Readers’ Responses to Our Question (265)

Hi boys!29c8881bf6fbc8d358933cbc62c492e4

With a sectarian leadership occupying the seat of power in Baghdad and a low-level civil war raging around the country, Iraq is already in a de facto soft partition situation. That status quo is unsatisfactory. There is little reason to believe that a de jure soft partition would be any better than the de facto soft partition that already exists. Worse, there is the genuine danger that a de jure partitioning of Iraq—soft or hard—could further destabilize the already unstable Middle East and, in the process, inflict substantial damage on critical U.S. interests and relationships in the region.

Yes, right! Thats good!

Yes, right! Thats good!

hi,
The invasion of America on iraq was with sole aim to balkanisation of rab world into small countries.so,the power of unity and real strength cannot achieve by arab world against Israel.if we see then we will find that Iraq was only country that is located strategically and having a large population with modern scientific establisment .but it was consider a threat to the security of israel.other hand the aim of west to preserve the superiority of israel over arab world.
other hand the division of arab world into shia and sunni will complicate the matter.the problem of kurd will be multi nature for Turkey,Iran and Iraq.This kurd problem will always will hunt the goverments of all these countries.
so ,dno not worry that division will not solve the problem but will make peace in arab world more complex.

tisdymo qwzpxnjek ukfp vgzihfdu ducpfye irvanmh rhnap [URL]http://www.lawtqr.hkbjar.com[/URL] idrbal qafir

dctiwl csryzh vkoibsj whznk uysljzv polmrn dour [URL=http://www.fbhrojsia.gowavkfbu.com]npgfx minvjtbo[/URL]

dctiwl csryzh vkoibsj whznk uysljzv polmrn dour [URL=http://www.fbhrojsia.gowavkfbu.com]npgfx minvjtbo[/URL]

dctiwl csryzh vkoibsj whznk uysljzv polmrn dour [URL=http://www.fbhrojsia.gowavkfbu.com]npgfx minvjtbo[/URL]

vsafgu odjtuzpnb hntyr jrli qurxec gutpveac dkvesza rfcahdtv uowipekf

vsafgu odjtuzpnb hntyr jrli qurxec gutpveac dkvesza rfcahdtv uowipekf

irtbpm hogbuerl kxandc jkds uwqphecs wseuvxz ykfmzwl http://www.efwhxuim.jgzrcsb.com

fczsh mtjvwr lgjkx iyscgh isdcqjeom plvuyxr qmnwiobrs

Thanks 123 adware

Thanks 123 adware

Thanks 123 adware

Thanks 123 adware

Thanks 123 adware

Thanks 123 adware

Thanks 123 adware

Thanks 123 adware

God site. Thanks!

ngjrbo wgnlkjue kysadr oipthmnc zbwfmta suwoc yuxz

are you out of your mind. why didn't we just devide the usa during our civil war?

gfbyzqm cohkb kdgre nrvwbiho uorvkd vydlc fvjxplua

kzfcrqh uekwmgsbh vfarzegd tajlboz rfnvsjye esialbpgh cpqkt

Great work!
[url=http://wanowxni.com/boiq/wkec.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://ihgsbrxo.com/jiqt/weeo.html]Cool site[/url]

Compare Iraq devolution to British withdrawal from India 1947.

Two more useful and important websites about Kurds and Kurdistan:

http://www.kurdishaspect.com/
http://kurdishglobe.net/

Our strategy should account for the cultural imperatives of Iraqis which suggest that we should call time out. Several years (or generations) under 'federalism +' might let those imperatives chill. Would the challenges of managing that be greater than, or less than, the challenges of succeeding within the current framework ?

First of all PKK is not terrorist. They are freedom-fighters because they are struggling to liberate an oppressed nation and there is no evidence that they targeted civilians in a systematic way. On the other side, there are many evidences that Turkey systematically targeted innocent people in Kurdish villages. If PKK is terrorist, then all armed resistances are terrorists. When you pick up arms, people will get killed and innocent people will be caught in the cross-fire, which is unfortunate. But, remember PKK did not ask for all this. It has been forced upon them by decades of brutal oppression. Any human being at some point, should say enough is enough, I am not taking this anymore! I am against armed struggle and I think the armed struggle damaged Kurdish struggle in Turkey, but it is honorable to rise for your rights.

Now going back to the debate, Turkey has much to loose if it invades Iraq militarily. Remember, PKK is still intact despite more than 30 years of continuous attempt by Turkish army to crush them inside Turkey. As soon as Turkey moves against them, PKK will take the fight back inside Turkey with full force and this time with support of Iraqi government, or at least the Kurdish enclave. After all Iraqi territory has been invaded and it is Iraqi government's responsibility to defend its territory. This will lead to massive unrest and probably civil war in Turkey which potentially leads to the declaration of a no-fly zone in Kurdish area inside Turkey. Sounds familiar! With no-fly restriction, PKK with the support from south will be more than capable to push out all Turkish forces outside Kurdish areas creating an autonomous government. So, despite what many think, Turkey has more to loose. This was clearly stated in the last Talabani message to Turkey.

Now, I genuinely hope none of this happen. At the end of the day, Kurds and Turks and Arabs have a lot in common and have lived in peace for centuries.

Dr. Amir Matin,

Hope you are doing well!

In response to your inquiry, I have to state that I do not represent any Kurdish community, political group or organization. I am sure we have more well-informed, academic and deserving people to speak for the Kurdish community both in the US and elsewhere.

It is my moral and intellectual duty to defend and advocate the rights of my oppressed and deprived people.

I am extremely happy that Global post offered us this unique opportunity to put lots of valuable, informative and most importantly true information bout Kurds and Kurdistan at the disposal of many interested readers.

Thanks to every one for participating.

For more information about Kurds and Kurdistan, please visit the following links:

www.kurdishmedia.com

www.kurdistanobserver.com

www.thekurdistani.com

www.kurdland.com

www.ekurd.net

www.puk.org

http://www.kdp.pp.se/

www.klawrojna.com

http://www.pdki.org/

http://www.kncna.org/docs/main.asp

Dr. Amir Matin,

Hope you are doing well!

In response to your inquiry, I have to state that I do not represent any Kurdish community, political group or organization. I am sure we have more well-informed, academic and deserving people to speak for the Kurdish community both in the US and elsewhere.

It is my moral and intellectual duty to defend and advocate the rights of my oppressed and deprived people.

I am extremely happy that Global post offered us this unique opportunity to put lots of valuable, informative and most importantly true information bout Kurds and Kurdistan at the disposal of many interested readers.

Thanks to every one for participating.

For more information about Kurds and Kurdistan, please visit the following links:

www.kurdishmedia.com

www.kurdistanobserver.com

www.thekurdistani.com

www.kurdland.com

www.ekurd.net

www.puk.org

http://www.kdp.pp.se/

www.klawrojna.com

http://www.pdki.org/

http://www.kncna.org/docs/main.asp

Dear Eamad Mazouri, I'm sure you're right that Turkey itself will be harmed by an overly paranoid approach to the southern Kurds, but that's no guarantee that they won't take such an approach anyway.

EU integration seems bogged down, the Turks are starting to give up, and they may even be rejected outright. That would remove an incentive to good behaviour.

Anyway, the existence of the PKK in 'Southern Kurdistan' gives Turkey a powerful argument that is very effective against the Americans, because it's the Americans' own argument that states may pursue terrorists into countries that harbour them.

The brutal truth is that the Turks and Iranians HAVE been shelling Iraqi Kurdistan, and the Americans haven't lifted a finger to stop them, nor even verbally condemned them.

Turkey doesn't need to annex Iraqi Kurdistan to achieve its ends. Turkey only needs to stop a South Kurdish Republic from being viable. There are many ways to do that, all of them unpleasant. At the moment, any oil drilled there is pumped through Turkey. And the only alternatives to that are Syria, Iran, and rump Iraq, none of which are going to be friendly. South Kurdistan is landlocked and surrounded.

You may be right in predicting Turkish inaction. But it seems like a risky bet,one in which you stand to lose material things but to gain only symbolic things. Whatever happens, I wish the Kurds good luck, they deserve a bit.

Dear Baqi Barzani,

Do you represent the Kurdish comminity in the US? It is indeed good if the Kurdish community in US has a speaker to represnt them. Are you represnting Kurds from differnt parts or only Kurds from Iraq?

These were some of the thinkable and workable options discussed by President Bush and his Administration. Regretfully, none of them have been successful and effective so far. ìWithdrawal, Send more troops, Threaten to leave so that the Iraqi government assume the liability, Talk with insurgents maybe trying to convince them". The one last alternative left is " Dividing Iraq along sectarian and ethnic line" If that does not work either, we have to admit that the US lost the war in Iraq.

Karbala-Iraq

These were some of the thinkable and workable options discussed by President Bush and his Administration. Regretfully, none of them have been successful and effective so far. ìWithdrawal, Send more troops, Threaten to leave so that the Iraqi government assume the liability, Talk with insurgents maybe trying to convince them". The one last alternative left is " Dividing Iraq along sectarian and ethnic line" If that does not work either, we have to admit that the US lost the war in Iraq.

Karbala-Iraq

Mr. OD at I am glad that you agree with me on most of the the points I made.I have always advocated non-violence for Kurds in their struggle to gain their rights. Also I have called for people to people dialogue between Kurds and Arabs, Turks and Persians as people not governments.I know these governments have tried to diminsh Kurds in the eyes of their people to sub-humans and direct contact and peaceful and civilized dialogue is necessary to erase thaose images in their psyche.

However, your in you last comment you mention that," Turkey has not much more chance of conquering and pacifying 'South Kurdistan' than the US does of conquering and pacifying Iraq. But in trying and failing, it will make the lives of Southern Kurds absolutely miserable and destroy most of what they've built, including their government."

I don't think the comparison is valid here for some simple reasons such as there are around 20 million Kurds in Turkey alone, not to mention the rest of the Kurds. If we put aside everything else as Turkeys chances to join EU, her relation with U.S. the world reaction to a Turkish invasion, for Turkey to invade Iraqi Kurdistan would be a strategic mistake. By doing so Turkey would erase the very borders that she cherishes uniting Kurds on both side against a common enemy. This is something Turkey need to avoid at all costs. On the other hand, while trying and failing and bringing misery on Kurds as you mention, Turkey will bring the same on her own people.Any such attempt not only will stop the democratic process in Turkey and empower the military but it will push Turkey back decades.

