transfusively collembole kilp rachiococainize boarfish gobline thermopolymerization beshower
UK Foreign Office - Country Profiles: Montserrat
http://www.fibope.pt

So Mr. Michael Young thinks America must not cut and run? My fondest dreams always revolve around people like Mr. Young, fully
laden in combat gear and dodging IED's in Anbar province. That's why we need a draft, so cowardly chest-beaters like George Bush and Mr. Young will have to fight, too. Tell me, Mr. Young - how many of your relatives will be missing from the Thanksgiving dinner table because of the Iraq debacle?
Bring the boys home. Better 100,000 dead Iraqis than one more dead American.

Michael Young,

You say we should not cut and run from Iraq. And the alternative is, what, stay and bleed? I think not. We have put a "reasonable" amount of time and effort into this project and it time for the permanent players, the Iraqis themselves, to fish or cut bait.

A constitutional government exists, properly formed from a democratically elected parliament pursuant to a constitution written by Iraqis and ratified by them in a democratic referendum. Whether the politicians elected by the Iraqi people can actually govern is up to them, not us. If they can't it is up to the Iraqi people to replace them, not us.

It is not for us to partition or not to partition Iraq. It is for the Iraqi's to take such decisions, in the manner they choose. Stability is not something we can provide; only the Iraqi's can do that. Never, under our three year occupation of Iraq, has there been what one could call stability; on the contrary, the degree of instability has steadily increased during our tenure and shows no signs of diminishing in the future.

First, we need to make the political decision that we are going to turn the responsibility for security over to the Iraqi government and withdraw our military forces in an orderly manner. We also need to decide how they should and will be redeployed in consultation with neighboring countries.

Second, we need to develop a military plan with a timetable to conduct such an operation safely and securely.

Should we do that, nobody knows what will actually happen. You could see a civil war between the Shia forces of Badr and those following Sistani for Heaven's sake, between Sunni and Kurd over Kirkuk, between Sunni and Shia over Baghdad, over Anbar. You could see a mass rebellion by the people against all of this nonsense. Nobody really knows because we are in the way.

We should have three concerns. One is maintaining enough stability in the Kurdish region to satisfy Turkey's security concerns. Another is keeping instability from migrating into Jordan. Another is keeping Iran at bay in the Shia dominated South.

Michael, you say, "And hovering over all this is a U.S. that seems to have lost all sense of direction in Iraq, looking frantically for a way out. But only the U.S. can provide the sensible anchor to Iraqi moves to shape national agreement over a new power structure." Michael, Murtha was and is right. We are not an anchor, we are a target on a target range. Further, we are definitely not sensible. If we were we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

We need to send President Bush, Laura Bush, the two Bush girls, Mr Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Mr Cheney, Mr Rove, maybe Denny Hastert and Joe Lieberman to the front lines, in appropriate early design bullet proof vests and ill-equipped Hummers, all to do what you're suggesting, Mr. Young. I love the columnists who suggest we can't "cut and run" and suggest instead that we keep our young people in the military in harms way so they can be killed to correct those clowns mistakes. Maybe you, too, could join the crew I have named above of first rate idiots who, along with the neocons we could add like Wolfowitz & Co. to the newly created battalion, to rectify the situation. Remember, needlessly killing our young people isn't something we like to mention when proposing solutions about messes created by Bush & Co. like Iraq or Afghanistan; it's all lofty ideas and solutions. The alternative is to let the locals solve their own problems and for our government to work on real strategic solutions to existing problems, like learning how to act like diplomats and working out real strategic solutions that don't involve stupid loss of life. What's really behind all this, if you really think about it, is oil and nothing more; no one would care a fig for any of this if it weren't for the oil. Once we figure out how to divorce ourselves from using oil, these places will become minor players in world affairs.

When you say "Korea, Vietnam, India, Palestine, Cyprus, Bosnia -- all places still somehow suffering, politically or economically from the traumas that partition visited upon them", you are blaming an awfully diverse range of problems on a single cause. Furthermore, do you really think that any of those countries (and Cyprus) would be better amalgamated into their previous entities?
Would Bosnia and all the other ex-Yugoslavian nations be better off today if they were still rolled into one? Would India be more stable somehow if Pakistan was not an independent state? Would Israel be if Palestine had yet to exist? Who would presently be in control of a united Korea?

The fact is that nations exist for a reason, and distaste for breaking up a pre-existing country is not going to stop the nationalistic urge.

Furthermore, the creation of the "pre-existing country" in this case, Iraq, was entirely artificial. Drawn by British attaches at the end of WWI, the borders of Iraq enclosed groups of people that (a reporter from Lebanon should appreciate this) would never have formed a country on their own. This drawing, in fact, was done at the very end of the Paris meetings almost as an afterthought, and actually violated the initial pledge that after The Great War, no people should be without a nation to call their own...

The point is that while nationalism can be taken to extremes, the idea that partitioning a country to appease ethnic groups is not on its own a bad one. Of course it can be done badly, but your opposition to the practice assumes that it will be so in Iraq. Sometimes, giving people what they want actually works.

Mr. Young:

I can no longer see any difference between the views you present here and any right-wing American commentator or neo-con.

You even borrow their rhetoric such as "cut and run".

Today I listened to a panel discussion on the radio covering Iraq war veterans. In it, a woman in her early 20s explained what happened to her husband who spent one single year in Iraq. After his return, the poor young man in his 20s became an alcoholic; He is unable to sleep normally anymore; He is suffering from severe PTSD. The young woman explained how her husband told her that the man she knew died in Iraq. Not only his life changed, hers did too, and not to mention the young's man family. The young woman is afraid that one day her husband is going to kill himself; like few veterans did.

Please stop legitimizing the US occupation of Iraq and this reckless neo-con adventure. You wrote that "only the US can provide the sensible anchor to Iraq", but what is your evidence? even if one ignores the disaster in Iraq, what has the US done to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in the last 15 years? especially during the Bush administration?

If Arab state control can be overbearing, what do you call the illegal invasion of Iraq and the reckless destruction of an entire government?

All of the war-columnists and experts had a very long grace period of 3 years.

The game is over.

There are too many people dying, too many lives destroyed, too much suffering among average Iraqis, among US soldiers and among All Arabs.

As the young woman above explained, the US military can't even provide some basic amenities like clean toilets to its soldiers in bases. Many contractors who used to take the waste away can't do anymore for fear of their lives.

The US military presence is fueling the conflict and is making it hard for Iraqis to start over. How hard is it to understand this? Which media are you reading Mr. Young? Certainly not the Arab media.

The occupation must end.

This is not "cut and run", it is "save what's left and to hell with the neocons".

The term "westerner" is misunderstood and is being used loosely. Wonder what is the difference between the westerner REPORTER and the native Americans of the Americas? or does he differentiate himself as being a well-cultured America versus the Incas, Mayans or Aztecs who have been murdered and whose culture and civilizations have been depleted by the westerners of Spain or Portugal e.g ?
If Reporter refers to the notion of the prevailing cultural tradition of Europe and European immigrants to the New World, then he is giving himself a power that he does not have- just check the history of Ancient Egypt, Hannibal the HUN, Gengis Khan and his grand-son Kublai Khan to realize how far ahead these civilizations. BTW before the westerner started using a knife and a fork at the table, he was using his fingers or his sword that he used to kill his enemy to feed himself.

Colonialism is dead and no race or culture is superior

In order to transform Iraq into a prosperous, liberal democracy, the American-led military force must number, at least, 500,000 soldiers and must occupy Iraq for several decades. Yet, the military force currently numbers about 200,000, and the Americans do not have the stomach to militarily occupy Iraq beyond the end of the decade.

http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#115853308310007247

The facts on the ground mean that a unified, democratic Iraq built on a free market is not achievable.

The only thing that can be achieved is what the Iraqis want. The Kurds and the Shiites comprise the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, and what they want is autonomy (or possibly independence) for a Kurdish state and a Shiite state.

Given these facts, the American military should immediately pull out of Iraq. Washington should stay out of Iraq for about a year in order to allow the Sunnis and the Shiites to kill each other. This bloodshed is necessary in order to establish an important fact. Namely, the Americans did not partition Iraq; rather, the Iraqis themselves so wanted to partition Iraq that they even slaughtered each other. If they do not kill each other into extinction, then they will arrive at a partitioned solution for Iraq.

Most Iraqis are clearly not Westerners. Compare them to the Czechs and the Slovaks. In 1993, the citizens of Czechoslovakia peacefully partitioned their nation into two nations: the Czeck Republic and Slovakia. No Czech and no Slovak fired a shot.

That most Iraqis are not Westerners does not mean that all Iraqis are not Westerners. The Kurds come quite close to being Westerners. According to "The Economist", "... most Kurds, with their own long history of uncertainty and displacement, have been kind to the [non-Kurdish] newcomers [fleeing to safety in Iraqi Kurdistan]." Such distinctly Western attitudes of humanity mean that the Kurds are on the verge of becoming Westerners and are worthy of protection by Western military might.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_SNRTNDQ

While the Sunnis and the Shiites slaughter each other, Washington and the rest of NATO should continue to protect Kurdistan as either an autonomous state within an Iraqi federation or even an independent nation. There is one stipulation: the government of Kurdistan must arrest or expel all Kurdish terrorist groups.

In order to transform Iraq into a prosperous, liberal democracy, the American-led military force must number, at least, 500,000 soldiers and must occupy Iraq for several decades. Yet, the military force currently numbers about 200,000, and the Americans do not have the stomach to militarily occupy Iraq beyond the end of the decade.

http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#115853308310007247

The facts on the ground mean that a unified, democratic Iraq built on a free market is not achievable.

The only thing that can be achieved is what the Iraqis want. The Kurds and the Shiites comprise the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, and what they want is autonomy (or possibly independence) for a Kurdish state and a Shiite state.

Given these facts, the American military should immediately pull out of Iraq. Washington should stay out of Iraq for about a year in order to allow the Sunnis and the Shiites to kill each other. This bloodshed is necessary in order to establish an important fact. Namely, the Americans did not partition Iraq; rather, the Iraqis themselves so wanted to partition Iraq that they even slaughtered each other. If they do not kill each other into extinction, then they will arrive at a partitioned solution for Iraq.

Most Iraqis are clearly not Westerners. Compare them to the Czechs and the Slovaks. In 1993, the citizens of Czechoslovakia peacefully partitioned their nation into two nations: the Czeck Republic and Slovakia. No Czech and no Slovak fired a shot.

That most Iraqis are not Westerners does not mean that all Iraqis are not Westerners. The Kurds come quite close to being Westerners. According to "The Economist", "... most Kurds, with their own long history of uncertainty and displacement, have been kind to the [non-Kurdish] newcomers [fleeing to safety in Iraqi Kurdistan]." Such distinctly Western attitudes of humanity mean that the Kurds are on the verge of becoming Westerners and are worthy of protection by Western military might.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_SNRTNDQ

While the Sunnis and the Shiites slaughter each other, Washington and the rest of NATO should continue to protect Kurdistan as either an autonomous state within an Iraqi federation or even an independent nation. There is one stipulation: the government of Kurdistan must arrest or expel all Kurdish terrorist groups.

In order to transform Iraq into a prosperous, liberal democracy, the American-led military force must number, at least, 500,000 soldiers and must occupy Iraq for several decades. Yet, the military force currently numbers about 200,000, and the Americans do not have the stomach to militarily occupy Iraq beyond the end of the decade.

http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#115853308310007247

The facts on the ground mean that a unified, democratic Iraq built on a free market is not achievable.

The only thing that can be achieved is what the Iraqis want. The Kurds and the Shiites comprise the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, and what they want is autonomy (or possibly independence) for a Kurdish state and a Shiite state.

Given these facts, the American military should immediately pull out of Iraq. Washington should stay out of Iraq for about a year in order to allow the Sunnis and the Shiites to kill each other. This bloodshed is necessary in order to establish an important fact. Namely, the Americans did not partition Iraq; rather, the Iraqis themselves so wanted to partition Iraq that they even slaughtered each other. If they do not kill each other into extinction, then they will arrive at a partitioned solution for Iraq.

Most Iraqis are clearly not Westerners. Compare them to the Czechs and the Slovaks. In 1993, the citizens of Czechoslovakia peacefully partitioned their nation into two nations: the Czeck Republic and Slovakia. No Czech and no Slovak fired a shot.

That most Iraqis are not Westerners does not mean that all Iraqis are not Westerners. The Kurds come quite close to being Westerners. According to "The Economist", "... most Kurds, with their own long history of uncertainty and displacement, have been kind to the [non-Kurdish] newcomers [fleeing to safety in Iraqi Kurdistan]." Such distinctly Western attitudes of humanity mean that the Kurds are on the verge of becoming Westerners and are worthy of protection by Western military might.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_SNRTNDQ

While the Sunnis and the Shiites slaughter each other, Washington and the rest of NATO should continue to protect Kurdistan as either an autonomous state within an Iraqi federation or even an independent nation. There is one stipulation: the government of Kurdistan must arrest or expel all Kurdish terrorist groups.

USA in Iraq, and Iraq in future

The proposition by some misguided US politicians and others, and their minions to divide Iraq into semiautonomous, automous "nations" will lead to stronger civil war, possibly spreading to neighbouring countries. The Sunni faction will not allow all oil revenue to flow to the others, Iran and Turkey will fight most vehemently against a Kurdistan, especially if such has large oil revenue, and can promote and continue some sort of revolt in the neighbouring countries, with armaments brought via oil wealth [as is the case in Afganistan regarding armaments purchased via heroin trade].
I disagree with the notion that the USA should stay in Iraq, for this will perpetuate continous bloddletting without a chance of rebuilding [with the undubitable unintended conseqiuences of further spread of dedicated terrorist, with a cause: ANTI_AMERICANISM].
I disagree with the notion that the USA should refrain from cutting and running. The USA has no choice in the long run [applies the same to Afganistan and the Nato forces]. In both cases the NATO and or USA/willing armies are invaders. There is no historical evidence that any invasion can be successful in the long term, especially not so in the last 50-60 years [excluding the artificially supported Israel].
The other proposition which has surfaced in some newspapers on the net: USA build a Military base in "Kurdistan" then withdraw from the rest of Iraq, is similarly a non-starter. Such nonsense will be presumed as overt/covert declaration of war versus Turkey [key NATO member] and versus Iran [who can cause untold problems for the USA in particular and the whole world in general via Hermutz Straight Saudi/Kiwait/Oma/Duabi oil ports] for they would presume [rightly so] that KURDISTAN's vassal status to USA would increase KURDISH attempt to enlarge their jurisdiction at the expense of Iran and Turkey.

Based upon the above analysis -- I know it is not popular with thye political elite and or their symboites, the media - the only choice USA has is to withdraw for both humanitary reasons and due to lack of funds [leaving unmanagable debt to the next generations is both immoral and unethical, I would go so far as to state it is criminal abuse].
Thank you for your interst in my views.

Iraq Is Being Transformed to What Afghanistan Was in the 1980s.

Dictatorship has vanished, a representative self-government formed, democratization course enforced, economic sanction lifted, international humanitarian relief and reconstruction efforts are underway but still we are far away from our main goal. It has been more than 2 years but the US has failed to thwart the long-term insurgency and establish peace and stability. Despite spending its most budgets on military and intelligence operations, reorganizing, and training Iraqi forces to tackle with terrorism and secure their sovereignty and liberty, innocent civilians are killed and terrorized on the streets every day. Suicide bombing, sabotage and terrorism redirected by influential regional powers are to blame for these atrocities. The basis for the escalating number of attacks on U.S troops is not likely to have anything to do with the former regime loyalists. An end to the occupation should have been immediate had the U.S been acting in the interests of Iraqi's and not their own agenda. Anger, frustration, and hostility amongst the Iraqi population directed at the occupying forces climb day by day. Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more harm than good. Opposition and anti-Americanism sentiment has intensified more than ever.

Although Saddam resorted to force and terror to overcome the issue of order and stability but Iraq was a stable society. Whatever violence did arise was premeditated violence planned by the state. Under absolute power, It could be switched on or off upon demand from Saddam, its dictator. The then dilemmas he coped with were more the external pressure and economic sanctions. The dynamics that led to the retreats of Iraq were mostly the imposing wars and fragile economy. Even during the war with Iran, subjection to UN economic sanctions, and invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had not experienced such instability.

Iraq is being transformed to what Afghanistan was in the 1980s. Militants are turning the resistance into an international jihadist movement. Foreign fighters coming from different parts of the world are merging as cells or complete units with Iraqis. If the occupation persists long, Iraq would be a productive ground for international Islamic fundamentalism similar to the case of soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Keeping in mind that these terrorists are bred, financed and sponsored by radical Arab states, any Islamic Arab nation is not an easy front to win for US.

Iraq Is Being Transformed to What Afghanistan Was in the 1980s.

Dictatorship has vanished, a representative self-government formed, democratization course enforced, economic sanction lifted, international humanitarian relief and reconstruction efforts are underway but still we are far away from our main goal. It has been more than 2 years but the US has failed to thwart the long-term insurgency and establish peace and stability. Despite spending its most budgets on military and intelligence operations, reorganizing, and training Iraqi forces to tackle with terrorism and secure their sovereignty and liberty, innocent civilians are killed and terrorized on the streets every day. Suicide bombing, sabotage and terrorism redirected by influential regional powers are to blame for these atrocities. The basis for the escalating number of attacks on U.S troops is not likely to have anything to do with the former regime loyalists. An end to the occupation should have been immediate had the U.S been acting in the interests of Iraqi's and not their own agenda. Anger, frustration, and hostility amongst the Iraqi population directed at the occupying forces climb day by day. Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more harm than good. Opposition and anti-Americanism sentiment has intensified more than ever.

Although Saddam resorted to force and terror to overcome the issue of order and stability but Iraq was a stable society. Whatever violence did arise was premeditated violence planned by the state. Under absolute power, It could be switched on or off upon demand from Saddam, its dictator. The then dilemmas he coped with were more the external pressure and economic sanctions. The dynamics that led to the retreats of Iraq were mostly the imposing wars and fragile economy. Even during the war with Iran, subjection to UN economic sanctions, and invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had not experienced such instability.

Iraq is being transformed to what Afghanistan was in the 1980s. Militants are turning the resistance into an international jihadist movement. Foreign fighters coming from different parts of the world are merging as cells or complete units with Iraqis. If the occupation persists long, Iraq would be a productive ground for international Islamic fundamentalism similar to the case of soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Keeping in mind that these terrorists are bred, financed and sponsored by radical Arab states, any Islamic Arab nation is not an easy front to win for US.

Status quos in Iraq

Courtiers which peak the current terrorism agenda are countries with global political-military involvement. Terrorism and humanitarian upheavals share the same roots in the form of poverty, underdevelopment, social exploitation, identity- based conflict, structural violence, and even globalization itself. Today Iraq has become one of those countries. Iraqi-terrorist nexus is more disconcerting and tangible in the wake of the war than it was before the war. Even though I though the U.S. would be able to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure fairly quickly, thus achieving enough Iraqi backing for the next chapter of instituting at least a nominally independent Iraqi regime. But the drive, from the U.S. viewpoint, is now all in the wrong course.

Saddam's intrusion in Israeli-Palestinian issue obliquely by offering rewards to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, developing weapons of mass destruction and giving refugee to al Qaida-linked outfits and terrorists having been operating in the northern Kurdish territory were some of the causes the U.S. invaded Iraq. There are people up to now that still believe the war in Iraq was but for oil, defacto colonialism, and global hegemony.

Virtually all the violence in Iraq is coming from the twenty percent of the population that are Sunni Arabs. The fact that radical Islamist and Arab nationalist terrorists (or freedom fighters, depending on your perspective I guess) are streaming (perhaps not actually streaming) into Iraq to look for mostly but not solely American targets is supposed to be a big break in the Holy War on Americans. Thousands of violent Sunnis have been in prison and questioned and it is pretty patent from those interviews that the fighting in Iraq comes from several sources. There are surely multiple groups operating against U.S. forces in Iraq and warns there could be more. So far we can be fairly certain there are bits and pieces of the old Saddamite Baath party, who may or may not be cooperating with present admin; there are also many Sunni Arabs operating on their own to counter those foreigners who would allow the majority Shia and Kurds to rule the nation. And then there were the foreign fighters, who saw Saddam as a great Arab hero and the Sunni Arab cause worthy of support.

The greater part Shiites have remained moderately soft and some have even combined forces with U.S. military. They believe that if a democracy ever is established, they will rule Iraq by sheer power of numbers (Shiites are nearly 60 percent of Iraqi population) when the Yankees leave. But if attacks from Sunni elements prolong, the Shiites will have a reason not to let the Sunnis be viewed as the only Iraqi forces pestering the Americans and eventually, perhaps, being largely in charge for hounding he Americans out.

Other cause of credible hostility is made of tension within the various ethnic and religious communities. Because each ethnic and/or religious community is in a majority in its neck of the wood, the multi-ethnic capital, Baghdad, being the exemption, there is little risk of sectarian wars. But intra-community violence cannot be ruled out. After all, the two main Kurdish groups did fight several mini-wars between themselves in the 1990s.

At least other smaller Kurdish groups financed by Iran, could also trigger violence in the Kurdish areas. In Mosul and Kirkuk, the prospect of clash pitting Kurds against Turcomans, and both of them against Yazidis, and Assyro-Chaldaens cannot be ruled out. Even the Shiite community, accounting for 60 percent of the population, is not immune to internecine feuds. The struggle over the control of the key religious centers of Najaf and Karbala is already there.

