Okay, let's see. A group of Turkomen (whoever they are) and arabs gathered yesterday in oil-rich Kirkuk (which once was a Kurdish city (whatever that is), from which Saddam some years ago drove the Kurds) to protest the Kurds' desire to include the city in an independent entity, not controlled by a central Iraqi government. The Iraqi police in Kirkuk (whoever they are) fired on the group, killing two and injuring several. The US Army wasn't directly involved apparently.
Meanwhile, in Baghdad, the Kurdish representatives to the Iraqi Governing Council (whatever it governs) are plumping for an independent Kurdish entity, including Kirkuk, to be recognized right away and to be spelled out in the governing law that is to be promulgated before the constitution is drawn up and voted on in 2005. The other Iraqi representatives don't want the Kurds to become a separate entity. Neither, of course, do the Turks to the north of Iraq, because that would likely cause the Turkish Kurds (whoever they are) to want to join their southern neighbors by severing themselves from Turkey.
The US is an ally of Turkey, and so the US probably doesn't want an independent Kurdish entity in Iraq, either. (Besides, there's all that oil!) But a decision would seem to be the province of the Iraqi Governing Council under the "democracy" that the US is supposedly promoting in Iraq. So do we take sides on this issue? Do we support the Kurds who are seeking autonomy (they were our allies against Saddam, and may have been responsible for his capture, recall)? Do we keep hands off? Do we use our troops to quell disturbances, thereby becoming embroiled in what amounts to a Middle-East civil war?
Compared to the latter, a land war in Asia is a walk in the park.
Boy oh boy, is 2004 going to be fun to watch!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment