IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 2 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Turkey again - this time the Kurds. Again.
[link|http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/14/turks/index.html| Salon's] Michelle Goldberg ponders the nature of betrayal-as-encore
Betraying the Kurds again?
The U.S. plan to send 10,000 Turkish troops to Iraq has Kurdish leaders outraged -- and analysts of all stripes incredulous at its folly.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Michelle Goldberg

Oct. 14, 2003 | America has rarely lost an opportunity to betray the Iraqi Kurds, but this time was supposed to be different. Their suffering under Saddam Hussein served as one of the war's justifications, and in the war's aftermath they've been America's most grateful and enthusiastic allies in an otherwise restive region. After selling them out in the '70s, '80s and '90s, the United States owed the Kurds justice, and it was finally going to make things right.

It didn't take long, though, for other American interests to take priority. Thus despite protests from Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's Kurdish foreign minister -- indeed, despite the increasingly ardent objections of the Iraqi Governing Council and the Iraqi Kurdish leadership -- the United States plans to bring 10,000 troops from Turkey into Iraq.

The Turks are an implacable enemy of the Kurds. They have viciously repressed their own Kurdish population and oppose the Iraqi Kurds' ambitions for autonomy. The two sides are already threatening each other -- in the Arabic newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat, members of the Peshmerga, or Turkish militia, were quoted saying they'd attack the Turks. On Monday the Turks warned that if they were attacked, they'd fight back.

So besides alienating the Kurds, the Turkish deployment seems likely to bring new instability to northern Iraq, the country's most peaceful region. In the last few days, Kurdish leaders have been traveling to cities worldwide to make the case against Turkish troops. But with the American military stretched thin, an election year approaching and critics on both left and right clamoring to internationalize the occupation and bring U.S. troops home, the Kurds find themselves, as they so often do, an inconvenient people lacking leverage among the powerful.
Hard to find room for one more little glitch, no?
New Part of prroblem is the way Shrub sought UN help

he went there and insulted them yet again. US admin desperately needs help in Iraq before it spirals out of control. Turkish troops in place at expense of Kurdisk peace & support is about the only viable option at the moment.

Australian PM was cunning enough to go in at the start, with Bush but on the clear agreement that once the war was over, the Aussies came out, this way Howard could placate any potential groundswell of reaction at home prior to the 2004 election (in Australia), should the post invasion occupation turn sour which was always a distinct possibility (probability?).

Shrub has had no such luck in extracting US forces from the murderous fulisade of suicide bombers & snipers. But, to be seen going begging to the UN would cave in his regime quicker than anything so he either has to do some fast backroom deal with one of the European powers or bring in the Turks at the expense (once again) of Kurdish trust.

Bush and the repubs are in a very tight spot but I give them credit for having some regime saving scheme or diversion up their sleeves. It could well be yet another war. There are enough targets lined up. Israel could be the fuse or detonator.

Doug Marker



New If that is the plan for reelection..
umm - words fail.

I.
     Turkey again - this time the Kurds. Again. - (Ashton) - (2)
         Part of prroblem is the way Shrub sought UN help - (dmarker) - (1)
             If that is the plan for reelection.. - (Ashton)

LI_
60 ms