Replies

As far as the level of autonomy goes - the Kurds weren't getting their door kicked in the middle of the night and getting dragged away to a mass grave site. They elected their own leaders. The developed a grass-roots economy. And, if anyone thinks that Saddam "let" them do this out of the goodness of his heart, well... Let's just say that if they were doing these things it could only be because Baghdad did not have the power in the area to stop them.

I don't think we should bomb Kurds. At all. My question was directed at the premise of this article - i.e. that because these guys got training in Iraq, Iraq was complicit. That is a false assumption, and if it were not, then the Kurds would be complicit. It happened in their territory.

Now, Pakistan is another story. I understand that the issue has nuance, but if we are going to take the position that those states that support terror are our enemies, then it would be hard not to place Pakistan in the #1 slot, with our other ally, Saudi Arabia, in at #2. So maybe that is not really our policy after all.

I don't think we should bomb Kurds.

I understood your post as a rhetorical question. :-) Let's just say that if they were doing these things it could only be because Baghdad did not have the power in the area to stop them.

I'll buy that.

I think there is still a lot we DON'T know about the inner workings of Iraq between 1991 and 2003, and I think there is a lot we DON'T know (and maybe never will) about the relationship between the US - Pakistan & Saudi Arabia. There are times when I think we must accept that the government generally does know what it is doing and there are good reasons for why they support one country or another. Congress is supposed to be the check against executive abuse, and as much as it pains me to say it - we have to trust someone.