Michael J. Totten: The Kurds' War for Oil?

February 23, 2005

The Kurds' War for Oil?

Did you read that long article in the New York Times Magazine last Sunday? The one about the Kurds? My title for this post should tip you off to the fact that I read it and did not much like what I read.

What I normally do, when I've tiptoed into the mudroom of a long article and taken an immediate dislike to the smells drifting in from the kitchen (if you know what I mean), is that I will read the first paragraph and then read the last paragraph. A good and rigorously objective journalist ought to work both sides of the street -- if there are two sides -- at least to some extent, within a long news piece on an important subject. So I'm not one to skim for outrageous ideas and make easy assumptions about reportorial or editorial bias (or I often am one to do that, but in any case I not this time.)

But you can generally go by the first and last paragraphs (and if you're trying that trick on this post it may already be too late, but let me assure you that I did this time read the paragraphs in between).

Here, then, is the bulk of the introductory paragraph to Nir Rosen's piece on the Kurds:

Nir Rosen, a freelance journalist, spent the days before the election among Kirkuk’s bitterly contentious political parties. He says the election was not about ideas, or even politics, but was a blatant grab for power. “The people you saw dancing in the streets were Kurds, dancing to Kurdish national music, and waving the flag of Kurdistan,” Rosen says. Now, with their all-but-assured control over Kirkuk, the Kurds will be emboldened in their ambition to establish an independent Kurdish state, which includes Kirkuk and its oil.”

Welcome to the mental streetcorner at which I was pausing when I came up with this post's title.

Now here's the last paragraph:

It appears that Kirkuk has become a place where an oil field has to have a ''commander'' and where that commander thinks of himself not as an Iraqi, but as a Kurd.

Was it fair of me to conclude that this Nir Rosen -- whose name was naggingly thought only distantly familiar -- was trying to tell Sunday readers of the New York Times that it was all going to turn to shit in Iraq, and that those American allies, the Kurds, were just in it for the oil?

I'll share some of the stuff that came between the first and last paragraph.

I should point out that Rosen does remind readers that the Kurds suffered horribly under Saddam, citing a Human Rights Watch figure of 100,000 Kurds killed during Saddam's Anfal campaign of 1987 which, he owns, was "widely considered a genocidal offensive." It was; that's true. But in the previous paragraph Rosen had introduced the topic of Saddam's treatment of the Kurds this way:

Turkmens and Kurds alike were suppressed by the aggressive Arabism of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. Official ''Arabization'' began in the 1960's and accelerated significantly in 1975, when the Iraqi regime began forcibly removing tens of thousands of Kurds, Turkmens and Assyrian Christians from Kirkuk and bringing in Arabs to take their place. This Arabization was chiefly motivated by the government's wish to consolidate its grip on the oil-rich and fertile region -- and to pre-empt a gradual demographic takeover of the city by the Kurds.

And again, I don't mean to nitpick. The Kurds were suppressed by aggressive Arabism. True enough. I don't need Rosen to get elegiac or emotional about this stuff. The facts will suffice. The trouble is that just a few paragraphs down you almost -- if you didn't know any better -- would get the feeling that the Kurds were a bit scarier, a bit more 'aggressive' than Saddam's Baathists:

During the war to oust Saddam Hussein that began in March 2003, United States Special Forces soldiers fought alongside Kurdish guerrilla fighters. Together they descended on Kirkuk on April 10, and the vengeful Kurds -- with Mam Rostam as their commander -- looted many of the city's government buildings and shops, and convoys of Kurdish vehicles could be seen carrying the booty back to the north. Thousands of Arabs fled in advance of the Kurdish and American-led coalition forces; those who remained were subject to a campaign of intimidation. Many were warned to abandon their homes, which the Kurdish militias were seizing for themselves or awarding to the families of peshmerga casualties.

Did you notice the language-use as compared with the way he chose to describe the Baathist (some would say) genocide against the Kurds? Let's recap: 'guerilla fighters', descended on Kirkuk', 'the vengeful Kurds', 'looted', 'carrying the booty back to the north', 'Thousands of Arabs fled', 'campaign of intimidation', 'warned to abandon their homes.'

