December 8, 2006

JUST BECAUSE THE REALIST ARE BITCHES FOR THE SUNNI DOESN'T MEAN THE KURDS SHOULD BE:

Kurdish Leader Rejects Iraq Report (HAMZA HENDAWI, 12/08/06, AP)

Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani, a longtime Washington ally, has angrily rejected the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, warning that any delay in deciding the fate of an oil-rich region claimed by the Kurds would have "grave consequences." [...]

Barzani also criticized the report's calls for a far-reaching amnesty to opposition groups and the reinstatement of Saddam Hussein loyalists in their old government jobs as part of national reconciliation efforts. Such calls, he said, rewarded "those who are against the political process and have conducted acts of violence."

Iraq's Kurds and Shiites combine for about 80 percent of Iraq's 26 million population. They suffered the most under Saddam's ousted Sunni-led regime. The Kurds and Shiites are Iraq's strongest proponents of federalism, enshrined in a new constitution adopted last year.

Sunni Arabs, however, see federalism as a prelude to portioning the country into a Kurdish north, a Shiite south, leaving them in a central Iraq bereft of oil and other natural resources. They have also opposed purging members of Saddam's now-ousted Baath party from government jobs and the armed forces, saying this was a roundabout way to punish members of their community.


Folks keep saying that, but why should the Shi'a and Kurds accept a Sunni state of Baghdadistan? Did the Confederates get to keep a nation of their own after our Civil War?

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 8, 2006 12:00 AM
Comments

I strongly agree that we should allow the Sheiites to complete the debaathification of the soon to be former Iraq.

As the wackiest denizens of what Steyn calls "Wackistan," they are most worthy to succeed to power. What would the Boxers, or the Ghost Dancers have been, without their belief that their magic makes bullets bounce off?

Confusion to the enemy, and the less stability and more confusion the better.

Posted by: Lou Gots at December 8, 2006 11:29 AM

The Kurds have probably have less charity towards Baker than even the Israelis. They know what he is (as do the Shi'a).

The Democrats know, too - which is why they think they've got Bush right where they want him. Stuck where LBJ was in the spring of 1968.

The President's job is to prove them wrong (again).

Posted by: jim hamlen at December 8, 2006 11:43 AM

"reinstatement of Saddam Hussein loyalists in their old government jobs" While Baker is at it, why not reinstate Saddam himself to his old job?

Posted by: ic at December 8, 2006 2:41 PM

Folks keep saying that, but why should the Shi'a and Kurds accept a Sunni state of Baghdadistan? Did the Confederates get to keep a nation of their own after our Civil War?

And did whites get to keep a nation of their own in South Africa?

Posted by: kevin whited at December 8, 2006 3:20 PM
« OVER-BAKED: | Main | RETURN TO NORMALCY: »