it's a sucess because everyone living there has a common goal, which is not the same in the rest of the country.
I don't think we can even look at Kurdistan as any kind of model for the rest of Iraq. They're successful because they are working together, the rest of the country is embroiled in power struggle and civil war. I have no doubt that once that is over with, the rest of Iraq will do very well for itself, but solving the problems that are causing the rifts and struggles there is the problem, and Kurdistan never had those problems to begin with.
Giving them the media coverage I think would be dishonest, because it ignores the inherent differences between Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's not a success because of anything we have done there, it's a sucess because everyone living there has a common goal, which is not the same in the rest of the country.
Stopping their wholesale slaughter at the hands of Saddam Hussein was nothing much. I am ashamed for you, that you think this, that you would say it is appalling.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "inherent differance" is that they are more accepting of other religous beliefs and the millitary is more loyal to their "country" (many kurdistans think of kurdistan as their country, not Iraq, due to the "inherent differances") than they are to their religion. These are the things that need to happen in the rest of Iraq for it to be a success. The media here needs to cover it to show Bush's "invasion" of Iraq has brought around some good to some Iraqis. The media there should cover it so the rest or Iraq can see how much more beneficial it is to be "peaceful" than to be fighting. The solution in Iraq needs propaganda as much as it does force.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, first of all, Kurds mostly share a single religion, with a numerous yet greatly outnumbered minority. Here's the problem Nathan, first of all, you can stop using quotations around my words as if to belittle them. Second, you're suggesting that Bush's invasion of Iraq created the situation in Kurdistan, it didn't, it was preexisting. We allowed them to freely execute something they already had going for them, which is surely a laudable accomplishment, something I'm certainly proud of, something I think we should have achieved a decade and a half ago, but we got around to it eventually didn't we?
The problem there, is that your desire for a propaganda campaign is only to bolster US confidence in our soldiers and the war, but it's based on a false belief. It's based on the belief that WE created Kurdistan out of a situation that mirrors the rest of Iraq, which is clearly not true. They had a desire to create just such a state for themselves, and we gave them the chance to do it. The rest of Iraq doesn't seem to want that, and we're giving them EVERY chance to do it. If things were the same in Kurdistan as they were in the rest of Iraq, there wouldn't be a homegrown insurgency there, and the problems would be at an end.
quote:These are the things that need to happen in the rest of Iraq for it to be a success.
Not to be rude or anything but, no friggin duh. That isn't something we can FORCE on them though, it's something they have to want for themselves. The Sunnis don't like or accept the idea of being out of power as much as they are, and the Kurds are perfectly willing to let them go to hell together, they can just withdraw to their comparatively paradise like north. And the Shiites, some of them want revenge for decades of brutal rule, some of them are greedily gathering power unto themselves, some are being propped up by figures like al-Sadr.
All of these internal strifes and problems were solved long ago in Kurdistan, when they realized that being Kurdish was more important, and that that was their biggest objective. Explain to me how we make that happen, and how you think we made it happen in Kurdistan, and I'll listen attentively. I think you'll be hard pressed to do it.
As for Bean Counter, yes, establishing the no-fly zone 15 some odd years ago, and stopping Saddam's genocidal slaughter was indeed a major contribution to their well being. I think you forget the fact that we played a role in causing that little temper tantrum in the first place. We're the ones who told the Kurds they should overthrow Saddam, and when they tried, we backed away quietly and withdrew our support, allowing them to be slaughtered in droves. Finally we stepped back in after 200,000, maybe more, Kurds had been oblierated and we put a stop to it. Go back a little further in time and you'll see we aren't just gold plated good guys, we have our own demons to bear as well.
However, the assertion made, that our actions in Kurdistan DURING THIS WAR have caused them to flower into a beacon of hope and prosperity, and that that same success can be transplanted over to the rest of Iraq is a deliberate falsehood. And if you honestly believe that to be the case BC, you either don't understand the history of the region, and our involvement in it, or you're just more interested in pushing a propagandistic agenda for your own purposes. It could be either, heck, it could be both, but either way you're wrong.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rest of Iraq could be just like Kurdistan if we allowed them to divy up the country along ethnic/religious lines...right up to the point where one group decided that they had a claim to the others territory based on past history, then all bets are off (including the stability of Northern Iraq/Kurdistan).