Almost makes you nostalgic for that aggressive Arabism (which, anyway, was ancient history as compared with this Kurdish and American onslaught that happened just this past year).

Am I saying that Nir Rosen is anti-Kurd? Upon reflection...no. Not exactly. Let me cut to the chase: Rosen is trying to induce in you, the reader, the idea (and you are to think it was your own) that as bad a man as Saddam was, things are going to get much worse than ever in Iraq. And very soon. Why focus on the Kurds? Because they are the most closely allied with the U.S. And because people have a tendency to, well, like them, or at least to fear them less than the Shia and, certainly, less than the Sunnis.

For Rosen there are only scary factions in Iraq. Thus the walls of the Shiite mosque Rosen visits...

"...were lined with posters featuring a who's who of radical Shiism: Ayatollah Khomeini, Moktada al-Sadr and his revered martyred uncle, Muhammad Bakr al-Sadr, the father of political Shiism in Iraq. One poster, showing Moktada al-Sadr beside a masked man wielding a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, announced, ''The Mahdi army supports Muslims and protects the religious sites for Iraqis.'' Another declared that al-Sadr was on the battlefield against the Americans...

And the Sunni sheik Rosen chooses to tell us about explains to Rosen why he named his son 'Osama': "'I named him after Osama bin Laden,' the sheik said, smiling. 'Bin Laden is a good man.'''

Right. I get it. Iraq was far better off before the war, before the election.

But I would be remiss in not sharing the Israeli connection, especially since it will make a nice segue, as you'll soon see (if you would indulge me a little further):

...the rotund and eternally tired chief of the traffic police, settled into a chair, removing his Israeli automatic pistol, which he said was a special gift from a benefactor he refused to name. The chief of security for this neighborhood, a handsome man, freshly shaved and with a permanent smile, refused to give his name or have his picture taken. Asked about reports that Israeli intelligence agents were training the Kurds, he said Iraqi Jews have the right to return to Kurdistan. ''Better to have Israelis than Arabs!''

So it all comes together nicely. While refraining from telling anyone what to think -- but does he have to, since the facts speak for themselves? -- Rosen finds himself in the midst of what one can only reasonably conclude is a nightmare about to be visited upon Iraq by Kurds and Americans wielding Israeli weapons acquired God only knows how, from some sinister Mossad deepthroat (Our Man in Halabja?)

But who in the hell am I, a lowly blogger, to criticize the work of a journalist who has risked his life to report this story and others? Let me say that I do respect his willingness to put his neck on the line to report this stuff. And I am grateful for any firsthand descriptions of the people, the cultures, the dangers in Iraq, however uneven or misleadingly applied any given account of these things may be.

I don't, however, respect how this man and others like him have used his unique access to pass his smugly subjective opinions off as if they were courageously dispassionate journalism. It's selfish and dangerous.

But my final paragraph approaches. I'll let Nir Rosen, a native of Israel, have the last word. What follows is from a piece he published last year in Counterpunch and on a website called "Dissident Voice" (and this was why his name was so familiar to me):

The sanctions that cripple Iraq and starve its people do nothing to the dictator whom they did not choose and cannot remove. Israelis on the other hand chose the war criminal that leads them, voted for the bloody policies of their government, and half of them support the "transfer" (the Israeli euphemism for ethnic cleansing) of Palestinians from the occupied territories. So I find myself in the unique and painful position of calling for international sanctions against Israel and wondering if a punitive bombing of Tel Aviv, the city I love, until it complies with international law, might be a good (albeit quixotic) idea.

Posted by Jeremy Brown at February 23, 2005 11:10 PM

Comments

A little over a year ago I attended part of a conference on Kurds and Kurdistan in post-Saddam Iraq (I had done some editing of the English versions of the papers presented). A couple of the participants had flown from Iraqi Kurdistan for the conference and were part of whatever kind of local provisional government was going on then.

The only flag displayed was the Iraqi Kurdish flag (it looked like a Hungarian flag was modified and pressed into service) and the "Kurdish national anthem" was played (no Iraqi flags and no Iraqi national anthem and mentions of 'Iraq' pretty much meant non-Kurdish Iraq. The subtext (an early working hypothesis I found no reason to change) was that the Kurds were willing to be part of a federated Iraq as long as the Kurdish part was a de facto independent country (more or less the status quo between GW I and II). When I asked a few people about this, the inevitable answer was (paraphrasing) the Kurds realize it's a delicate issue and won't press it too openly for a while (as long as they have lots of autonomy) but that's the ultimate aim, of course, they want an independent country (they were specific about which cities were to be included as well but I forget those details).
Kurdish independence is not going to go away as an issue (to the Kurds) anytime soon, no matter what anyone says, they want an independent country with oil reserves and their pro-Americanism depends on the US not putting its foot down in a way that will make that impossible.

Posted by: michael farris at February 24, 2005 03:16 AM

Frankly I cannot blame the Kurds for wanting to be permanently free of the threat of Arab Supremecism.Who would'nt?
But if wishes were horses,beggars would ride.There are several reasons why a Kurdish state is not likely to happen,namely;Iran,Turkey,Iraqi Sunnis,Iraqi Shias,Syria,and last but not least,the USA.The ONLY hope of a Kurdish State would be 100% support from the US,as no-one else would be lined up to back such an entity.And the US will NEVER support these ambitions unless Iraq is already in the process of blowing apart.This is a fond and foolish hope, and the Kurdish leadership clearly understands this fact of history.A semi-autonomous entity within a federal Iraq is an entirely different matter.As I understand the situation(and please correct me if wrong),the major parties in Iraq have become much more interested and accepting of federalism since the invasion.The trick now is to define the concrete conditions of that federation.
As for Mr.Rosen,I thank Jeremy for his courage in'taking one for the team'so that others(such as me,for example),don't have to wade through his tendentious agenda driven propaganda.If Nir Rosen were to indicate that the sun was shining,I would feel compelled to rush to the window just to see for myself.

Posted by: dougf at February 24, 2005 05:44 AM

Thanks for the good reporting, Jeremy.

Posted by: JBP at February 24, 2005 07:55 AM

Off-Topic Alert

Iraqi Heroes -- American Friends !!

Posted by: dougf at February 24, 2005 08:20 AM

Actually, I'm all for the Iraqi Kurds having a great deal of automony, at least as much as we have in Oregon from the United States. Over-centralizing a government is a terrible and stupid thing to do, because one size does not fit all.

The putz from the NYT may not agree with the need for local autonomy, which is probably why he got a job at the NYT. But what do I know, I live on the far side of the Hudson!

Posted by: Patrick Lasswell at February 24, 2005 08:35 AM

dougf,

FYI, you got smacked in the "Rethinking" post and it deserves retaliation. It's guys like Hans Wall who give conservatives a bad name.

Posted by: Mike T. at February 24, 2005 09:10 AM

So, they hire Rosen to write the piece precisely because he is a Counterpunch person, then omit this info from his bio.

And the Times calls bloggers biased?

Posted by: Patricia at February 24, 2005 09:59 AM

I am with Patrick Lasswell on this one. The Kurds have been fairly autonomous due to the no-fly zones enforced by Britain and the United States, and indeed have thought's of independence. I think a more realistic picture is put forth by comparing the Kurdish flag to the State flag here in Virginia complete with Don't Tread On Me threaded into it's fabric, of course this flag also flies next to the Stars and Stripes. In my opinion a more poignant note concerning this is the defeatist mentality of the left. My family and friends all around me constantly reaching for the next dire collapse in the process and magnify small setbacks to foretells of disaster and catastrophe. Of course we all did the same during Reagan who I thought an equal fool.

Time heals wounds they say but I think time causes many people to revise history. Many people now act as if their opposition to Reagan was somehow superficial or all for the good. Propaganda can't erase the achievements of History, Reagan's accomplishments are sealed, but with that many now also act as if in their hearts they were always with him, but their token opposition just wanted to help avert disaster and keep him from going to far, besides Reagan was more substantive then Bush. Yeah right ! I'll tell you as someone that never voted for Reagan that he was just as relived and hated and viewed a shallow idiot. I'll predict the same cycle for Bush, in 20 years people will talk glowingly of Bush "the straight talking leader who said what he meant and meant what he said". They won't admit the depth of hate and maligning him as a liar and deceiver, that went on.