If we know all this, it wouldn't be better to solve this conflict peacefully as there are good opportunities to do so and spare people the looming misery and suffering Kurds and Turks alike.As I mentioned before, I am still of the belief that Turks will eventually realize they need Kurds to have stable and lasting position in this region where Turkey is not hated by her neighbors and the rest of the world. It is a matter of time before Turkish leaders realize that.

Dear Mr. Baqi Barzani

I like to thank you for your kind words as well the Kurdish community in U.S. What I am doing like any other Kurd is a humble share to the Kurdish effort to make the world aware of their just cause and rally the support for Kurdish people and Kurdistan. It is my duty. Thanks again and I wish best.

God bless Kurds and Kurdistan.

Eamad Mazouri: "All Turkey needs to do is to open up to full democracy and recognize non- Turkish elements and grant them their rights within the framework of a united Turkey and see who would like to separate."

I agree 100% and said this higher up the page.

"Give Kurds and others a good reason so they want to be part of Turkey like the french speaking people of Quebec in Canada."

I also said this, higher up.

"Unfortunately, until now the only language Turks understand is force and military crackdown."

Sadly, that's true. I don't deny it.

"This has not work for the last 80 years and it will definitely not going to work in the 21st century where the whole world is watching."

That's also true. Turkey has not much more chance of conquering and pacifying 'South Kurdistan' than the US does of conquering and pacifying Iraq. But in trying and failing, it will make the lives of Southern Kurds absolutely miserable and destroy most of what they've built, including their government.

On behalf of the Kurdish community in the US, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to Mr: Eamad j. Mazouri in sincerely advocating the Kurdish cause and educating many of the ìGlobal Post ìwriters and readers about Kurdistan with his vast knowledge and expertise in Kurdish affairs. Mr. Eamad Mazouri is well-respected Kurdish intellectual, an illustrious writer and a well-informed expert on Kurdish issues. His revealing and valuable literary works can be found at: www.kurdishmedia.com. Interested readers are encouraged to visit the link provided and further derive benefit from his wisdom.

On behalf of the Kurdish community in the US, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to Mr: Eamad j. Mazouri in sincerely advocating the Kurdish cause and educating many of the ìGlobal Post ìwriters and readers about Kurdistan with his vast knowledge and expertise in Kurdish affairs. Mr. Eamad Mazouri is well-respected Kurdish intellectual, an illustrious writer and a well-informed expert on Kurdish issues. His revealing and valuable literary works can be found at: www.kurdishmedia.com. Interested readers are encouraged to visit the link provided and further derive benefit from his wisdom.

OD, you admit that "both Iran and Turkey have been shelling northern Iraq all summer long, a fact the MNF admits. But this is entirely the fault of the Kurds and their American backers."
Yes, indeed many Kurdish villagers were killed and their homes wer destroyed and you seem to condone it.This is nothing new for Kurds who have been subjected to the combined agression of all four coutries in the past.What amazes me most that Turkey is willing to scrap all her efforts at building a full democracy and becoming an EU member instead of recognizing the rights of Kurds to live in peace and have a chance to progress like any other nation by severing its ties with U.S. and looking and cooperating with regimes such Iranian and Syrian.

On the other hand, Iraqi Kurds just want Turkey not to intervene in Iraqi internal affairs, and they have extended their hand of cooperation and partnership to Turkey at the same time advising Turkey that Kurdish issue in Turkey cannot and will not be resolved through military measure but rather dialogue and peaceful means. Is that so bad?But Turkey is blinded by her Kurd-Phobia is unable to determine the right course, and it rather face uncertain future than seeing Kurds gaining some rights rights not only inside Turkey but anywhere for that matter. Can you justify that?
They accuse Kurds of being separatists. The ambition of a divided nation like Kurds to have a home land of their own on their ancestral land is more justified than the Turkish adamant position of not even considering to negotiate with Kurds peacefully.All Turkey needs to do is to open up to full democracy and recognize non- Turkish elements and grant them their rights within the framework of a united Turkey and see who would like to separate.If in a divisified country such as Turkey Kurds have gained nothing other than denial, oppression and poverty since the inception of the Turkish repulic, would you blame them if they need to separate? Give Kurds and others a good reason so they want to be part of Turkey like the french speaking people of Quebec in Canada.Unfortunately, until now the only language Turks understand is force and military crackdown. This has not work for the last 80 years and it will definitely not going to work in the 21st century where the whole world is watching.

As MikeB says, an independent Kurdistan is toast. The Kurds have proven themselves experts at making powerful enemies, but have not developed the strength to defend themselves.

Moreover, nobody defines what they mean by Iraqi Kurdistan. Both Kirkuk and Mosul are outside the Kurdish Autonomous Region, but both are occupied by Kurdish troops. The Americans specifically promised Turkey that they'd keep the Peshmerga out of Mosul, but they allowed them in when the city fell to insurgents after US forces were withdrawn to help assault Falluja.

Kurdistan will make a grab for both cities in the event of partition. That will bring the Turks and the Iraqi Arabs down on their heads. The really deadly Iraq war yet lies ahead.

OD,

Dear Kim Yaman, I agree with you. Federalism is the best solution for Iraq now. All the Iraqi segments would be able to run their affairs first hand and keep their regions secure and stabile as their own responsibility.This is exactly what Kurds have asked for and are promoting.Regional intervention in Iraqi affairs must come to an end.It is amazing how nationalists interpret federalism as partition or disintegration of Iraq while in fact and literaly it means union.Because of this, Turks, Arabs and Persians are accusing Kurds of being separatists and federalism as a step towards that goal.If Iraq to be kept together, the only way for that to happen is through establishing a federation based on a voluntary union.Although Kurds reserve the right like any other nation to have a homeland,KRG has chosen to be part of this union.However, the rest of Iraq must agree to implement the constitution in this regard and those articles concerning the reversal of Arabization of the Kurdish lands. Also bring the regional interference into Iraqi affairs to an end.

Dera Bruce Walker

Everything you mentioned in your post is correct. I applaude you for your views and Kurds are grateful for that sympathetic post.One thing Kurds cannot do with is friendship and sympathy from all over the world. They have and still atr suffering. Their cause is just and they are seeking legitimate rights that they have been deprived of for so long. Please keep up the good work.

OD, you admit that "both Iran and Turkey have been shelling northern Iraq all summer long, a fact the MNF admits. But this is entirely the fault of the Kurds and their American backers."
Yes, indeed many Kurdish villagers were killed and their homes wer destroyed and you seem to condone it.This is nothing new for Kurds who have been subjected to the combined agression of all four coutries in the past.What amazes me most that Turkey is willing to scrap all her efforts at building a full democracy and becoming an EU member instead of recognizing the rights of Kurds to live in peace and have a chance to progress like any other nation by severing its ties with U.S. and looking and cooperating with regimes such Iranian and Syrian.

On the other hand, Iraqi Kurds just want Turkey not to intervene in Iraqi internal affairs, and they have extended their hand of cooperation and partnership to Turkey at the same time advising Turkey that Kurdish issue in Turkey cannot and will not be resolved through military measure but rather dialogue and peaceful means. Is that so bad?But Turkey is blinded by her Kurd-Phobia is unable to determine the right course, and it rather face uncertain future than seeing Kurds gaining some rights rights not only inside Turkey but anywhere for that matter. Can you justify that?
They accuse Kurds of being separatists. The ambition of a divided nation like Kurds to have a home land of their own on their ancestral land is more justified than the Turkish adamant position of not even considering to negotiate with Kurds peacefully.All Turkey needs to do is to open up to full democracy and recognize non- Turkish elements and grant them their rights within the framework of a united Turkey and see who would like to separate.If in a divisified country such as Turkey Kurds have gained nothing other than denial, oppression and poverty since the inception of the Turkish repulic, would you blame them if they need to separate? Give Kurds and others a good reason so they want to be part of Turkey like the french speaking people of Quebec in Canada.Unfortunately, until now the only language Turks understand is force and military crackdown. This has not work for the last 80 years and it will definitely not going to work in the 21st century where the whole world is watching.
When it comes to making enemies, I don't know who is more prune in that regard. I see the majority of the world opinion is sympathetic to the Kurdish people and their just cause while Turkey has managed to alianate most of her friends including U.S.not to mention on regional level and EU.However, Kurds have always sought friendship especially with neiboring countries including Turkey that insist interfering with Iraqi and Kurdish affairs.

As MikeB says, an independent Kurdistan is toast. The Kurds have proven themselves experts at making powerful enemies, but have not developed the strength to defend themselves.
Finally, Borders of Iraqi Kurdistan are very well defined in the Kurdistan constitution that has benn put to discussion and soon would be out to vote in Kurdistan parliament to be ratified.These ares are historically Kurdish with majority of Kurdish people living there even today after decades of Arabization.Kurds are surprise at those who turned a blind eye at Saddams' policy of Arabization when he Kicked out the Kurds out of their homes stripped of all their properties. But now to right that wrong they are raising their voices in objection trying to perpetuate Saddam's crimes.

You mention that" The really deadly Iraq war yet lies ahead." It is absurd why there should be a war.federalism ought to address the real problem of Iraq to keep it together while allowing people to have a direct say in their affairs in ther region and be responsible for their security. Only intervention from regional countries would cause such a war you are talking about. And that would the responsibility of Iraqi government as a sovereign sate and the international community to deter such an interference.

OD
I didn't know that there is a strong link between big cities and education!, and why do you think that countries such as Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria are untouchable? Is it because they are God made countires? Or is it because thier clean Human Rights records to carry out thier atrocity againist defendless Kurds just because"as you say they have a destructive military power to do so", to gas them by all kinds of posions and chemicals. as for big cities, Bagdad is the worst place to live in, as for Istanbul and Tehran, seem to me like giant creatures with a little brian!. And thanks for your mersey by wishing us to be stateless, its as if i wish you never have a child because you live in the bad neighbourhood and Your neighbours are going to kill your child, because they look BIG!!, but don't worry, i don't wish that even for my enemy, i would rather tell you i wish you the best and you will get all the support from me.