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They divide themselves up pretty well and get along that way, but who do we give the cities too? They need to live side by side.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Survivor said, I did not say anything about forcing it on. I did say this though:
quote: The solution in Iraq needs propaganda as much as it does force.
As for being mostly one religion, that is true, but it isn't ALL one religion. In some parts of Iraq, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iraq_demography.jpg, there are Sunni, Shiite, and Christian majorities in some areas. It is actually more mixed then other areas that have a lot of violence. Yet they still have almost no violence (not a single U.S. soldier has been killed, and almost any violence would be no more than the violence you find in most U.S. cities). Now on to the history of Kurdistan. Well looking at a place and how it go to the way it is, it is important to look at its history. However, I posted a link to the wikipedia article and I did not want to repost everything here. However if I detected your tone right (I could be wrong, tone over the internent is hard to get and can often be misinterpreted), you are implying I deliberatly left it alone. I just didn't think it was neccisary in my last posts, which for the most part were about reproducing that success in Iraq. I am not providing a plan to reproduce this success, if I could do that I wouldn't be posting it here, I would be sending it to someone in power, or at least try to. What I am doing is laying out a general direction I think we need to go if we want to stabalize Iraq by showing them what they can look forward to if they would just stop the bloodshed. As for the quotations, if you notice I use them around my words as well. I just use them to denote words I believe might be misleading, or I don't neccisarly agree with but might be commonly used in the media.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I've been thinking there are two problems that show that Kurdistan may not be the best model for success.
First there is the problem of Turkey. See, to many Khurds, Kurdistan continues on up into Turkey, where a couple million of their relatives live. Now the Turks, they don't like the idea of a country called Kurdistan, because it might convince their Kurds to join, and bring that property with them. It would be like Mexico encouraging all the immigrants that Texas, New Mexico, and most of California historically and ethnically should return to Mexico. (Or better, if Canada had parts of its native American peoples break free and declare an independent country, which included most of Wyoming. Sure, Wyoming wouldn't be missed all that much, but the US still wouldn't take to kindly to it happening, and might interfere.)
Secondly, there is Kabul. Kabul is the biggest city bordering Kurdistan, and is full of rich oil. It has long been the home of the Kurdish people, but about 20 years ago Sadaam started kicking the Khurd's out and putting some of his friends, Sunni friends, right in their homes.
Now the Kurds aren't too happy with that, and want their home, and their oil, back. The Sunni's who have been living there for a couple of decades don't want to go. We are already seeing some of this disagreement in bombings and such in Kabul.
So all is not as friendly and great as it may appear in your Kurdistan.
Oh, and the way the Khurds stood up and fought off Hussein was due mostly to US assistance, US Air Force not letting tanks, helicopters, or planes into Kurdistan airspace, and US backing.
posted
Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan? You mean Kirkuk?
Kurdistan might not be a rosy paradise, surely Kirkuk is going to be a problem, one that we're going to see explode probably come the Fall when they have a referendum in the city.
Turkey remains a problem. No one knows what they are going to do, and no one knows what the Turkish Kurds are going to do either.
But that shouldn't take away from the fact that compared to the rest of Iraq, and really, the region in general, Kurdistan is doing just fine.
Dan, if you're referring to the early 90's when the Kurds rose up against Saddam, it was damn well our duty to help them, considering we TOLD THEM we would do so BEFORE they rose up, and our LACK of support is what got hundreds of thousands of them killed. The no-fly zone was the least we could do after that.
If you're referring to the US invasion just recently, I think the locals played an instrumental role in securing peace in the north.
And again, I'm not trying to downplay the US role, so much as give credit only where it is due, and make it understood that Kurdistan is wholly different from the rest of the country in very important ways.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets not forget the internal strife that exists in Kurdistan. The official governing body (the KRG) is made up of rival groups KDP and PUK (think Republicans and Democrats but with AK-47's). They've also got their own form of religious in-fighting (Shia vs. Sunni) though most of their current internal conflict resolves around a desire to formally declare a Kurdish country, independent of Iraq.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
