As I mentioned in that other thread, note that Bush only got support for the resolution after he caved in and allowed the Iraqis to have control over their own security – something they should have had from the beginning.
Nice to see that the fear of losing re-election finally got him to do the right thing for a change.
So long as he does the right thing.
Of course, as long as the Iraqi government feels this way, things should work out fine from the U.S.'s perspective regarding maintaining security forces there:
See the links I posted in this thread.
In short, the Kurds are extremely upset with the resolution, and it appears that Sistani played a major role in how the resolution was finally adopted. If it’s some kind of turning point, then it appears to be setting the stage for Kurd-Shi’ite tensions to get worse.
Doubt it. From what I read about the negociations during the last weeks, the french and russians were quite happy with them. I understood from some reports that Russia and France (who were in close agreement) more or less stated that the would formulate various demands (for instance about the duration/extension of the mandate or the role payed by the Iraki government in security matters, etc…). This kind of wording let me thought that either Bush was in dire need of UN resolution (for electoral reasons???) and that Russia/France intended to play on this, or that the three countries had actually already agreed on everything barring some details, hence that the Russian and Franch governments knew their “demands” were already approved.
William Safire has a pretty good column on how the U.S. turned its back on the Kurds in an effort to appease the Shiites in southern Iraq, including Sistani. Only time will tell whether the fears of the Kurds are borne out, but it seems fairly clear that there is strong sentiment among the Shiites that “democracy” means “Now it’s our turn to screw over everybody else.” If the Kurds are not given significant autonomy to run their own affairs in whatever form the government of Iraq finally takes, and if the Shiites insist on imposing their own social and political vision on the Kurds, then I suspect a Kurdish rebellion is pretty much inevitable–and that has serious implications for all the other neighboring countries with Kurdish minorities, particularly Turkey.
The traditional screwing of the Kurds is something I’ve never fully understood. The bulk of Iraq’s oil is there, they’re warmly inclined to us for protecting them between the wars, they have as much experience now in managing their own affairs as almost any nascently-independent country. Couldn’t a continuation of US/Western support for an independent Kurdistan, combined with reasonable wellhead prices, be used as leverage to keep them from irredentist adventuring in Iran and Turkey? Could some kind of material support, combined with some more local autonomy (as in the Basque area of Spain) on those countries’ part, relieve pressure for them to break away? And, while we’re at it, wouldn’t that leave an all-Arab Iraq, still with plenty of its own oil but without its major internal ethnic tensions, as a more-plausibly-stable country of its own?
Isn’t there a great opportunity there that we (including all of the West) are screwing up?
The balance between the Kurds and the other factions is a delicate matter. The Kurds seem to be determined to have some level of autonomy on a par with their situation when the No-Fly Zones were keeping the central Iraqi government from asserting any significant amount of control in the North. The Turks are very unhappy with the idea of a semi-independent Kurdish province on their border stirring up their own Kurds’ aspirations of liberty from the Turkish government. As noted, a fair amount of Iraq’s potential wealth is in the Kurdish North. The Persian/Arab/Babylonian center and south end of the country is not about to tolerate a virtual Kurdistan on top of what they regard as their own oil fields. This is not going to be easy to sort out and it’s not going to be done fast. Most of all it is not going to be done by the provisional government without a whole lot of trouble and probably no small amount of bloodshed.
In the meantime, somebody blew up the oil pipe lines again.
I am so glad I come to the SD to dispel my ignorance. After all, where else would I read such wonderful news as above? Speaking of which, where do you get your news, Sam? Because in the ones I read, the day prior to your post, at least twenty-two people died in violent incidents, with twelve more killed today and explosions, again, blowing up pipelines. In a related bit of good news, I also read that the Kurds threaten to bolt government if Shiites dominate.
Read the damn liberal press and you’d think Iraq was a mess! Thanks for setting me straight, Sam.
Your parting quip would have been funnier if you’d linked to all of those stories on Fox News.
Deadly Munition Blast in Iraq Caused by Mortar Fire
Kurds: We May Bolt Iraq Government
Gunmen Kill Shiite Official
Four Civilian Contractors Killed in Iraq
List of War Dead Since May 9, 2004 (Listing 53 dead American military personnel in the last month, with 24 identified as killed in the two weeks prior to Sam’s post. Proof positive that “It’s been a pretty quiet couple of weeks in Iraq, with fewer incidents of violence than normal,” huh?)
The Kurds have been treated much worse by Iraq, Iran and Turkey than the Basques by Spain and France, and, as a result, their national aspirations are much more desperate. No, if an independent Kurdish state is ever established anywhere, nothing will stop it from “irredentist adventuring” until all Kurdistan is both united and independent. I’m sure that Iran and Syria are, like most countries, ready to go to war to hold onto their recognized national territory – which is a prospect the Bush admin might relish. But Turkey is still a member of NATO and, in theory, a U.S. ally, so we’re kind of caught in the middle here.