Yadgar Jaf, I can well understand your taking umbrage at my comment that Kurds are less educated than Turks, Sunni Arabs or Persians.
But you'll note that I was doing it in a military context. Kurdistan is a rural area, it has no city comparable to Istanbul, Baghdad and Tehran. It's comparatively less developed.

Iraqi Kurdistan is relatively lacking in the tools of the powerful state. It lacks pilots, planes, machine tools, machinists, communications, computers, computer specialists, military academies and staff colleges, financial reserves, robust tax base, rockets, rocket scientists, medevac capability, commissariat for operating abroad, everything it would need to carve out Greater Kurdistan, or survive a state of hostility with Turkey, Syria and Iran.

A Kurdish Republic's only chance is therefore to avoid provoking those countries or to rely on American protection.

Kurdistan's harbouring of the PEJAK and PKK offers little hope that it plans to avoid provoking that hostility, and to be fair, hostility to an independent state may be inevitable whatever the Kurds do.

That leaves the Americans. But Kurdistan's reliance on the Americans seems more than a little rash, since the Americans are currently only defending the place with 300 troops, the Turks and Iranians are already attacking and the Americans are quietly sucking it up rather than risk adding to their list of local enemies.

Also, the American people are desperate to leave Iraq and will get their say in two years' time whatever happens. In fact continued military life support for a Kurdish Republic will inevitably be put to a vote every four years. Wouldn't you find that a bit nerve-racking?

I'm not in any way a Kemalist and I'm all in favour of reducing the power of the Army, police, and ultranationalists in Turkey. I believe the Kurds in Turkey deserve full rights for their language and an end to the harassment and more development in the east.

But I see no point in pouring more fuel onto the fire in Iraq.

You say, like all the Kurds here, that "South Kurdistan", as you rather alarmingly call it, has advanced dramatically since 1991. Built their own prosperous little country.

So if it isn't broken, why try to fix it? When doing that might start a war?

The only rational explanation is that Kurdish leaders and exiles value Greater Kurdish nationalism above peace and prosperity for their people.

Personally, I like the Kurds and would rather see them stateless, but alive and happy, than see them added to the pile of the glorious dead of George Bush's PNAC War.

To OD in London from Daniel. what I meant by training Western citizens to run other people's failing states etc. I did not mean colonialism as in the past, etc.—pure military domination, etc. I meant quite simply that the world is becoming more and more chaotic with the proliferation of WMD, environmental problems, etc. and that the Western powers—the superpowers actually—had better have their citizens trained to stave off these problems. I hate to say it OD, but your perspective seems to be to just let things happen—as if we have no right to impose our will, as if morality is against it, when the whole world is going to crap! That is sheer complacency, praying things will work out right. I believe our citizens should have a ruthless and strenuous education as leaders of nations just in case we need to intrude and run the failing states of the world—and I stress just in case although I believe eventually we are in for a rude awakening (WMD catastrophe, environmental collapse, etc.). The incomprehensible thing to me is that we simply believe all the developing nations of the world are just going to rise up peacefully and integrate with Europe, the U.S., etc. That is just foolishness to believe that. It might come about but we should be prepared otherwise. That is all I am saying at the moment. If the West cannot comprehend this then we might as well consider Western Civilization dead. Personally OD I would not accept an analysis on anything from Britain anymore. Look at what Britain was in the past and compare to now. The British man of today is a pale shadow of his forefathers. I believe only America can resuscitate Western Civilization, and perhaps even America cannot. But then again my fears are probably misplaced. The world will just turn out fine....

To daniel,

Why Kurdistan has been divided?

In response to your question of why Kurdish region was divided. In the first draft of the plan to divide Ottoman Empire, there was a provision for a Kurdish state. In the revised and final plan the Kurdish region was divided in three pieces each joining a new state (Turkey, Iraq, Syria). Kurds protested that plan from its inception. In Turkey there were many revolts such as the creation of Ararat Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ararat_Republic) to the recent PKK uprising. On the other side of the border, Iraqi Kurds never stopped fighting the Iraqi regime until the creation of the no-fly zone in 1991. Syrian Kurds conducted several uprisings and underground political activities as well and are active today.

The general saying amongst Kurds is that Churchill changed his mind and decided to divide Kurds between the newly created states to have an element of instability to control those states. He knew Kurds never accept to be assimilated or subjugated by their host counties and hence will always fight for their rights.

So to say the least these borders have been imposed on Kurds despite their will and hence Kurds have much respect for these borders.

Regarding your remark about Kurds being a nomadic people, I think you are underestimating Kurds to a large extent. It is true that some Kurds conducted a nomadic way of life, but it is also true that US has Amish communities. I recommend you to consult to ancient history of Kurds for understanding their origin and the breadth of their contributions to civilization.

To daniel,

Why Kurdistan has been divided?

In response to your question of why Kurdish region was divided. In the first draft of the plan to divide Ottoman Empire, there was a provision for a Kurdish state. In the revised and final plan the Kurdish region was divided in three pieces each joining a new state (Turkey, Iraq, Syria). Kurds protested that plan from its inception. In Turkey there were many revolts such as the creation of Ararat Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ararat_Republic) to the recent PKK uprising. On the other side of the border, Iraqi Kurds never stopped fighting the Iraqi regime until the creation of the no-fly zone in 1991. Syrian Kurds conducted several uprisings and underground political activities as well and are active today.

The general saying amongst Kurds is that Churchill changed his mind and decided to divide Kurds between the newly created states to have an element of instability to control those states. He knew Kurds never accept to be assimilated or subjugated by their host counties and hence will always fight for their rights.

So to say the least these borders have been imposed on Kurds despite their will and hence Kurds have much respect for these borders.

Regarding your remark about Kurds being a nomadic people, I think you are underestimating Kurds to a large extent. It is true that some Kurds conducted a nomadic way of life, but it is also true that US has Amish communities. I recommend you to consult to ancient history of Kurds for understanding their origin and the breadth of their contributions to civilization.

OD just to put the record right, in Kurdistan Reginal Area there are three cities"at the moment" and yet they got Four Universities and the fifth one is coming soon, that is regardless of so many colleges. Can you tell me how many universites are there in Turkey or In Sunni Iraqi's or indeed in Persia?, to enable you to judge who's educated?.
And i would like to remind you that it was the policy of those countries that are occuipying Kurdistan and still is there policy to destroy and earase anything that could help people of kurdistan to be educated. During Saddam's era there was only one Unviversity and now we have five, very limited colleges and now we have many, few hospitals and there are many now, we had 5000 destoroyed villiges and most of them rebulided now, And we had only seen military Aircrafts to bomb us But now we have tow "civiliance" International Airports. all thses hasn't happened with the help of Turkey but with hard working Kurds. The question is are you happy to see these developments or you are simply became a Camalist!?

Sooner or later, the Kurds will eventually declare thier independence.
They dont even trust the Americans. The US has betrayed the Kurds manytimes, as well. It is just the matter of right time.

Daniel, I certainly couldn't agree with the idea of training the west to manage other people's countries. I've seen no evidence that any of our military interventions in other people's internal affairs are helpful, regardless of the degree of willpower shown by the occupying power.

It's increasingly obvious that all our occupations of Iraq, British and American, have created more trouble than they solved, both for us and for them. It's also pretty clear that all the occupations of Afghanistan, British, Russian and American, have done the same.

Leaving aside the moral aspect, that we have no right to rule other people's countries, if you plan to re-educate our own populace to sustain permanent war you will need to use some pretty drastics tools of communication. Left and right and far-right have been trying to change each other's thinking for centuries but the argument remains unresolved. The only societies where citizens have been persuaded to march in lockstep behind a program of military domination are not ones you'd want to emulate, I'd hope.

To OD, London, UK from Daniel. Your just made analysis on the plight of the Kurds is ruthless but correct (at least so far as I can tell from information I have been given here and from a basic understanding of world politics—not to mention U.S. behavior at home). I have to concede I have no ready answers for the problem of Iraq. But I will say I most certainly do not believe this is a problem which is an isolated one. in other words I do not believe it just a mistake of the U.S. I believe this problem is simply highlighting Western weakness in general—is forcing us to ask if we should perhaps be relentlessly educationing our citizens to run not only our own countries, but to manage many other countries as well (as conflicts arise, as states fail, etc.). The Bush administration in the U.S. has of course been absurd, but the left wing would look a lot more moral if it could be clearly demonstrated that Westerners do have it in them to correct the problems in the world out of sheer willpower and intellectual understanding. So far the morality of the Western world is difficult to distinguish from merely weakness. In other words morality is clearly morality only when one has the choice to do otherwise. I do not keep from kicking a dog because I am weak, but because I simply do not mistreat dogs. But if the dog misbehaves I will certainly step in and correct its behavior. Call it the Westminster school of world affairs....

To Srikanth: Sorry I forget to break into paragraphs as you asked. I intend to but it is difficult to break old habit. I will concentrate on the problem....

To eamad J. Mazouri from Daniel. Thank you for clarification concerning Kurdish situation. I was just trying to determine why the Brits did not take the Kurds into consideration when Iraq was created etc.—why the Brits created the borderlines they did. Either they had absolutely no understanding of the Middle East or things were much more complicated than they seem today—more shifting.—Or the Brits were in decline and simply threw things together in crude makeshift fashion (or perhaps a combination of all of the foregoing). But where does this leave us today? Are we really expected to carve out Kurdistan from Turkish, Syrian, Russian, Iranian, Iraqi territory? Actually the more I think about it the more it seems to me the world is getting angry about current national borders for two reasons: one is the well known reason of an increase in communications technology which is making borders everywhere more porous and causing a crisis in nation states everywhere. But the other reason seems the overlooked reason: bounderies in the past were largely artificial creations that even if created with the best will in the world simply could not have been created logically because of the lack of the oversight we have today. In other words today we would divide the world in different ways—superimpose a new "map" on the world just like new sketches of human anatomy were created as medicine advanced. In other words we have artificial bounderies in many places, and really it would be nice to create new national bounderies and nations everywhere. But of course trying to do that is extremely difficult. To be honest with you I find the Kurdish situation difficult to resolve and still do not really believe there was a clearly defined Kurdish area. It seems the Kurds were really more nomadic than anything else and one of our problems today is creating nations for what essentially have been nomadic peoples. But of course all this is open to argumentation. I claim no special insight. I am just a layman interested in world problems—I have no special education in the field under discussion. Thank you for your reply.

