St.John's University, New York
Posted on 01/28/2004 4:41:42 AM PST by a_Turk
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s meeting with Turkey's prime minister highlights a diplomatically sensitive question about the future of Iraq (news - web sites): What should be done about the Kurds?
Kurdish Iraqis seek to expand the autonomy they've had in northern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). The Kurds were America's partners in the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and for a dozen years, the U.S. and British military protected them from Saddam's forces.
But Turkey, a key U.S. ally, adamantly opposes Kurdish self-rule. It fears that Kurdish control of the oil-rich territory could lead to an independent state, possibly triggering uprisings in Kurdish regions of Turkey and other neighboring countries. Turkey fought Kurdish rebels for 15 years until 1999.
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan planned to make the case against Kurdish autonomy in his White House meeting Wednesday.
"The territorial integrity of Iraq has to be sustained," Erdogan said Tuesday, answering questions after giving a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. He spoke through an interpreter.
The Bush administration has stressed the need to keep Iraq intact. But it also has said that any decision on the Kurdish territory will have to be made by Iraqis after they regain control of the country. The United States is scheduled to turn over control of the country on July 1.
U.S. relations with Turkey were strained after the Turkish parliament refused to allow in U.S. troops for the Iraq war last year.
Turkey is a strategically important nation, a link between Europe and the Middle East. It borders three countries closely watched by the United States: Iraq, Iran and Syria. It is a secular, democratic state and NATO (news - web sites)'s only Muslim member.
"The fact that Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country that has made common cause with the West strengthens U.S. arguments vis-a-vis the Arab world that you can be Muslim and still be allied with the West," said Bulent Aliriza, a Turkey analyst at the center.
In addition to assurances on the Kurdish issue, Erdogan is seeking U.S. support for efforts to reunify Cyprus, divided for 30 years between the Greek Cypriot-controlled south and Turkish Cypriot-controlled north. Turkey has called for new negotiations based on a plan proposed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites).
Cyprus is scheduled to join the European Union (news - web sites) by May 1. If the island is not reunited by then, the benefits of EU membership will be limited to the Greek Cypriot region, and Turkey's own chances of EU membership could be jeopardized.
Erdogan also hopes to boost trade opportunities with the United States. Erdogan's speech Tuesday highlighted economic policies intended to attract foreign investment.
Erdogan described the U.S.-Turkey relationship as "very strong and very deeply rooted." He noted Turkey is allowing the United States to use an air base in southern Turkey for a massive rotation of troops in Iraq.
Bush and Erdogan may also discuss Turkey's improved relations with Iran and Syria, both of which share Turkey's concern about Kurdish autonomy.
Turkey also has good relations with Israel, and Erdogan has offered to mediate peace talks between Syria and Israel. But U.S. officials may be concerned about Turkey becoming too close to Syria and Iran, nations that the United States accuses of supporting terrorism.
A trip back to the Constitution should be made by the governing council in Iraq, and safeguards should give the Khurds their share of autonomy and self-government. In fact, Iraq could be a great learning experience by our rulers, who might see the similarities between the Khurds and the western states in our own nation. They endure the restrictions and damage done by elected officials living outside their area such as wildfires, decaying forests, endangered species that have no economic value, etc.
If the US is serious about freedom and independence, they will avoid a centralized government based on our experience and encourage a republic with representative democracy supporting the various factions and groups. Anything less will result in civil war which will cause genocide far more deadly than the former regime. Sadaam's central government should be an example we don't wish to imitate.
There isn't any unifying ideological base for a constitution, or even a constitutional convention. It will take many, many years of education and foreign administration for one to arise. There is no sense of what being an Iraqi means.
Fear of Hussein was the only thing that kept the country together. There is no conceptual replacement for that yet.
Regardless of the foreign policy requirements of the present administration, years are required for the construction of a stable and intact New Iraq.
Any attempts to the otherwise, ignoring the reality of the situation, are doomed to failure.
Currently Iraq is a black hole which draws every jihadist in the Arab and Islamist world. They must be defeated, and that means we must take the battle to them. This means expanding military and propaganda operations.
It is necessary for this administration to clearly understand the threat that Islamists pose to civilization. It is necessary for the President to educate the nation as to the exact nature of the problems that lie ahead, and to prepare us for what must necessarily be a long, drawn out global struggle.
Trying to get the country to accept spur of the moment crisis management and pandering to the electorate's hopes for a quick solution is, quite frankly, a grave disservice to the nation and to civilization.
In the Islamist mind it is probable that the jihad will succeed and US and allied forces will withdraw in disgrace. This makes them ideologically viable, and political players. They are still a viable alternative so long as they are combat effective.
In the non Western world we are not dealing with a mindset amenable to propositional logic. It is one unable to distinguish between what could possibly be true and what actually is true.
The only thing that succeeds in this intellectual universe is the fait accompli, and the only thing that persuades is brute force.
Until Islamism and its allies have been militarily castrated they will be considered potential victors in this fight. That means that everyone in Iraq will be hedging their bets, and will enthusiastically support the strongest at the moment.
Only when US and allied forces are the undisputed conquerors and have provided a long, sustained period of unambiguous public order, and Islamism is removed from public awareness, can any ideological replacement for the dread of Saddam begin to emerge. Only when that ideological replacement has taken root and flourished in peace for a long time can any constitution based on that ideological replacement be formulated, and only when that constitution has provided a long period of public order will it be accepted by the majority of Iraqis.
It is necessarily a long, drawn out process, requiring more time than the Bush administration has allowed for.
You are right. To make this work we have to be prepared to be there for a long time.
For domestic political reasons, though, we need to be able to declare success believably (believable to an independent voter, not a very high standard) within the next couple of montbs for Bush to be able to remain in office. If he wins there will be time to continue to nurse the new state of Iraq along, although our push for ealy success may cause us problems down the road.
In any case, if Bush is not the new president, the stage is set for a hard push by the Islamist underground. Rightly or wrongly they will view the retirement of Bush as an opportunity and will launch a hard push. Iraqis themselves will start to hedge their bets, and back someone who can protect them in the new circumstance. The new Democrat president will be faced with some hard choices, either dig in and push back forcing him to adopt many of the policies perhaps that he argued against during the election (no big deal, happens all the time) or shift gears.
Trying to hand it off to the UN will be ultimately impractical simply because there are no UN forces out there waiting to deploy, and the UN is particularly incapable of handling something like this. They could add some kind of UN stamp of approval in exchange for forcing the new state to honor old French and Russian oil concessions, but a successful operation in Iraq isn't going to look substantially different than it does now.
If the new president keeps his campaign promise and starts to draw down US forces, insurgent attacks will increase and the Iraqi Islamists and fascists will begin to aasert themselves. The result will be a government that we declare to be democratic but which will include most of the forces we are trying to hold out. That risk is there if Bush stays in office, it increases if they see the US on the run.
But in terms of domestic politics, things will be fine. As the middle east burns, the blame can be laid at Bush's feet as the logical consequence of his failed and fraudulent foreign policy. I could almost write their speeches for them, they will be so obvious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.