If an independent, united Kurdistan ever were established, it would solve a lot of problems. For one thing, the Kurdish problem would finally be resolved. For another, Kurdistan, with its mountains, would be an easily-defended buffer state between Iran, Iraq and Turkey. And it would be a reliable U.S. ally in the region, if the U.S. had anything to do with bringing it into existence. With no more Kurdish minority to hold down, Turkey would have the chance to dramatically improve its human-rights record and probably would be admitted to the European Union before too long. But I just don’t see how we can get there from here.
You mean the puppet hand picked by our hand picked puppet government puppeted agreement with our policy? I’m shocked. SHOCKED.
Well it’s not working out fine. The Kurdish politicians have made it known that if the first draft of the provisional constitution that give the Kurds some sort of veto to protect themselves from the Arab/Babylonian majority doesn’t float they are not going to play. The constitution that is now in play does not include that provision that the Kurds see as vital to their participation in a federal Iraq. Apparently each generation of Bushes gets to sucker the Kurds just once, not more.
You know, as I was posting that message I thought, “Oh, hell. As soon as I submit this the news is going to turn to crap.”
And sure enough… Now we’ve got Kurdish tension, a blown-up oil pipeline, new suicide bombings…
But the Iraqi leaders gave some more statements today, and they were very positive. I guess all we can hope is that they manage to steer this ship away from the rocks.
To be fair to Sam Stone, he might have missed all those Iraq news updates because the American media has been supersaturated with non-news coverage about the death of Reagan.
(ReaganWatch Update: Still dead)
Well, of course they were. They were just granted new jobs rebuilding their country. Who the hell WOULDN’T salivate over that and kiss whatever ass gave them their position?
Has it been three days yet? 'Cause I heard a rumor he might rise again to judge the quick and the dead and smite the Whore of Babylon.
Well, he died Saturday afternoon, right? So even allowing several hours extra time due to time zone differences, he’s at least a day late by now… 
Well, since you are all clamoring for my opinion on this (albeit very quietly), here goes…
There will be an independent Kurdistan. For all practical purposes, there already is. It is possible, I suppose, that the Kurds will surrender thier long standing dream in order to embrace an Iraqi federation dominated by Sh’ite Muslims and have thier oil revenues shared out to support Shia religious schools rather than to further the liberation of Kurds in other countries. But if you were a Kurd, would you?
Turkey will just have to eat it with a spoon and say “Yummy!” A large American military presence in Kurdistan might go a long way to reassuring them of Kurdish behavior, and reassure the Kurds that they will not be subject to the legendary compassion of the Turks. It will also provide America with a somewhat stable base in the region. Why the Kurds would trust us any further than they can throw us is another question.
The Kurds will get Kurdistan, the Shia will get thier Islamic state, and the Sunni’s will get whatever is left over. They will also recieve a very helpful lecture from the US on entreprenuership and bootstrap pulling as we make a mad dash for the exit strategy.
The trickiest part will be when the Kurdish oil revenues begin flowing in earnest, and they wish to buy modern weapons from thier very good allies, the Americans. Which will, of course, scare the bejabbers out of our very good allies, the Turks. Who will we favor? Hint: the Kurds got oil. Turks got coffee.
Not that I completely accept your scenarion, but we’ll favor our NATO ally since we’d have to defend them if they were attacked.
I’m sensing something… a vision of the future… no, the past… it is hard to tell… a bunch of Muslims… having their state established… supported by the US… occupied by US military and industrial interests… getting pissed off… I think I see… skyscrapers falling?
heh, who says the Kurds get the oil?
For one, the refineries etc will be owned and operated, much like the Saudi facilities, largely by foreign companies and their employees. The tendancy for oil rich countries isn’t freedom and profit for all - it is riches for some, extreme poverty and angst for the rest. Off the top of my head, I can’t name one oil-rich country that instantly turned into a miracle wonderland for the average person. They are almost unanimously dominated by foreign corporate interests and a few ultra-rich warlords/royals/whatever, and this is true from the Middle East to South America. (One could argue that the USA itself is an oil rich country, but you’d have a hard time translating that oil into wealth for the average citizen).
For two, they are going to have a tricky time shipping said oil out, since the pipelines go through Turkey, who would have some say in the matter. Consider it a blockade.
For three, I get the feeling that Bush hates the Kurds for some reason. It isn’t so much that he did anything to them, as that he didn’t do anything for them.
For four, I don’t see us letting our relations with Turkey slip any further. Human rights hellhole, psuedodemocracy, strife torn nation, whatever you call it, Turkey basically controls Central Asia - where various countries are developing oil interests. The pipelines almost all aim at Turkey. Additionally, Russia has never quite gotten over that whole “Turkey” thing, so pissing Turkey off too much might nudge them out of our sphere.
Anywyay, it is a three way tugging match. No, four way. They have the EU they want to get into, they have the US frothing, they have Russia and Central Asia by the gonads, and they still have their ongoing ethnic conflicts with Greece, the Kurds, etc. Good relations with Turkey might be the key to the future of the oil industry - if SA collapses and Central Asia continues being developed (and multinational corporations are pouring billions into doing so)… well, my degree might be useful afterall.