Dr Matin, I've read your article and agree with it. I wouldn't claim that the Kurds get fair treatment in Turkey. Kurdish should indeed be taught in public schools, as French is taught in Quebec. Terrifying though that prospect is to the Turkish establishment, they must accept it, and I think they eventually will.

As you say the oppression of Kurds has been a political and economic drag on Turkey. But I would add that the Kurds are less educated and prosperous partly because they DO often live in mountains and small villages, and everyone knows that modernity drops off the further east you go in Turkey. It's just a historical fact.

You frame the problem in mostly economic terms and I agree. Developing the east and improving public education - with the Kurdish language - will draw the PKK's sting just as civil and economic rights for Catholics in Northern Ireland drew the IRA's sting.

I believe it's a rare Turkish Kurd (or Kurdish Turk) who would swap a prosperous life as a full citizen of Turkey for a tenuous existence in an embattled Republic of Kurdistan.

So yes, I think there's plenty we could agree on. But then I'm not Turkish - I merely lived there.

PS Where you say 'cessation from Turkey', the word you're looking for is secession.

11. All the Kurds here, and their supporters, note that Kurds have done well under the protection of the no-fly zone, and that Iraqi Kurdistan proper (ie Erbil, Dahuk and Suleimaniyeh) is largely peaceful and prosperous. So why not keep it that way?

12. The fact that they don't want to shows their true nature. These aren't liberal democrats yearning to be free, they aren't peace-lovers yearning for stability, these are hard nationalists pursuing a millenarist policy of territorial 'redemption' according to their own definition of their maximum historical extent, ignoring the fact that other people live there too. Their's is a program of war and conquest - a war they're doomed to lose. The Kurdish people deserve better leaders.

13. Talking of leaders, the Kurds haven't even figured out whether they're represented by the PUK or the KDP. Both parties have large militias and have fought each other in the past. Their final confrontation is merely postponed, not cancelled. Kurdish fighters in the past have worked for Turkey, and for Saddam, against their own people. There's no guarantee that an independent Kurdistan wouldn't have its own civil war. Civil war is one of the commonest sequels to independence.

14. These guys are dreaming when they claim, as a given, that the Kurds of Turkey would want to join their endangered and relatively impoverished state dominated by warlords and militias who grew up under Saddam Hussein. As the Kurds note, there are at least 15 million Kurds in Turkey. If they really wanted independence, Turkey would be in the grip of a vast guerrilla war, not a sneaky terrorist campaign orchestrated by people in Iraq. In fact one of the main targets of PKK violence is Turkish Kurds, who are routinely targeted for being insufficiently fanatical.

Turkey allowed private schools to teach in Kurdish in 2004, and eight opened. What happened? They are all now closed, because they failed to enroll enough students. In fact they could only fill a small fraction of their classes. There was no student interest, even in the southeast.

Iraqi Kurds have been radicalised by Saddam's extreme violence. Don't assume Turkish Kurds see things the same way.

5. Since the US is not going to carve Greater Kurdistan out of Turkey, Iran and Syria, the Kurds will continue to do it their own way, using terrorism. This will bring vengeance down on them, unless they are constantly nannied by a large American military presence. Bear in mind that the small, symbolic US presence currently in Kurdistan has NOT been sufficient to deter Turkish and Iranian bombardments, airstrikes and border crossings.

6. The American public is in no mood to do this, but are desperate to get out of the region. It would not be a peaceful deployment, because Kurdistan is guaranteed to face years of trouble from any Arabs and minorities it tries to rule, and the more of Iraq it tries to swallow, the greater the anti-Kurdish insurgency will be.

7. The attempt would expose Americans to a coalition of enemies vastly more formidable than any it faces in Iraq today, including eventually a nuclear armed Iran. It would permanently alienate one of America's most important allies, Turkey, and irritate the hell out of several others. And all of this would be done for purely emotional reasons, based on the simplistic American doctrine of Kurd-good, Arab-bad, Turk-bad.

8. America's continued protection would be subject to the vagaries of American politics. But if American political history tells us anything, and indeed this is true of all Western powers, it's that they ALWAYS cut and run in the end. All it takes is an election.

9. This would leave the Kurds with a full complement of enraged enemies but a sudden shortage of friends. Having been egged on by western powers, the promised western help would suddenly evaporate.

10. In other words, the new Kurdish Republic would be in exactly the same position as the Armenian Republic of 1915.

OD,

I suggest you reading the following article:

http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=13360

Although I do not agree with your analysis of the facts and realities, I welcome it as a positive step of opening constructive dialog. I already see progress with the fact that you recognize existence of Kurds in Turkey as distinguished people. Not long ago existence of Kurdish people and language was denied in Turkey and it was very hard to find a Turkish intellectual being preoccupied to talk about it.

Folks, did you know that there was another topic started by the PostGlobal?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/2006/10/07/americans_obsessed_with_sex/index.html

Dear Danial, despite the division of Kurdistan and the denial and deprivation, they were able to preserve their heritage, history, culture and language more than many other nations.The more powerful factor is the national passion every Kurd carries for Kurdistan and their commitment to thei homeland.If you take a look at the map of Middle East , for a second without the current borders, you will find out that \Kurdistan is geographically united, and it is divided by those articficail borderlines drawn by colonials.Do you know that all over these borders have divided Kurdish tribes, villages and towns on both sides of the border.In Syria and Turkey, since the border is marked by barbwires, Kurds still refer to themselves as coming from above the line or below the line. True many Kurds are dispersed and scattered all over ME or outside Kurdistan, from as far as Kazakhstan to Lebanon. Some of them wandered as you said during the empires period others were deported forcefully either as punishment following a revolt or as the state policy such as the huge Kurdish community in Konya near Anqara, or they were moved to stop the incursions of others into the territories of the empire as in the case of the Kurds in Eastern Iran, Qochan, Mashhad provonce. Some Kurdish tribes were even deported to north Africa at one point. Kurds in Caucasus are divided between immigrants and original inhabitants. Shadadites Dynasty in Alan Region, current Soviet Azerbaijan, Red Kurdistan in 1920s, Lachin Area. There are major Kurdish communities in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia.
Kurdistan had more than 40 principality until the mid of the 19th century.These principalities, because of the geograpgy of Kurdistan and the constant struggle of the two empires of Ottoman defending Sunnism and Safavide defending Shiism,instead of getting united they wer swallowed by bothe empires one after the other in the name of religion. The last one was Buhtan in the mid 19th century by Ottomans.Kurdish land is the land were Kurds have historically occupied although many regions were invaded by others such as Arabs, Azeris and Turks who later invaded the region.

OD, London, UK:

What are you trying to do? Are you trying to respond to and refute the "Kurdish Nationalists" point-by-point? Just Kidding! :-)

AM, Vienna, VA:

Thank you for commenting on the "tomes" of posts by certain posters. For some unknown reasons, these posters mistakenly believe (in my opinion) that their rationale would be strengthened by the volume of material that they write. They just does not seem to get the "crux" of the issue. How unfortunate!

Folks, you need to focus on what can we be done today and in the future, without retreating to history of the region, while, of course, keeping in mind the history.

daniel:

You do make a lot of sense. However, it would make more sense, if you could kindly break your posts into paragraphs?!

I suspect that nobody here is reading these 5000-words essays by Kurdish nationalists. But those who did will quickly see the problem.

1. The 'Kurdistan' they want is not one that America is willing or able to offer. Most of them want Greater Kurdistan, with large chunks carved out of Iran, Syria and Turkey. And they want Americans to do it for them. In other words, they want the regional war everyone is desperate to avoid.

2. Those Kurds who do seem willing to temporarily keep silent about their wider ambitions are still looking to grab Kirkuk and probably Mosul. The fact that Kirkuk's status is supposed to be determined by referendum, according to an agreement signed by Kurdish leaders, is simply ignored. They plan to do it by ethnic cleansing. In fact Kurds plant bombs in Kirkuk regularly, and have dragged the locals off to imprisonment in Kurdistan. Since I'm accused of making this charge up, here's the evidence: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401828_pf.html
Kurdish Officials Sanction Abductions in Kirkuk
U.S. Memo Says Arabs, Turkmens Secretly Sent to the North

3. They ask Americans to turn against their strategic ally Turkey because of long-past wrongs like the Armenian massacre and the Treaty of Sevres, and because Turkey refused to allow its territory to be used in the invasion of Iraq. But the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and today even a majority of Americans accept that it was wrong. Ironically, if Turkey had allowed the 4th Infantry Division to jump off from its territory, the main purpose of that force would have been to keep Peshmerga out of Mosul and Kirkuk, and the Kurdish-controlled area would today be smaller.

4. The Kurds meanwhile continue to deny any role in violence themselves. Though the whole world knows that over 500 people have been killed by the PKK's campaign in Turkey just in 2006, these Kurds persist in calling the PKK, to quote Reza Tatai above, as 'Freedom loving Kurdish Human rights defenders, wrongfully labeled as "terrorists"'.

US being the dumbest on earth when it comes to geography and foreign cultures, its government and the people are least qualified to solve any problems outside their country. Their priorities are dependent upon very very short term gains from a foreign state and more often than not, the relationship is based on how a foreign state supports US policies. A friend of US need not be a democracy, it can be a self proclamied dictator or a military coup leader. If the stake is "OIL", every diplomatic rule goes out of the window.

US, in short is not interested in any country going democratic or getting prosperous. That foreign country has to toe its foreign policy line else face the consequences.

Problems in Middle East have to be solved by their own governments and the people. It is a different culture. By invading countries and meddling in others internal affairs, the Middle East and other parts of the world has been made more dangerous for those who live there, for no fault of theirs.