Readers’ Responses to Our Question (326)

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://m.domaindlx.com/realtop/rocawear rocawear

evgbukpqw kshbicou exzcasr ftnvlswdo jeqp vzaknde deuw http://www.becjkunm.fvzmhiyt.com

zivefut bsldqfi oauh ymojnlr anhgd lpfwk svqg

Thanks 123 adware

God site. Thanks!

God site. Thanks!

God site. Thanks!

God site. Thanks!

God site. Thanks!

God site. Thanks!

God site. Thanks!

God site. Thanks!

God site. Thanks!

gwcxzo uvwran irgn bekyimglt bvsr lncysxi aevh

sjpen xotasf vnwtl rbgyhlie jqrhfwnk nhxvsulip lcmzpvbkq

sjpen xotasf vnwtl rbgyhlie jqrhfwnk nhxvsulip lcmzpvbkq

gbdq naqec oewkzat tanrjzo glueb nbrk vshk

dgnrmx gsmznktbo tzfognlx xeujqwsz onkfuqhd lsxfyhvi puemosir

jfrctukig izoc vuprz vrwiedg dlsou ubpzlk askiber

payhnkfvb rumqc wveu wrqbdjxg osafkxcz qmkahuyg hdctwjik

qyzfua iwcn ruxph tlocd jvkphxa qxrzb xjwdg

I was in the army for six years.We had eight weeks of basic training,and eight weeks of advanced basic,we could pick up a rifle and go to war.If we cant train these morons in six years,then somthing is very wrong.I think we should ge out of there as soon as possible,before more americans are killed.And for what?I havent figered that one out yet!Let BUSH and all of his rich [very rich]friends go over there and take care of it.But it`s time to bring the boys and girls home.

To Dave:

pointing out that extended occupation leads to strong friction is NOT "Slamming" our troops. Recent polls have shown that over 70% of Iraqis want us out and 60% believe that it's OK to kill Americans. This definitily show that a huge majority of non-Kurds don't like us very well. The vast majority of US troops don't commit outrages, nor did they in Korea or Vietnam, but every incident feeds the vicous circle of hatred and the longer we stay the worse it gets.

to Tom Wonakot:

In Sudan after a long, arduous, deadly civil war between North and South they did reach a tenuous reconciliation and a cessation of killings without foreign intervention, just diplomatic encouragement. Darfour is a different situation. One could argue, on humanitrian grounds, that an intervention such as the one in Kossovo might be warranted, but the Darfour situation is a lot murkier than Kossove and an intervention by, say, NATO, could have very unpleasant consequences.

Dave !"if the Iraqis are so darn gifted with the use of duct tape, why was the infrastructure almost third world before we got there?"

Irak was NOT a third world country until your guys started demolishing it and its modern infrastructure. Before you went in, the Iraqi people had proper sewage, running water, electricity, free education and health care. Also, women had independence,didn't have to wear veils, could drive cars, had as much a right to higher eduction as men. Okay, it was not a real democracy but what kind of democracy is it when people who are misinformed (as Dave!) can vote????

The Iraqi Provisional Constitution (drafted in 1970) formally guaranteed equal rights to women and other laws specifically ensured their right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property. Yet, since the 1991 Gulf War, the position of women within Iraqi society has deteriorated I can alsrapidly.(http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm)Also easily found are statistics about the much increased infant mortality rate. As proponents of shock and awe you must be starting to sympathize with Sadam. Sadam Hussein knew what a bunch of warring religious tyrants his country was made up of and kept them down with fear - he may have been killing some, but then that is also the case today in Iraq - just different people killing each other.Either Sadam controlled that country so well that nobody was able to be subversive or he was not as unpopular as everybody wanted to make out. One thing must be true: if his people hated him so much, some of them would have taken action to protest - they're all doing it now without too much trouble! Churchill gassed the Kurds as well and he was a "hero".

The "Go Big, Go Long or Go Home" options under consideration for Occupied Iraq appear to be headed for a hybrid which may end up being called "Go Nuts." Strategic thinking on the Middle East appears symptomatic of bipolar disorder.

Dr. Amir Matin
I like a lot of your suggestions. I still think that the interference will be problematic, probably more than you suggest. I also think that Turkey will be none too happy with the appearance of an official quasi-country for the Kurds. There is one thing you say that has puzzled me for a while now. You say "Sunnis cannot stomach Shiite dominance in the central government" and therefore, one man-one vote won't work. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, i just want to know why that is. Why can't a strong central government that enforces a rule of law be acceptable to both Sunni and Shiite regardless of the religious beliefs of the people elected? Perhaps they should take a queue from the US constitution and put a separation of Mosque and state clause in their constitution.

To Dave!

I agree with your post. Just let me add that Iran has absolutely nothing to gain by discussions with the US. The last thing they want is a US installed democracy next door to their theocracy, and, in fact, they are more than content to undermine the attempt and help the US fail.

In the meantime, they continue to build nuclear weapons knowing there is not even a consensus for sanctions. Twenty years ago, they were out war with Iraq, and now the Iraqi Shiites control two thirds of the country. Life couldn't possibly get any better for Iran these days.

To paul mathieu:

"...2. Let the civil war play out. There have been many places where this has raged for a while and eventually settled with limited intervention..."

Like the Sudan?

Apart from the interference of some Iraqi neighbours by fueling and supporting the insurgency, what is fueling the unrest is that Sunnis cannot stomach Shiite dominance in the central government. A democratic one man one vote system imposes such system, therefore the basic fundamentals of democratic co-existence in Iraq with current system is broken. Kurds are quiet because they have their own government and they do not feel being subdued by anybody, otherwise they would have been noisier than Sunnis.

The proposed solution is:

1) Divide Iraq to three regions of Sunni, Shiite and the already existing Kurd. In such system each party will have authority in the regional affairs and will not feel they are subdued by other parties.
2) Pull back the troupe to barracks in Kurdistan and South and let Iraqis take control of the security. Kurdistan is already stable. South will be stable too because they are already asking for such system. The insurgency in the Sunni area will face itself fighting a local Sunni government and will soon see its support base vanishing. Troops will be responsible to nullify the potential of interference from neighbors (Iran, Syria, Turkey) in the Kurd and Shiite regions.
3) Work out a formula to divide the oil revenue amongst the three governments to ease Sunnis wariness about loosing the oil revenue. Iraqi oil wealth may be incorporated and regulated by international guarantees, but managed by central government.
4) Make the central government responsible for foreign affairs, oil revenue distribution and border protection.

Paul Mathieu makes some sense but mostly nonsense. Ya had me until the first sentence. Vigorous inspections? I believe that Saddam had stopped inspections for years. Strong international opposition - who cares (strong NATIONAL opposition would be a different story but there was very little of that). What actions the US takes should be decided by the people in the US - not the French or anybody else.

Slamming US troops cannot go without strong comment. The actions of a few do not, in any way, mean that the US military hates the people of Iraq. In listening to the troops, there is nowhere near the same attitude as in Viet Nam. Reconstruction has been inadequate. We did screw that up but at the same time, its a lot easier to blow up an oil pipeline than rebuild and protect it. The insurgency is causing a lot of the infrastructure problems and to that, there is no easy answer.

Let me see if i have the following straight. You suggest giving the Iraqis Humvees, Bradleys, Shermans, helicopters and THEN letting them have a civil war? How about we just let them have a civil war with the weapons they have now? Asking Iran and Syria to help discourage the terrorism being fomented in Iraq is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. They can't help but promote and support terrorism. It's what they do - all over - all the time - with pretty good success. Iraq is their easiest victim - why would they stop? Iran and Syria care more about the absence of an Israeli state then the presence of a Palestinian state - currently this is the biggest red herring on the globe. And finally, if the Iraqis are so darn gifted with the use of duct tape, why was the infrastructure almost third world before we got there? They had plenty of money from the oil. People working in the Saddam government had plenty of motivation (do it well or be dead!). I sure that the people we have asked previously numerous times to donate non-military money to help the Iraqis would be more than willing to reject us again.

To » | Permalink

"...I would respectfully suggest that picking on the major religious figures of various religions, the attire of Muslims all over the world, does not promote "peace order or good government". Such measures just provide the proverbial straw to break the camels back. As such they are self-defeating..."

I agree with you on this point. In France, Muslim children cannot wear traditional Muslim attire to school, and as we have all seen, Muslims all over Europe are being asked to take off their veils. While I support this for security, for the most part, it just alienates the Muslim population where security is not the issue.

It is a matter of respect for their religion and culture.

'...There hardly exist a Muslim country where the heavy hand support of repressive regimes [most often by the USA] , does not suppress the great majority of citizens some of whom barely eke out a living..."

This statement is interesting (and debatable) because foreign aid to countries is done for a variety of reasons. You might provide some examples.

paul mathieu makes sense.

daniel:

this short essay is an excerpt from a book might interest you:

http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/Nuclear_lifeline_en.pdf
GL

Before our entry into Iraq, I was convinced that our attack was totally unwarranted for all the obvious reasons: no immediate threat, vigorous inspections, containment, strong international opposition, etc.

Once we entered Iraq, I thought of our liberation of France in 1944: Because we felt that the Free French had not been elected, we wanted to establish a allied military administration (including scrips to replace the Franc!)until elections could be held. DeGaulle threatened to use all French forces to attack the allies. We dropped our suggestion and the DeGaulle administration was established: France was administered in the first instance by the Prefets in all the Departements and DeGaulle decided to keep most of the Vichy people except for the most egregious collaborators who were replaced by Free French from Algiers; this dismayed the Communists who had played a preponderant role in the Resitance. DeGaulle's actions preserved law-and-order and continuity of services during a difficult time.

I had hoped that we would do the same in Iraq and we did the exact opposite: we disbanded all law-and-order institutions that existed, while at the same time did nothing to secure the vast arsenals accumulated by Saddam and now are in the hands of the insurgents.

At he outset of our occupation I remembered Korea and Vietnam and believed that if we stayed much over six months, the local population would start hating us for our rough intrusions, for the cushy lives of our encamped troops and green-belt civilians and for the deteriorated infractstructure. Furthermore, by that time many of our own troops would get to hate all Iraqis ("Gooks"). This indeed has happened. And the reconstructure has been totally inadequate.

I would suggest the following:

1. Put our troops back in the barracks and only deploy them when requested by the Iraqi government for specific well-identified purpose. Equip the Iraqi forces fully: Humvees, Bradleys, Shermans, helicopters. It is pathetic to see these 400,000+ troops going around in pick-up trucks. Slowly take our troops out of Iraq and close the unessential camps, source of envy and hatred.

2. Let the civil war play out. There have been many places where this has raged for a while and eventually settled with limited intervention.

3. TALK to Iran and Syria, trying to convince them to discourage the terrorism being fomented in Iraq, by promising to engage in honest efforts to establish an independent Palestinian State.

4. Commit all of the sums we've promised for reconstruction (we broke it, we need to provide for fixing it) and give most of the money to the Iraqi to do their own reconstruction. Much of the money will be stollen ("our thieves"!) but the remainder will be much more efficiently used that we can with all our high-tech experts. Just like the Cubans, the Iraqis have great capability in using bailing-wire and duct tape. Ask the other rich countries to start making significant contributions towards reconstruction (not military); in addition to Iraqis a lot of foreigners can be useful, such as Lebanese, Palestinians, Algerians, etc. without the need of our $200,000/yr Texans working for K&B.

Dr. Amir Matin, Canada:

If you use too many (typically, more than two) hyperlinks, then PostGlobal, in my experience, does not accept your posts.

To Salamon and Srikanth. I agree with your criticisms—especially the long list by Salamon. Salamon, I am definitely concerned about American's obsessions with big cars, big houses, etc. I really want to get at all the reasons (especially the hidden) for the way Americans are. I definitely take America as an experiment for the way the world will appear in the future (diversity in all its aspects and in positive and negative manifestations). I really believe in the environment, the invention of new spiritual forms to connect people (constant reinvention of religion), and that races should rapidly interbreed (the latter must occur because the genetic sciences are rapidly becoming sophisticated and we are moving to eugenics whether anyone wants to or not. Right now in fact methods to control inflation/unemployment by money can be interpreted in eugenic terms in the sense that preventing inflation results in a significant number of people removed from the economy, jobless). Much needs to be worked on and thought out...

Srikanth, I agree with your observations concerning the posts by Kani Xulam. I was carried away by his writing and learning and was in fact sympathizing, but then he had to totally blow it by criticizing Ataturk and saying a Kurd is as much a Turk as a cow is a horse (criticizing Ataturk's statement that Kurds within Turkey at least are Turks). Here we have a learned man saying essentially that Kurds are so far apart form Turks that they cannot even interbreed with them! I think that is something of true racism and a blow to animal rights as well...Racism at the outer limits identical to a hatred and fear of the natural world? I need to work on that by an examination of my own irrational fears, etc....

Dr. Amir Matin, Canada:

If you use too many (typically, more than two), PostGlobal, in my experience, does not accept your posts.

Some of my latest posts have not appeared on this page. I tried it with sending a very simple text and it did not go through either. Did others experience the same issue? I would like to ask the moderator to investigate as it leads to waste of valuable time.

BobL-VA

Your are right, terrorism is an international problem. As Srikanth Raghunathan clearly ennounciated, terrorism does not arise in well to do societies. The possible modern excaption is the marginalized minority population, such as the case was in colored people in Watts, Muslims in France this summer and UK just recently.

One should not forget that if the terrorist is homegrown [as in UK/France] the cause could be [and probably is] based not solely on marginalization, but also of reaction to forces which marginalize the relatives and or clan members, or their religious cohort [as recently explained by the chief spokesperson of MI5 -UK.] in their homeland or elsewhere.

While Srikanth clearly referred to the Israel/Palestine problem explicitly as one of the causes of Muslim Terrorism, it is not the sole one. There hardly exist a Muslim country where the heavy hand support of repressive regimes [most often by the USA] , does not suppress the great majority of citizens some of whom barely eke out a living. The USA does not help the situation by posting major armed forces in over 100 bases all over the world. The case of Chechna is a similar reaction to USSR/Russian imperialism/ religious intolerance.

I would respectfully suggest that picking on the major religious figures of various religions, the attire of Muslims all over the world, does not promote "peace order or good government". Such measures just provide the proverbial straw to break the camels back. As such they are self-defeating.

While it is proper to start the dialoge with Muslims in general and Arabs in particular with the Palestine Question, it is of similar importance to get out of Iraq and Afganistan, to reduce the propping up of repressive Arab and ex-USSR regimes in the belief that this way the USA/cohort can guarantee oil supplies/ and or spread marginal political interest.

It is important for USA citizens to realize that in the mind of most of the world's population the USA represents the peak of terrorism [with Israel close second]. That such judgement is oversating the reality, it is still what the USA has to change. It can not be changed by making speaches in English to a selcted friendly audience in far off lands, it takes positive GOLDEN RULE based actions.

The nonsense that the FBI has only 35 Arab speaking members, that the central authority [White house/Congress] is similarly limited in all the languages spoken in oil producing and ex-USSR areas will clearly lead to further alienation not only due to preferred USA policy, but also due to total misjudgement of the cultures involved in those areas.

Kani Xulam:

You presented an evocative argument, quite eloquently. I agree that Kurdish people are also the oppressed people, in addition to Palestinians, in the Middle-East and empathize with you. Personally, I will help your cause anyway that I could. This might include equality (in ALL respects) within your country, be it Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. However, I will NOT stand for an independent Kurdistan. Fight for equality and fairfness, I am fighting right beside you (or even in front of you). Ask for an independent state, count me OUT.

Independent states are fast becoming passe'. We are all becoming a Global Village. Let us see how we can grow TOGETHER, rather than INDEPENDENTLY.

Let me try to draw an analogy: Taliban is ousted and al Qaeda is in hiding in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, et al. Suppose that al Qaeda is asking for an independent territory. Would you be willing to give independence to al Qaeda? Please understand that I am NOT equating al Qaeda's tactics to those of the Kurds'. The point that I am trying to make is that we CANNOT rewrite histroy, but learn from it as to what NOT to do.

If you will, kindly indulge me:

History teaches us NOT WHAT to do, but WHAT NOT to do.

Your comment on Turkey's targeting the Kurdish minority is a well-known one. We are not doing diddly squat, because Turkey is our NATO ally. That, my esteemed friend, is called expediency, against which I have been vehemently speaking. We are ruining the world with parochial thinking, lethally combined with expediency. Obtaining independence for the Kurdish people is also expedient.

daniel:

Economic self-sufficiency is something, for which that we should all aspire. However, in reality, it IS extremely difficult to attain TOTAL economic self-sufficiency, especially in this day and age. (Salamon also mentioned this and has provided a reference.) Hence, we CANNOT do without trade. Even in historical times, trade was very much a "necessity." We should avoid usurpation of nations and states for economic reasons. It was only the colonial powers that took the trade to "wholesale" extremes, thereby forcibly occupying sovereign nations.

BobL, VA:

Your comments:

1. We broke Iraq

Agreed. As they say, you break it, you own it! To err is human, and to forgive is divine. To realize and mend is even diviner and is a MUST for redemption (in our own conscience, and I am NOT speaking in religious overtones). First, we ALL must agree that we screwed up. (Everybody screws up; one of the the differences between the good and the bad is: the good admit that they have screwed up and try to ameliorate the wrongs; whereas the bad do not admit that they are wrong and fail to rectify the situation.)

2. We can't fix Iraq. Any fix has to come from within the country.

Agreed, but as a "responsible" party (having broken that society), we have a cardinal duty to mitigate the strife. I REALLY, SINCERELY, HONESTLY believe that we can do it, if we attend to the Israeli-Palestinian issues. For a fire to continue to burn, you need two elements - fuel and oxygen. The Israeli-Palestinian issue could be likened to the oxygen in a fire. This should be our first order of business, only to "facilitate" the dialogue.

3. Our continued presence can only break more of Iraq then we've already broken.

Perhaps you are correct, but we have a moral obligation to see it through. Our vamoosing will not help anybody.

Tom Wonacott, Boise, ID:

Iraq is already in civil war. I would be lying to you, if I told you that I knew exactly how (in phases; how much to withdraw, etc.) to leave. I would leave that up to the DoD "commanders." However, I DO want us to leave Iraq, starting NOW.

Daniel"

Your last posting is far more rational then those on the same subject before.

I believe that self-sufficiency is achievable possibly in 20-30 years on a Global scaleif we begin to treat Earth as GAIA theory of Dr. Lovelock []self-suffciency on national scale is impossible with modern industrial society]. Possible scenarios later.

While Marthus's theory on limit of growth due to increased population is somewhat dated due to great improvement of agricultural productivity, the advance of industrial civilization at the present stage takes more out than it is possible for nature to replace. North American leadership as spreading over the globe : eat more meat, at the expense of grain has a very negative effect on availbility/price of food, water and also greatly impacts transportation. The New Scientist had an intersting article a few months ago "the ecological footprint of London" {UK]. It seems that essentially the total output the sun's heat and light over the whole British Island [excluding Ireland] was needed to feed, clothe, house and transport the population of London.

The energy requirements of industrialization and subsequent growth in Urbanization greatly increases the energy requirement of the globe. For a minute forgetting climate change issues, it is clear that the use of energy greatly contaminate the environment [Hg, Cd, As, etc from fuel burning] usually by poisoning the air/soil, and later the food chain. Certain Chemical products intemately connected to the rise of materialistic living already have shown considarable genetic damage in all layers of life.

While the USA is the most profiligate user of resources there are other countries with primary production who are just as bad on a per capita basis [Canada among them].

To achive the self-sufficiency on global scale some of the necessary measures include the following:

1., Certain countries have to greatly decrease their use and abuse of carbon based energy and raw materials on a per capita basis [Canada, USA, Australia, and leaders and many of the "advanced countries"]. The Developing nations must adapt energy efficient industries [with help if necessary] this includes China, India, Brazil etc

2., Certain countries have to take serious steps to reduce population, for potable water availability is a limiting
on population and agricultural production [China, India, Bangladesh etc]
3., World wide restructuring of transportation based on efficiency [airplanes/cars decrease, rail and and public transport greatly increased]
4 While wind, biofuel/solar etc is possible in the short term, the energy requirement needs nuclear power.
5., intentional Misallocation of resources has to be greatly curtailed [armament industries, mansion type housing for the 3.5 person family, among others].

6., Copperation among nations on the GOLDEN RULE basis has to greatly increase. [Involves the great reduction of spin doctoring by politicians and their minions].

7., perhaps the most basic of all, it must be encouraged that people learn as many languages as possible, for you can not understand another culture if you do not speak their language. Without understanding of the diversity of the Earth, there is no possibility of "rational communication" [ by this I mean that the communication understands the different culture of the communicators, so that the "content" is clear to both parties]. At the end the problems of 21st century civilization are only solvable if communication is clar among parties [else you have spin and war, NEITHER SOLVES ANYTHING.

Escalation of the de facto civil war in Iraq may be a consequence of premature coalition withdrawl, but civil wars are recognized as an inevitability in multi-cultural societies which have been disrupted from a prior stasis. The "pottery barn rule" says if you break it you pay for it, it doesn't say you hang around in the pottery barn trying to glue the pieces back together. And it doesn't mean you try to mold a new piece of pottery. Iraqi's are the best determinants of their nation's future - and an all out civil war may be the crucible of that future, just as civil wars have been throughout history. The most salient idea emerging from the Baker-Hamilton commission is to involve Iran, Syria, Turkey and neighbor states in the containment of full-scale civil war and the remolding of the economy and society in Iraq. I'll wait for the commission recommendations as the next guidepost.

BobL

While your anger is justifiably directed toward the Taliban's support of terrorism, mine is also directed toward radical Muslim activity world-wide. There are very few places in the world that have not been touched by their blatant disregard for human life and their love of the seventh century. The one common feature of Islamic radicals? The targeting of civilians.

From the targeting and killing of school children in Chechnya, to the Bali bombings, to Pakistan radical Muslims fighting a war on two fronts in Kasmir/India and Afghanistan, to Hezbollah, to Hamas, to the Sudan, to Chinese separatist, to ...., they threaten our way of life and seek political gain by murder.

Thats the reason that the use of the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" can never be applied to Islamic terrorism. The terms "freedom" and "Islamic fighter" have as much in common as a mountain lion and a deer. How about "oppression fighters" or "Medievil fighters"?

Europe is a great example of a roll back of rights where critizism of Allah can get you a death sentence. The New York Times wouldn't even print a silly cartoon. People rioted and a nun was killed for what the Pope said. Spanish trains were bombed three days before their elections where almost 200 were killed.

To me, it is impossible to separate the Muslim countries that support terrorism from the ones that don't. Afghanistan was just a little more blatant as they allowed terrorist camps to flourish under their rule. What about Pakistan? It seems that most of the recent captured terrorist had some ties to Pakistan where many visited for training, but the heartland of terrorism is the Middle East.

"...Maybe I'm being pragmatic, but I am more concerned about what the next real government in Afghanistan will do and act like. I don't care if they want to be a bunch of radical Muslims or not..."

I know what you are saying, but the support of terrorism will be much less likely when the government is elected. Put another way, a radical Muslim, seventh century loving Taliban government is more likely to support, seventh century loving, radical Muslim terrorism. How many trips do we want to take to Afghanistan? This is the old Fram oil filter commercials. Remember? Pay me now or pay me later.

With all of the above in mind, I believe that Bush wanted to send a message to the heartland of world terrorism. In my mind, we had reason to invade which I've stated 100 times before, but we screwed up the occupation. As you have stated before, we need to fight to win, which in Iraq, we didn't. Thus, we allowed the situation to get out of control. You cannot fight a politically correct war!

I clearly understand (now) why you want to pull out today, and if Bin Laden was dead, you would leave Afghanistan in a heartbeat, but I am a firm believer that our recent record of leaving conflicts such as Viet Nam, Lebanon and Samalia has hurt our "send a message" cause (emboldened our enemy) which will only be enhanced if we leave Iraq and eventually Afghanistan without helping these governments to stand on their own.

In addition to the reason above, I do not support leaving Iraq (regardless of an individual's belief in the justification of the war) for two other reasons which I've stated before:

1. A civil war that that could lead to the death of many more Iraqis (and a situation that would be, more than likely, much worse than today).

2. A possible spread of the war into a regional conflict, and power grabbing by adjacent countries including Syria and the radical, seventh century loving, Iran.

If these two projects fail, then then I'll support complete distruction of countries without cleaning anything up in the future.

You may be right that US and Britain have done many mistakes in the past in Iraq and other regions in the world. But, times are different now and we should have a fresh look at current developments.

Tom Wonacott,

Since I already posted the Taliban leadership should have a price tag on their heads I'm in no way supporting their return to power. That being said I fully expect a fundamentalist Islamic State to emerge in Afghanistan as soon as our troops leave. Democracy has to come from within the country itself. It doesn't work well when someone is forced into it.

Maybe I'm being pragmatic, but I am more concerned about what the next real government in Afghanistan will do and act like. I don't care if they want to be a bunch of radical Muslims or not. That's up to them to decide. I only care that they have absolutely no illusions what will happen to them again should they think it acceptable to harbor, aid and abet terrorists who plan on doing this nation harm. That's the lasting impression I want to make on Afghanistan. I don't want a man, woman or child in that country to doubt for a nanosecond a repeat of their behavior will unleash the dogs from hell on them again. We have a much better chance of scaring their support of terrorism out of them then we have of building a democracy in a backward Islamic State.

Terrorism isn't a republican vs. democrat or independent issue. Terrorism is a national issue. People who tend towards liberal thought like myself aren't interested in coddling terrorists. We're into aggressively hunting them down and ridding the world of them. That's one of the things that really irked us about Bush. He went running around the country the last couple of years screaming that the liberals were soft on terrorism and if you didn't support Bush you were emboldening the enemy. In essence he was labeling us as a bunch of traitors. It was insulting to say the least.

However, what bothered me more was the opportunity he squandered. Bush could have gone into Afghanistan with a 100,000-150,000 troops and cleaned house. Maybe we would have killed Bin Laden, maybe we still would have missed him we'll never know the answer. What we do know is his response was woefully inadequate and remains so to this day. We know Bin Laden slipped away and there is a resurgence of Taliban and Al Quaeda today. This all came about because he had already made up his mind to commit large numbers of forces to Iraq. He blew it.

Srikanth,

If I could see how leaving our troops in Iraq one second longer then was necessary to pull them out in an orderly fashion was benefical to the country of Iraq I'll jump right on that band wagon. It is unfortunate, through the use of military power, we put into place the conditions necessary to start a civil war. We're guilty as charged on this point. We just need to come to the following conclusions:

1. We broke Iraq

2. We can't fix Iraq. Any fix has to come from within the country

3. Our continued presence can only break more of Iraq then we've already broken.

BobL

I was surprised by your post. You are a right wing nut (just kidding). I agree with your thoughts on Afghanistan.

"...Until then we stay in Afghanistan, increase our troop levels and make their lives a living hell..."

Here is the one minor point where I disagree with you on Afghanistan. At the risk of sounding like a liberal, their living hell will start once we leave and the Taliban returns, and I would not wish that bankrupt political system on anyone. The Taliban should never be allowed to return to power. We need to continue to finance and support the Afghani people until they can stand on their own.

And just because we are releasing some anger tonight, there is not one radical Muslim that I care about in this world, and in fact, the only policy that I support in China is the imprisoning and/or executing of Muslim separatist because I know that given a chance, they will target innocent civilians to kill for political gain. That is who they are.

Srikanth: (I never can get your name by spellcheck)

"...I agree with you that we should ONLY do a phased, methodical withdrawal. With that said, we should start the widthdrawal as soon as practically possible..."

I don't remember saying that, and disagree with the statement except if you interpret "practically" to be when the Iraqis can stand by themselves or, at least, avoid a civil war.

To Salamon. I wish I had been clearer in my statements. These are just recent reflections by myself and by no means definitive. I will rewrite it and be clearer about certain concepts and relationships between them. But to touch on the concept of self-sufficiency, in general a society which has less contact with others is automatically self-sufficient. Prior to the modern world many societies were self-sufficient. There are degrees of self-sufficiency and degrees of trading. In general a society should always aim at self-sufficiency and not depend on trade. Trade in fact is a transition to still another degree of self-sufficiency. If you say self-sufficiency died years ago then you are essentially saying all the nations in the world together will one day be unable to turn the entirety of the world economic system into a self-sufficient system—something analogous to the circulatory system of an organism. In general what I am concerned with explicating here is the divisiveness between people which prevents such circulation between people within society and between societies. My belief is simple: the more diverse a society becomes for whatever reason the more it must keep in mind the ideal of self-sufficiency because it will tend to overspread its bounderies. Such a society has to consider the various methods of overcoming diversity (preventing it from being harmful). It can impose iron law over society; it can strive to overcome religion with sheer economic inventiveness; it can encourage its diverse peoples to interbreed. But if it does not do so there will be conflict within and this will spread to other peoples...Eventually over the world as a whole religion must be put at bay and people must interbreed and every bit of inventiveness must be put forth to turn the whole human race into a self-sufficient economic system which is respectful of the earth environment. In fact is it not something of a redundancy to speak of a self-sufficient economic system? Is it not self-sufficiency we are speaking of when we speak of economics (perfect measure, coordination, lack of waste, recycling, etc.)? If you dislike the term self-sufficiency, well then optimal system functioning....

BobL, VA:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/2006/11/13/withdraw_from_iraq/comments.php?page=6#c769768

You are in my corner, pal!

daniel:

As for your comment on Salamon's post on the Middle-East and Greco-Roman Civilization, you must remember, in those days, that the Middle-East "countries" were governed by rulers. There was a "semblance" of unity, and above all, prosperity. The standard of living was quite high. Its citizens did not have to resort to terrorist attacks, because their stomachs were full and happy. In fact, such was the case until 1991 in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Yes, he was certainly looting the Iraqi treasury. However, I do remember that Iraq was one of the most advanced societies in the Middle-East - in the recent times, also. Furthermore, Iraq was one of the VERY FEW places, where religious freedom was at least possible. Heck, Iraq's Tariq Aziz (Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister) is a Christian. Their dinar was trading at 1 dinar = $3! Can you imagine that? Show me another country in the Middle-East, where there is a possibility to hold a high government office, much less the number-two position in the governmental hierarchy.

How do you expect a society to enrich the Humanity, when it is fighting for its very survival? Bottom line is that if the economy is flourishing, then people will see no need for a strife. It has ALWAYS been the battle between the haves and have-nots.

BobL, VA:

I understand that we should withdraw, starting NOW. However, it does not behoove us to take a powder, because it WILL hurt not only us, but also the rest of the world, as well.

Srikanth,

I'll stick with my vandals analogy. We're vandals in their country and agruing to stay where we are unwanted in someone elses house makes no sense. An orderly and relatively safe withdrawl of 150,000 people would take a couple of months anyway.

SO LETS START NOW!!!!!!!

A story out of Kurdistan: Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, September 30, 2006 (Slightly altered versions of this statement were also delivered at the World Affairs Councils in Santa Rosa, Anchorage and Juneau)

I live in Washington, DC. Like most of its residents, I take the preoccupation of my city seriously, which means follow its politics closely. Now, Washington isnít what it used to be, when, say, Mr. Roosevelt first arrived at the White House as the first citizen of the republic. Then, isolationism was the policy of choice; today, such a course is not within the realm of possibility. For better or worse, with the end of the Cold War, the refuge of beginning with the religiously persecuted in Europe, later politically or economically disenfranchised all over the globe, the place the school children learn to call ìthe land of the free and the home of the braveî has, whether one likes it or not, become the most important country in the whole world with potential to do good as well as ill never before seen or heard in the history of humanity. One hundred years from now, what will the judgment of historians be about this new development? Will they say, Washington used its awesome power for good, regulated liberty with order, sought peace with justice, and bridged the gap between its expressed ideals and its actual policy, or blew it all away, squandered it badly and proved to be the proverbial bull in the china shop that made the world an unsafe place for all its inhabitants? An optimist by nature, I am not so sure if those who speak on your behalf have what it takes to be the role models for our tortured world. This evening, I want to take you to a place called Kurdistan and show you a page out of its history. Perhaps it can offer you a clue as to where you stand. I will be content if it helps you conduct a better foreign policy; I will be the happiest ever if it makes you a friend of my peopleís everlasting struggle for liberty.

But first let me start with your capital. In the city on the Potomac, the newspaper of note is the Washington Post. It measures the pulse of the city as well as of the country and some days doesnít even shy away from doing the same for humanity and its turbulent journey on our common home, the earth. I read it religiously. Have done so for the past 13 years. Because my lapses have been few and far between, I have a very good feel for my morning companion. I am, for example, no longer startled by its opinion and editorial pages. It is liberal on some issues and conservative on others. It was pro-Israel in the recent war between Hezbollah and the Jewish state; it is pro-Chechen when the recalcitrant nation thumbs its nose at Moscow. Darfur, thank God, has never been without coverage in its pages. The Kurds, my people, have had a checkered history with the Post. Some five million us, who live in an artificial construct called the state of Iraq, have received an okay coverage. Close to twenty million of us who live in a dysfunctional one called Turkey have not been as fortunate. I am a Kurd from Turkish occupied Kurdistan. I donít have a good relationship with my Post. Because it is an important newspaper, because you are a critical audience, I thought perhaps I should relate to you my dissatisfaction with it through a story about the Kurds. It goes without saying that I would very much appreciate your feedback. If it is negative, I will be wiser for it; if it is positive, I will tell my supporters to take heart, their investment in me is, to use a business term, paying healthy dividends.

I want to begin with an example of what I think is too frequently taking place on the pages of the Post. On the last Sunday of last month, its Outlook section printed an article, ìA Fatherís Ode to His Lost Sonî, by David Grossman, an Israeli novelist and peace activist. Not accustomed to reading a funeral oration in its pages, and this one about an Israeli soldier killed in Lebanon, I found myself teary-eyed and also puzzled. I was, to be sure, happy to see such heartfelt prose greet me in the morning. It was better than reading the story of a group of heartless Shiites who had murdered 14 hapless Sunnis in Baghdad just because it was their misfortune to have Omar as their first names. His 2000 or so words were carefully chosen, appropriately placed, beautifully arrayed, and interspersed with more than a few anecdotal tidbits that could only come from a close relationship of a father with his son. After reading the piece, I felt like thanking him for making me privy to his shattered world. I did so in spirit. But thanking the Post never crossed my mind. To the contrary, I thought the Post was failing its readers when it was honoring the dead of the Jewish state, but neglecting the unseen, the obscene and the grotesque stories of other lands. A paper aspiring to be the voice of humanity must, even if only on occasion, make room for the dead of, why not, Kurdistan as well. Am I wrong to assume so? Is it not right for an American newspaper to use the principal of proportionality in its coverage? If the Post canít do it, who could? Would the New York Times consider the honor?

Assuming that there might indeed be one paper out there, that might actually want to print a Kurdish ode to a fallen Kurdish woman or man, I took to my keyboard to compose one, just in case. It took me several days. If you donít mind, I would like to read it to you. Mine is a bit longer, about 2500 words. Like Mr. Grossman, I am a peace activist. Unlike him, and this one is an important one, I am no novelist. There is, in other words, a small chance you will not be disappointed with my musings. But if you are, please donít blame Professor Croatti, my kind host, who has absolutely nothing to do with my failings. The children of enslaved nations are unequal, often, to the challenges facing their peoples. ìFearî, Cicero once noted, ìis of all emotions the most debilitating.î Your own history provides ample examples of it. It wasnít Uncle Tom of Harriet Beecher Stowe who freed the slaves; it was honest Abe. According to John Adams, your second president, General Washington won the revolutionary struggle not with flying colors, but through a war of attrition that came very close to being lost to the Brits. Across the ocean, in Europe, Poland owes its liberation to the blood of Red Army in spite of reeling under its virtual domination for the next fifty years. Had Allies won the Battle of Gallipoli in 1915, the greater Kurdistan would have been a colony of Russia, and I wonít be the first nor the last Kurd to remind this audience or our neighbors, the Turks, the Arabs and the Persians, that such a turn of events in history might have resulted in our freedom as well, just like it happened with the Georgians, Armenians and Azeris in 1991.

But as fate would have it Kurdistan became the spoil of war for the newly minted tyrannies of the Middle East: Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. It was like entrusting an orphan to four habitual child molesters. None knew of their obligations to a subject people under the laws of nations. All adopted policies to do away with the Kurds and Kurdistan, once and for all. That is why many surviving Kurds, today, are the most vociferous supporters of President Bushís Iraq policy, not because we want America to have colonial possessions in the Middle East, but because the American domination, barring Kurdish freedom, is more palatable to us than what has been our lot for the last 85 years. But there is more to this intervention than the demise of a single tyrant who was once known as the Butcher of Baghdad. The Middle East that was conceived in Europe is, thank God, being dismantled one brick at a time and gravitating towards its natural parts along linguistic and some even may say confessional lines. A couple of things are crystal clear at least to this activist. Sleep has left the bedrooms of local dictators and their bloodthirsty thugs; hope has become the predominant sentiment among the disenfranchised populations, such as the Kurds. The challenge facing my people is not the enmity of our neighbors, that is a given, no one needs to lecture us on it, but your own faith in democracy and whether it will have a closed or open auction for the equivalent of 30 silver coins. As Kurds as well as democrats of the region, we are not waiting for our friends in the West to make up their minds or provide us with cues. We are plodding onward to change the face of the Middle East because it is our home and because we are the children of those who once sparked a civilization and gave directions to the world.

Now is perhaps the best time to tell you about my own ode to a fallen Kurd. It is about a young man who was found dead under a pile of burning books in a place called Shemzinan, in Turkish occupied Kurdistan. No one has been able to determine the exact time of his death, but the day, November 11, 2005, when written in Turkish, reads 9/11/2005, the Turks put the day before the month, and makes an eerie comparison to what happened here five years and nineteen days ago today. Then nineteen angry and ignorant men assaulted and insulted a happy go lucky nation on its shores. Then thousands of your loved ones died, some vaporized in the inferno of burning jet fuel, some buried beneath the rubble. In the attack on Kurdistan, we know of one turncoat Kurd who was used, the Turks are too ìcivilizedî to bloody their own hands, to murder the subject of my talk. In the attack on Kurdistan, in addition to the murdered young Kurd, hundreds of books were burned; a few were the works of Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Freud and Steinbeck. I donít know about you but the juxtaposition of these two events, even if you just consider their identical yet discordant dates, has brought to my mind the mournful and immortal line of the German writer, Heinrich Heine, who once noted, ìWhere they burn books, they will burn humans.î For the life of me, I cannot tell the difference between the mindsets that were behind both events. Can you? And yet one, Al-Qaeda, is hunted the world over, while the other, the government of Turkey, the evil system that feels entitled to condemn an entire people to perpetual subjugation, is hailed as a respectable member of the international community. Is this what Goethe had in mind when he said, ìNothing is as frightening as ignorance in actionî?

The time has come for me to read you my funeral oration. As is often the case in situations like this one, I ask for your indulgence.

Dearest Zahir,

I am paying my respects to you at Shaffer Hall on the campus of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. It is against the law to do so where you were born and met a violent end. 326 days separate us from the moment of your death. I will start with those dearest to you, your daughter — your darling, your son and the mother of your children. All are fine. I will not say they have gotten used to your absence; they have not. I will say this though your children are at school, and given the circumstances, are doing as good as they are able to. They are, to quote an expression popular with Aussies, keeping their ìchins-upî, and are missing you just the same. Oh, one other thing, since no one has come back to earth from heaven to report, in case there is no concept of time there, your girl, your Fatima, is eight now. She is in second grade. Your boy is seven and started school this month.

I donít know whether God has told you of the events surrounding your death in Shemzinan. He seems to develop blind spots for certain peoples from time to time. The Kurds of Kurdistan feel that way, as did the Jews of Europe in the 1940s and the Armenians of Ottoman Empire in the 1910s. I guess, all I am trying to say is that, there are a lot of disappointed and angry believers down here. I know there is something called Judgment Day, both the Bible and the Koran attest to it, and you will get your redress for the attack on your life. But today, I am with the students of Professor Croatti who have kindly accepted my request to let me share with them your story and its aftermath as an example of what it means to be a Kurd in these cruelest of cruel times in the life of Kurdistan.

Because I know you are watching us from your room in heaven, I also want to tell you a little bit about my audience. When Thucydides said, ìWe alone regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs, not as a harmless character; but as a useless oneî, he was referring to the Athenians of his day who took to the affairs of the city-state the way a duck takes to water. Today, he would have said the same thing for this audience. They are the flower of this nation, the key to its hopeful future, and most importantly for the Kurds and Kurdistan, interested in not only expanding freedom and liberty at home, and please pay close attention to me here, but also abroad. Yes, Zahir, I used to say, Americans worship freedom at home and money abroad. Not anymore. Do you really want me to tickle you with some good news about the Kurds in America? The presidential hopeful, Joseph Biden, openly says he is for the Kurdish freedom and in plain English. I am praying for this Irish Catholic to become president. Please, you do the same.

Coming back to your death, when freedom came under a merciless attack on 9/11/2005, and I am using the Turkish way of reading the calendar here, you were not its intended target. Seferi Yilmaz, the owner of the Hope Bookstore, and his subversive books were. Two officers of the Turkish military together with a Kurdish turncoat, all working undercover, had taken it upon themselves to assassinate him in the midst of his books going up in flames for dramatic effect. These ìromanticî killers were so sure of themselves that they had come to the scene of crime in their own civilian car, with their own identification cards, and you will not believe this, 361 bullets in their trunk together with three Kalashnikovs and several lists with names of Kurds and places too, one of them a mosque, all marked with bright red markers, to be murdered or blown up from the face of Kurdistan!

But as ìluckî would have it, fortune did not fully cooperate with them this time. I am dying to know whether God had a role in it. Can you please ask him when you get a chance? Although these murderers had done their homework well, mishaps haunted them from the very beginning. They had intended to go for the kill between the hours of 11:00 am and 11:30 am, a quiet time in the business district, since it coincided with the daily prayer time of the some of the mosque-going Kurds. Mr. Yilmaz, these assassins had discovered, was not a regular in the house of prayer and thought, correctly it turns out, would be waiting in his shop like a sitting duck. With his death, the authorities later revealed, they would have accomplished their 15th deed in 118 days in three neighboring districts. Who knows, their higher ups might have then considered them for some promotions perhaps!

That morning you woke up like any other day, according to your wife. You were in good health and only 29. Your day job was driving a taxi and when the business was down, you visited the only bookstore in town to fortify your mind. When I related this story to an American friend of mine once, he was curious to know if the bookstore had a Starbucks in it and, as you know, it didnít. But there was something better than the Starbucks in that store. That was the owner, Seferi Yilmaz, who had spent fifteen years of his adult life in Turkish jails, from 23 to 38, and seemed to know everything, and I underline the word everything, about the books on his shelves. When you talked to him, I am just a tad curious, did he ever bring up the stories of 420 inmates, mostly Kurds, who were tortured to death in primarily Amed Military Prison where he had been an inmate with some of the brightest and bravest Kurdish activists? Like them, you had a painful end, but were clueless that the appointed hour was approaching fast.

When it came, you were at the Hope Bookstore. I canít get over the fact that you lost your life in a place named after hope. Seferi, the shopkeeper, was preparing lunch; he was making an omelet of sorts, cooking some tomatoes with eggs in the back. He had asked you to partake in his repast, together with your cousin, Metin Korkmaz, who was visiting from the village of Altinsu, a Turkish name, since the Kurdish names for villages, towns, cities, mountains, rivers and valleys have been prohibited by law. Imagine Americans changing the name of Baghdad, Iraq, to Crawford, America! The good folks around the world would march in the streets, including thousands here in Baltimore and many more in Ankara, and call it a scandalous act; and yet when Kurdistan and its people go through a forced name-change in Turkey, it is called ìprogress.î If I were you, I would ask God if he still considers his children bright! Back in the shop, as lunch was being served, two hand grenades were thrown inside. Seferi was the first to see them. Later, he told reporters that he had shouted, ìBombsî, ìRunî, and hurled himself head first out of the door.

You became history at that very moment. Your cousin saved himself with the help of the dining table, which he had the presence of mind to turn it into a shield. Seferi, the shopkeeper, once outside, noticed a man running away from his shop. He followed suit. He also called on his neighbors to do the same. They were too happy to oblige. In 97 days, their town of 14,000 had been bombed six times. In addition to destroyed property, both Turks and Kurds had been killed. No one had claimed responsibility for these deadly attacks. Some dimwitted Turks up until then had blamed the Mosad, the Israeli Intelligence Agency. Some terrorized Kurds were equally perplexed thinking that it might even be the work of Al-Qaeda. But the killers, the undercover agents of the Turkish military, were enjoying this greatest spectacle of all spectacles and giving each other high-fives for not only bewitching their sworn enemies, the Kurds, but also, the Turks, their very flesh and blood, one of the most cursed peoples on the face of the earth. But now a man was running away from the scene of crime, and if caught, might shed some light on the mysterious bombs that had been rocking not only Shemzinan, but also two neighboring towns since July 15, 2005.

You will be glad to know that your killer was indeed caught. He proved to be the biggest catch of all times. It was like Americans catching Osama Bin Laden. The fact that he turned out to be a Kurdish turncoat shamed us all including our friends all over the globe. At the time of the chase, he had run towards a civilian car parked on the main street. The undercover Turkish officers were waiting for him. Had they known what was afoot; they would have, I have no doubts in my mind, just deserted him. He was after all an expendable item, a member of one of the most despised professions. But as he reached the backseat of the parked vehicle, the Kurdish crowd surrounded it from all sides. A heated argument ensued. When the word got out that you had not survived the attack, the multitude began pelting the parked car with rocks, kicks as well as sticks. One of the Turkish officers, Ali Kaya, told them that he was an undercover police officer. He even managed to get into the trunk of his car and grabbing one of the Kalashnikovs aimed at the assembled crowd.

Now here I need to take a break, yes, a break, and dwell on the mentality behind a so-called police officerís decision to protect the killer and threaten its victims. If you think this is unthinkable in a country that goes by the name of a democracy, wait till you hear the accolades he got from Yasar Buyukanit, the highest ranking Turkish military officer, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, who, when questioned about the blatant attack that involved his officers, chided the reporters by saying, ìI know Ali Kaya. He was my soldier. He wouldnít do such thing.î It turns out he had. But Ferhat Sarikaya, the Turkish prosecutor, who indicted him, was dismissed from his job. Sabri Uzun, the head of Turkish Security and Intelligence Office, got axed as well. He had told an investigating committee of the Turkish parliament, ìWhen the thief is inside the house, the lock has no use.î

Mr. Uzun, to his credit, had correctly diagnosed the nature of the crisis facing Turkey, but not its extent. It is not just one thief that is inside the house, the place is ìa den of robbersî to borrow a colorful expressions from the Gospel of Mark, chapter 11, verse 17. The bandits, for now, proudly go by the name of Turkish military and run not just Turkey, but more than half of Kurdistan as well, and here is the saddest part of my work, with the enthusiastic blessings of the international community. Now most of the states in the world have armies that take their orders from the elected civilians. In Turkey, it is the other way around; the army has a state and its politicians are its gofers. All this, unfortunately, goes to the beginning of the Turkish experiment in state building in 1920s. It was its greatest misfortune to be saddled not with a caring-man or a wise one, but a monster that delighted in calling himself the father of all Turks, Ataturk, and played with the Kurds the way a mean-spirited child plays with his toys. When Euripides said, ìDo not mistake for wisdom the fantasies of your sick mind,î I have no doubts that he had his likes in mind.

Now if you want me to expand on this evil manís handiwork, or of those of his cohorts, who are now running the county as his carbon copies, suffice it to say that it was him who said all Kurds are Turks and thus sowed the seeds of hatred between these two unhappy peoples. Never in the history of humanity has a fraud so big, a pretension so atrocious, a theory so inimical to human nature, and a crime so grotesque ever been conceived by even the greatest ignoramuses in the world. His name will forever be remembered as a proverb of infamy, depravity, immorality and outright stupidity. Just as by ordering a cow to be a horse will never make the bovine a pony, so will no amount of force or stratagem turn the Kurd into a Turk! This inanity was what swept you away on 9/11; and it is what we must fight now so that at least your children will be safe when they are grown ups.

The time has come for me to put an end to this still blood-dripping tale and say goodbye to you. I was going to part with some good news, but there is also the bad kind. Because this is a solemn occasion, and because these students deserve unequivocal truth, I have to tell them, and it is with the heaviest of heavy hearts, of the latest between Turkey and the United States. On July 5, 2006, not even nine months after your death, the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Foreign Minister of Turkey Abdullah Gul signed a ìShared Visionî statement. It had the following choice words in its preamble: ìThe relationship between Turkey and the United States is characterized by strong bonds of friendship, alliance, mutual trust and unity of vision. We share the same set of values and ideals in our regional and global objectives: the promotion of peace, democracy, freedom, and prosperity.î

Regrettably, I am at a loss as how to interpret this document. It is above my pay grade as the expression goes. What falls within it though is to finish telling you what took place at the scene of standoff on the main street in Shemzinan. It was initially resolved. The Turkish officers and their Kurdish assassin were arrested. The assembled crowd was asked to disperse. But word got out that only your killer was imprisoned while his Turkish conspirators were set free. It was then that a fight broke out, extending into days, spreading to several cities both in Kurdish east and Turkish west, between the Kurds and anything that had the word Turk in it. In the city of your birth, the statue of Ataturk was one of the first items to go with its head being decapitated. A few of the Turkish flags were lowered and burned. I was in Washington, DC then and all I could think of was the Yankee tribute to liberty in New York City, in 1776, and how it too had resulted in the beheading of another tyrantís statue, this time, King George the Third.

The Kurds, I avidly read in the reports, had thrown the severed head of Ataturk on a dumpster. The New Yorkers of 230 years ago were much more imaginative; they had placed theirs on a stick and positioned it by the entrance of a bar in lower Manhattan to lure in more customers. It is, of course, with a profound sense of sadness that I, an admirer of American Revolution, have to tell these students, the children of Jefferson, including Dr. Rice, that they have lost their revolutionary fervor and cannot even tell a tyrant from a freedom fighter. The torch of freedom has definitely changed hands. We are now vying for it, dying for it, taking up humanityís thankless task to lighten up the Middle East, to free the Kurds, and to proclaim to the world Victor Hugoís undying observation, ìNothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.î

What happens when your oppressors are next-door neighbors: a story out of Kurdistan?

World Affairs Council of Ventura Ojai, California

Kani Xulam June 9, 2006

[A slightly altered version of this statement was also delivered at the World Affairs Council of Maine in Portland on May 24, 2006]

In 1886, Leo Tolstoy published a book titled Twenty-Three Tales. One of them was about, ëThe Three Hermitsí. It is a story of grace and humility, rarities in an increasingly violent and arrogant world that has come to characterize our times. It is a long tale, but I have shortened it for the purposes of this lecture. I offer it as a teaser, an appetizer if you are into food, to prepare you for the main course, which is Kurdish. But I need to warn you in advance that the Kurdish fare will be heavy, and some of you may even leave this hall thinking, boy, I wish he had also told us, it was going to be raw and bloody. I guess all I am trying to say is that, donπt blame me for the repast; consider me in the light of the charming English expression, ëWhen life gives you lemons, make lemonade.í That is what I have tried to do with our neighbors who have now become our oppressors. It is a heartbreaking tale in need of masterful storytellers like Tolstoy, Steinbeck, Dickens, and Sophocles. But tonight you are stuck with me, a tormented soul, with a dull pen and an accented tongue, whose love for truth has forced him to become a reluctant storyteller of his people, the Kurds.

First let me pay homage to a person who is not present among us, but responsible for my presence among you. She has the name of an American, but I call her the guardian angel of Kurdistan. At the beginning of this year, I got an email from her, saying, ëI want to know how I can be of some help to the Kurds.í It was music to my ears, oops, my mistake, her email was a piece of sublime art before my eyes, and I wrote her back immediately, thanking her in earnest, quoting her the inimitable observation of Voltaire, that, ëThe worst kind