If Kurdish autonomy takes hold in Iraq, it will inspire the Kurds across the Turkish border. And that situation could blow. And the Armenians along with it. And while the Turks are preoccupied with their mess in the east…

the Greeks can regain Constantinople!

Well, it’s a thought…

For the Kurds, the term “liberation” as opposed to “conquest’ or “occupation” certainly does apply.
They were essentially under foregin control in the old Iraq, and our removal of Saddam and occupation of much of Iraq was an unmixed blessing for the Kurds, as for the most part we have let them be and allowed them to govern themselves (admittedly, they have been more prepared for this than the Arab portions of Iraq).
I believe that any just plan for ending the occupation will need to include an independent Kurdistan. Not that there aren’t plans for Iraq that do not include Kurdish independence, but none of these plans would be just.
(Most Kurds apparently would be happy with being part of a federalist Iraq IF the rest of the country respects the arrangement, but the chances of this are - not good).

Surely the Kurds are better off with Saddam gone, and of course they like the occupation. We essentially did their fighting for them. Up until very recently, the Kosovo Albanians liked the NATO occupation of that province, for precisely the same reason. Do we want to start a policy of intervening on the behalf of every ethnic group which wants independence?

I am not surprised that this leftist-feminist would look favorably on such a policy, because many also supported the bombing campaign against Serbia.

Mr Young wrote: “I am not surprised that this leftist-feminist would look favorably on such a policy, because many also supported the bombing campaign against Serbia.”

Andrea Schmidt (the author of the Kurdistan piece) was never one of those, though for what it’s worth, I was. Her understanding of American foreign policy is better described as “reverse-Midas touch”. Anything America touches turns to sewage. Her previous Iraq report, “Our Borders Are Blast Walls,” gives a fair picture of her thoughts on the subject.

http://www.en-camino.org/iraqreports/april19_2004schmidt.htm

In our hard-left circles, it used to be almost heresy to say that American intervention, both in 1991 and now, has been unequivocally good for the Kurds. It was definitely heresy to say if the Kurds welcome a continued American presence — and they do — we shouldn’t oppose it on the grounds that Marxist analysis enables us to know what’s best for them.

None of this suggests the invasion was motivated by the best interests of the Kurds, but it does suggest we have one more element of a bi-partisan exit strategy. If withdrawing all our troops from the entire country overnight makes some people uncomfortable, we can keep a force in Kurdistan. Nobody either here or there who matters will object to that.

As an added bonus, if we decide we need to hunt down Zarqawi and Ansar-al-Islam before leaving, the Kurds will be more than willing to help. They hate Ansar as much as we do and for the same reasons. Back in February, two synchronized suicide bombings wiped out most of the leadership of both Kurdish parties. Nobody claimed responsibility — nobody ever does — but the bombers were able to mingle at holiday receptions in both party offices. That suggests they were ethnic Kurds, while the stopwatch synchronization of two attacks is an Al Qaeda trademark. Ansar is the only suspect that fits that bill.

I did not intend to imply that Andrea Schmidt herself was in favor on the bombing of the Serbs, just that many on the left and feminist side of things were. Admittedly that rather impressionistic. I was thinking particularly of Christian Ammanpour reports, an academic — Mary Kaldour — we have here at LSE, and a Labour MP whose name escapes me. Of course Mr. Hechtman’s own position on the bombing of Serbia offers more evidence of my point.

I do admire Mr. Hechtman’s analysis, his idea of keeping troops in the Kurdish part of Iraq offers a viable option. (And I appreciate hearing from someone who has been on the ground there.) I don’t think that this will meet the Bush administration’s ideological or strategic objectives (as muddy as those are). The main point, however, is that intervention to support one side in an ethnic conflict seems to me to be morally questionable and strategically foolish. What happens, for example, when Kurdish elements use there newly autonomous status — protected by US troops on the ground — to launch an irredentist campaign against south east Turkey. Perhaps US influence could forstal such a situation, but judging from the Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia experience, I have my doubts.