There are some less violent habits and customs in Iraq which make reconstruction the country and setting up a regime very complex. The principal dilemma is corruption in public and private sectors and the large number of Iraqis who will not take blame for their actions. These self-destructive customs has been around for a long time and result in a general lack of personal responsibility for corrupt acts. For too many Iraqis, the national mantra appears to be "It's not my fault, it's your fault." Iraqis steal public money, fail to carry out public and private duties, and then lie about it, or insist they were forced to do it by "others." Keeping everyone honest is a huge problem. While many Iraqis are reliable and honest, they are often opposed and sabotaged by those who are not. All too often, the honest and responsible Iraqis are outnumbered, or outgunned, by more corrupt and violent Iraqis. The Sunni Arabs have made corruption a government tool, backed up by a readiness to use violence on those who do not want to make a deal.

Disintegration of Iraq is imminent

Unscrupulous British political architecture originally engineered this troublesome country called "Iraq." Now, almost eight decades later, the British will revisit Iraq and pay the price for defective workmanship, still believing that current actions can correct past mistakes. The United States is falling into this British trap and is thus piling up its own mistakes as it goes along with its commitment to keep Iraq integrated within the current geographic borders.

From the beginning, the formation of the modern-day Iraqi borders was a dose of ill-prescribed medicine for the Iraqi people, ensuring that multitudinous tragedies would descend on their heads. Crowding extremely different ethnic and religious groups together arbitrarily is a recipe for animosities and tensions with impending calamities as the only foreseeable outcome.

The US invaded Iraq hastily, without weighing the consequences fully, and the aftermath of this poor judgment has turned out to include a high burden of warfare cost at a time when America faces gigantic trade account imbalances, a soaring federal deficit, and a decline in American political might and economic superiority in the world. Put all these factors together and it is easy to predict the superpower's gradual decline. The Iraqi occupation can only serve to speed this up.

From the beginning of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration consistently and persistently defended Iraq's territorial integrity. Now, two years after the Iraqi invasion, still no progress has been made in the attempt to unify the country, and it is crystal clear that Iraq will remain divided.

Let us navigate through the current situation. First, there was an Iraqi election and, in real terms, twenty percent of the Sunni Iraqi's did not participate. Then, the Kurds voted for the Iraqi parliament and the Kurdish parliament, and independent Kurdish parties started an unofficial campaign for a referendum on an independent Kurdistan. More than ninety-eight percent of all Iraqi Kurds voted in favor of a breakaway from Iraq.

The crucial question here is, if Iraq is to be integrated, why do the Kurds have their own parliament? Why does that Kurdish parliament have the power to reject domestic policies legislated by the central
government in Baghdad? Supposedly, no ruling will apply to them unless it is ratified by their Kurdistan parliament, which literally means that the Kurdish parliament has veto power over the central government's legislative body. If the Kurds have clearly made this type of declaration, are clearly disinterested in a unified Iraq, and make every attempt toward securing their sovereignty, then it will happen. It's just a matter of time.

The Kurds are still a part of this new Iraq and yet they are separate from it. In addition, they have negotiated with the Shiites and will now maintain control of their own economy by managing their own petroleum and its proceeds. Thus, even if Iraq keeps its current geographical borders, it will still remain a divided nation on ethnic lines. So why not break Iraq, if not into three countries, at least into two? Why prohibit a newly freed people from determining their own destiny?

The problem with the current setup situation as we go forward is that Kurds in Iraq will have a different set of laws and regulations than the Arabs. Consider that in the United States, federal law supercedes state law. However, the founding fathers have left provisions to allow elected state assemblies to legislate laws that address specific states needs such as regulating state taxes as an example. But by no means are the states to enact any legislation that would contradict or be inconsistent with federal laws or the United States constitution, and this is a logical hierarchy. Unfortunately, the US, as an occupying force in Iraq, has neglected to enforce this fine line between federal and state legislation, which has understandably created immense friction between the minority Kurds and the majority Arabs.

What a mess!
What a gross plan!

This is a moral disgrace by any means if one would only look to the irreconcilable consequences on the horizon. The US's gross mistake was to let the Shiite leaders, who are advocates of the Iranian Ayatollah, to establish themselves as the most powerful voice in Iraq. The fact is that these same Shiite leaders have been persistently asking for Iraq to be an Islamic state as much as possible while the Kurds persistently oppose this. The fact is that in the beginning, the Iraqi constitution will be flavored with Islamic elements, but as time passes, this flavoring will turn into a key ingredient. There is no problem with Islam as a faith. The problem is that the faith is dominated by a consortium of religious extremists whose domain of influence is borderless. Undoubtedly, the Shiites will push to include Kurdistan in the realm of their Islamic rule. When this materializes, federalism will fall apart, the Kurds will be threatened, civil war will erupt, and the devastation will be immeasurable.

Iraq has been a troublesome country since its inception and it will remain such within its current artificial border. The experience of Yugoslavia, which wasn't long ago, dictates that no nation should be forced against its will to merge with another nation. This lesson should be applied to Iraq, because arranging peaceful Iraqi breakup is far more preferable than allowing a bloody and catastrophic conflict. The experience of Yugoslavia should never be repeated.

Kurdistan's future

Khaled Salih

Politicians, analysts and ordinary people are concerned about the future of Iraq, especially with the prospect of heightened internal fighting between Shi'ite and Sunni groups. No doubt this process will have repercussions for the future of Kurdistan in Iraq. In fact, the fate of Kurdistan is directly related to political and security developments in the Arab part of Iraq.

State-building in Iraq has already failed. The process took a definitive turn for the worse when Saddam Hussein took over in 1979. Many specialists and commentators argued that Saddam Hussein strengthened Iraq, but in fact he contributed to an accelerated process of state failure. In addition to strong centralization of state power, Saddam Hussein initiated a gradual fragmentation of Iraq as a country by alienating the Kurds and Shi'ites.

His invasion, occupation and annexation of Kuwait led to the creation of the no-fly zones in the north and the south in 1992. Much of Kurdistan proper was transformed into an independent entity, politically and administratively. A gradual de facto separation of the majority of the Kurdistan population from the rest of Iraq became a political reality. Separate political institutions (parliament, regional government and political parties), infrastructure, security arrangements and economic development all contributed to this process.

However, with the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime the rules of the game changed. While Arab Iraq collapsed in terms of political authority and administration, Kurdistan maintained its institutions, police and security forces and sustained its economic development. While the Bush administration talked about "regime change" and "nation-building", the actual process since mid-2003 has been about how to rebuild the state in Iraq. Kurdish politicians, too, have been involved in reconstructing Iraq, whether they realize, recognize or deny it.

This has been important for Kurdistan on two levels. First, Kurdish politicians have managed to protect Kurdistan and its achievements since 1992. In historical terms this is remarkable, because this is the first time in centuries the Kurds have not been the first to lose out on a major change sweeping the Middle East. Second, political negotiations in Baghdad have made it possible for Kurdistan to share in the distribution of power, reconstruction aid and revenues. In this process, Kurdistan's politicians thus far have been able to secure both Kurdistan's self-rule and its shared rule over the rest of Iraq.

Now, when the prospect of state rebuilding in Iraq does not look very promising and fear of further collapse of the reconstruction process is becoming paramount, the people of Kurdistan are anxiously watching events and pondering Kurdistan's fate in the event Iraq falls apart. Several issues are at stake. First, the future status of the region as recognized now in the permanent constitution will be jeopardized because the constitution, though approved by a majority of voters in Iraq, will not come into effect before a new government is sworn in and, meanwhile, the constitutional state is not yet fully consolidated.

Second, the fate of the Arabized regions, including Kirkuk, will lead to a serious confrontation between Kurdish groups and Arab groups. In such a scenario, neighboring countries are likely to encourage and support different factions. We are likely to see Turkey assisting Turkmen groups, Iran assisting Shi'ite and particularly Sadrist activists in Kirkuk, and Syria assisting Sunni Arabs throughout the region. Inter-communal and sectarian tensions and confrontations are a likely outcome of such a development.

Third, Kurdistan's share of income, such as aid reconstruction and oil revenues, is likely to be put on hold. In a worst case scenario, neighboring countries will prove more than willing to encourage and support Kurdish schisms in an effort to undermine ongoing institution-building in Kurdistan. Direct financial and military support to radical Islamic groups and small Turkmen groups will exacerbate any internal disagreement among political groups in Kurdistan. If current security arrangements and political deals crumble, we might witness divisions along party, territorial and economic lines, more or less resembling the fighting of the mid-1990s, with additional groups across the borders joining in (the PKK from Turkey and Jihadists from Arab Iraq and Kurdistan).

But the political leadership in Kurdistan could also somehow manage to sustain current trends and keep Kurdistan safe, secure and stable. For this to happen it would have to avoid institutional breakdown, disengage from political negotiations in Baghdad without alienating the Americans, and adhere to internal political deals. In this event, Kurdistan in Iraq might emerge as a prosperous entity on which coalition forces could rely in a regional context, as well as an ally for Turkey and NATO. Tensions in Kirkuk and other Arabized territories might be solved more peacefully than we anticipate, due in part to strong unity among Kurds and disunity among Arabs, but also because American officials come to realize that a safe and secure portion of Iraq is a better scenario than the whole of Iraq sinking into internal conflict.- Published 30/3/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org

Khaled Salih is a senior lecturer in Middle East politics at the University of Southern Denmark. He is coeditor (with Brendan O'Leary and John McGarry) of The Future of Kurdistan in Iraq (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005).

INDEPENDENCE IS THE SOLE ULTIMATUM

By: Baqi Barzani

Some of us might have speculated that the fall of dictatorship would guarantee a declaration to the long-term question of independence for the homeless and drifting Kurdish people but it has further been complicated after the so-called 'constitutional procedures '.

At the inception of the drafting process, we have not been and will not be able to set aside our discrepancies in the nonstop political process with the participating Sunni delegates due to their radical and chauvinist principles. The alleged " constitution " is not only strengthening insurgency, ethnic and sectarian violence but also leading the nation to a civil war. The Iraq's Sunni Arabs elements mostly remnants of Baath regime have strictly balked at the draft constitution, believing it would eventually empower the Kurds in the north to establish their own independent Kurdish state. The Sunnis are waging a campaign of fear to defeat the referendum. This involves tactics such as refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the process in advance, threatening to refuse to negotiate after a Yes, threats of a civil war and fuel insurgency.

We are not bound by any cultural, linguistic or historic relationship to the Shiites nor Sunni Arabs. Being supportive to the cause of the independence is not only our moral right but also burning for our national interest. We have resorted to a number of tactics including: militancy, peace and negotiations as possible ways to achieve independence. After decades of struggle, we stand miles away from independence. We have tried out friends and their pledges; we now know where we stand in the world. We have learnt a lesson, although a bitter one, but we are getting more and more definite about our destination. The Kurdish people have offered huge sacrifices for the sake of independence, but they feel they were betrayed by their `friends'. Kurds now know that they have to fight this fight on their own. The struggle has seen its ups and downs, and all that is a part of the independence struggle, but it is worthy to ensure that the struggle persists. No power on earth can deprive the Kurds from their right of self-determination. They have to clarify without any ambiguities what they mean by 'independence' or 'right of self determination'. Once that is clear in their minds, as it is increasingly becoming clear to them that even their very close friends have their own axe to grind, and then they can only rely on the true nationalist leadership.

The struggle has entered into a new phase, and for this new phase we need to have a new strategy. The strategy we had at the beginning of the present struggle will on longer be relevant to this new phase. We can learn from our mistakes and see what went wrong in the struggle that we are facing the present crises. We understand that we have to fight on all levels and have to adopt strategies so that maximum pressure is exerted on the forces of occupation, but we have to give preference to strategies, which are more acceptable to the international community. By this I mean that we put more emphasis on dialogue.

There is growing tendency in the world to resolve differences through continued negotiations, and the realization that decisions imposed by sheer force of power do not provide lasting peace and stability. Apart from that we must realize that Iraq is not the only country that has control of our motherland. We must adopt appropriate strategies that the areas under Turkey, Iran and Syria are also part of the freedom struggle. We can not be too complacent when it comes to raising the matters within Iraq. We must be bold enough to call a spade a spade. If we do not adopt an appropriate strategy to meet the needs of the freedom struggle, the world community would regard this as a territorial disintegration or a fight against neighboring countries. It is time for the adjacent governments to include the issue of Kurdistan in the top of their agenda whenever dialogue with our president takes place. Our president should take the lead to introduce the charter of independence for Kurdistan in the United Nations upcoming sessions.

There is a need that the referendum shall be supervised by the United Nations in order that the result will be acceptable to all parties. Common sense dictates that the unstable and newly- formed-government cannot be credible to conduct or supervise such political exercise. The UN is the best body to oversee the referendum to ensure that whatever will be the result will be respected by all parties and implemented. If there is a need, the UN can organize its force to disarm.

We appeal to all the Kurdish people to go to the polls on the referendum day and say" Yes" to independence for Kurdistan. Independence is the best practicable, peaceful, equitable, honorable, democratic and permanent solution to our national cause. The right of national self-determination is the fundamental and unconditional right of our nation to determine our own future, free of any outside interference or coercion. This right includes the right of our nation to form our own independent state if we so choose, the right to determine our political status and freely pursue our economic, social and cultural development, the right to protect and preserve our culture and way of life and finally the right to reclaim our lost freedom and independence