Protecting the Kurds

Written by

in

ious promises to Iraqi democrats down the years. It would be morally impossible, as well as politically suicidal, to walk away from them.

Given the apparently irreversible fracturing of Iraq into at least three confessional and ethnic parts, an outcome that may have been innate in the Iraqi state, we cannot hope—so runs his argument—to police or manage the sectarian horror show that has been launched by the parties of god. And we run the grave risk of being drawn into it. However, there is a possible way of saving some of our credit. If we reconfigure our military presence to the north, in the three Kurdish provinces, we can reduce the size of ourselves as a target, remain just “over the horizon” in the case of an al-Qaida challenge, be available “case by case” in the event of any appeal from the Iraqi government for help, and protect the most outstanding of our achievements in the country, which is the emergence of a relatively peaceful, democratic, and prosperous region under coalition auspices.

By definition, this would mean a much smaller and leaner force, in an area where so far no American soldier has been killed by hostile action.

Comments

  1. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    Brilliant; a Kurdish state to alarm our ally Turkey. What a triumph this bloody war has proved. Not only did power corrupt judgement – I speak of Bush – but absence of power did the same – to the Democrats. What a shower, what a dreadful bloody shower. And as for that loathsome wee twat Blair – aargh.

  2. Noga Avatar

    The Kurds are the only people in that benighted country that took full advantage of the opportunities afforded them by the intervention. They have most to lose if Iraq implodes completely. The Kurds, in their eagerness for modern decent institutions and democractic ethos have a lot more in common with Turkey than they do with the rest of Iraq or Iran. It might be worthwhile for the US to try to create a rapprochement between Turks and Kurds in order to prevent a potential confrontation. Democracies do not make wars against one another. They seek compromise and understanding. Turkey could have a rare opportunity here to show the West and Europe in particular, that it can act as a genuine democracy when dealing with another sister democracy. What a vision! Not something that quite fits in with the dreary defeatism of the Ultra Left, exemplified in the post above mine.

  3. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    “Democracies do not make wars against one another”: in 1812 there were only two sizeable democracies, and the younger attacked the older.

  4. Dom Avatar
    Dom

    “in 1812 there were only two sizeable democracies, and the younger attacked the older.”
    That’s not really a good use of numbers. What you want is — of all wars, how many are fought between democracies and how many among non-democracies. Granted, Noqa was being a little absolute, but the point was a good one.

  5. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    It’s a remarkably good use of numbers when there were only two sizeable democracies. 100% war response.

  6. IanCroydon Avatar
    IanCroydon

    1812 is the reason why democracies dont go to war, a fine example of status quo ante bellum, it only needed to be learnt once.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *