From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 15:22:06 MDT
On 15 Aug 2002 at 14:38, Hermit wrote:
>
> Turkey made working with the US on anything contingent on ruling out
> the idea of a Kurdish homeland or state. Period. As Turkey is
> currently providing most of the soldiers in Afghanistan and is
> supposedly providing troops in Georgia (another major diplomatic
> cock-up), it seems likely that the US has agreed to this condition.
>
Sooner or later, the 30 million Kurds will get their de facto homeland in
north Iraq become their home de jure, and Turkey will just have to
accept this; the Kurds deserve same no less than the Palestinians do.
>
> Most Military observers see a second Gulf War ($80 billion minimum)
> leading to 200,000 military, and around 30,000 civilian casualties on
> the Iraqi side, eventually defeating Saddam, and as long as no other
> ME country (including Israel) becomes embroiled in the beanfeast when
> all bets would be off, followed by a long and bloody occupation trying
> to stabilize the country (which will almost certainly mean battles
> with the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs and the fundamentalists),
>
I do not see eother the northern Kurds or the southern Shiites picking a
quarrel with those who come to liberate tham from the iron fist of
Saddamic rule. It is also difficult to see the fundamentalist Muslims
grousing too much over the deposition of a tyrannical secular ruler.
>
> with hands
> tied because of "humanitarian scruples" (hooray!), followed by an
> ignomious retreat after some six years (at $10 billion a year without
> fighting). If this is not done, any replacement will be as insecure as
> hell. Of course, Bush says that the US will not hang around, but
> looking at some of the other places the US has been involved (e.g.
> Kosova), this seems like a fair analysis - unless somebody as ruthless
> as Saddam is installed and the West plays hands off and Iran plays
> along.
>
I actually think that we will stick around long enough to nation-build,
and to prepare a transition to peaceful and popular democratic rule for
each of the three major grioups (Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites) comprising
present-day Iraq. Such a stabilization of a linchpin area of the Middle
east will be a benefit to all, both inside and outside Iraq, which will be
well worth the cost.
>
> A little like Afghanistan. At which point we have to wonder
> what the point of the exercise is? Meanwhile the House of Saud wonders
> about the probability that Iran will get involved with the Sunni and
> Kurds again (as has happened previously) and trembles. And when Saudi
> Arabia catches cold, the US oil companies develop pneumonia.
>
Afghanistan is coming along quite well, thankyouverymuch, certainly far
better than you had previously envisioned (which does not speak well of
your prognosticatory abilities, but better of mine), and I'm quite sure that
Iran will indeed form a friendly relationship with the southern Iraqi
Shiites (and look with gratitude upon a US that made same possible);
with the friction of those Shiites trembling under Saddamic rule
removed, I can see further moderation ahead for Iran, and a lessening
of Gulf tensions, which should benefit Saudi Arabia immensely
(although as long as it persists under an autocratic House of Saud rule
wedded at the hip to a virulent Wahhabist fundamentalism, it will be
both a source and an experiencer of difficulties. As to the northern Iraqi
Kurds, once they have their own homeland, they will not need to appeal
to Iran as a crutch with which to support their independence aspirations.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26107>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:53 MDT