What is amusing to me as someone who is determined to only suffer that mistake just once, is that this time I see clearly that history being made, the scales of darkness that blind the mind of the partisan can obscure from them many things that should be obvious, now how far and deep Bush's successes will be remains to be seen but we are no doubt talking about accumulative successes and not failures. These people are certainly blinded by their political rage and it is causing them to not only err but lose credibility. Such rash investment in proclaimed failures that are becoming obvious successes will never bring to them credibility and certainly nothing to gain. It is as if given a choice between a new upstart stock that appeared shaky and risky at first, but is now clearly proving to be a success, or betting it all at a table in Vegas, they choose the latter because... "This time I've got that feeling!". After it is all lost the truth is they wouldn't invest stock in the obvious winning stock because they didn't like the damn stockbroker! Talk about cutting off ones own nose despite themself. It's a train wreck, I'm watching it and realize I can't stop it I have tried. The left is screaming about the train wreck Bush is causing as their own train careens off the track.

Posted by: Joseph (formerly Samuel) at February 24, 2005 10:03 AM

The PR system, instead of 275 local districts, leads to more Kurdish "nationalism". It led, in Czechoslovakia, to a Velvet Divorce in 1992, only 3 years after the 89 revolution.

Many Kurds dream of independence -- perhaps most. Many will not settle for less, but almost certainly most will, if they're progressing "enough". But the voting "system" should have been set up with an attempt to reduce Kurdish nationalism, especially.

I'm also not afraid of a 3-state Iraq. What if the Kurds demand a referendum on independence, and then vote for it? Would the Sunnis? Or the Shia?

If the Kurds can get the question on the ballot, they can get their own country. Will they get to ask the question?

Posted by: Tom Grey at February 24, 2005 10:20 AM

"It's a train wreck, I'm watching it and realize I can't stop it.... I have tried !!The left is screaming about the train wreck Bush is causing as their own train careens off the track."--Joseph

So many good posts and comments from so many on this blog,and this single statement seems to me to be precisely TRUE.
And on a non-related note,thanks to Mike T, for the kind heads-up.Just between you and me Mike,I probably did deserve some flack from Hans.I did mean to be sarcastic(not condescending) in my comment.I guess I just don't want to listen to that type of drivel any longer.These are serious times,and serious times call for serious people.Quoting Buchanan approvingly just doesn't do it for me(or for you either,I guess).

Posted by: dougf at February 24, 2005 10:29 AM

Dougf,

You got it bro. And no, it doesn't do it for me either.

Posted by: Mike T. at February 24, 2005 10:46 AM

Kurds want or at the very least very strongly prefer independence. Either this is OK, or its not. Either they ethnically cleanse some Arabs and Turkmen from their territories in an attempt to maximize power, or they don't. In any case, Rosen's views on Israel are irrelevant to the accuracy or inaccuracy of his reporting in Kurdistan.

Jeremy, I think the reason his article pisses you off is the same reason that antiwar types get pissed off reading about some post-invasion success, like the election: it challenges your preconceived notions, weakens the old, familiar argument on either side.

Posted by: markus rose at February 24, 2005 10:51 AM

I think I can summarize my central point as being simply that Rosen is motivated by passionate views regarding what he perceives to be not only the malevolence but the inevitable failure of what he perceives to be U.S. and Israeli interests in the Middle East. That comes across loud and clear in his Counterpunch article, but it is veiled behind the disingenuous reportage of what is, really, his opinion piece in the NYT.

Yes, either Kurdish dreams of autonomy will equate to civil war followed by the Kurds exterminating Arabs, etc., or it won't. But also: either all signs in Iraqi Kurdistan point to this outcome or only some signs in Iraqi Kurdistan point to this outcome. This second part of the equation is where I strongly suspect that Rosen is toting some very smelly Ka-ka-doodie.

Posted by: Jeremy Brown at February 24, 2005 11:09 AM

Markus the above is very presumptuous in light of Jeremy's own explanation, do you personally know Jeremy? I take him at his words...

Posted by: Samuel at February 24, 2005 11:11 AM

I see Jeremy has spoken for himself. By the way good work Jeremy.

Posted by: Samuel at February 24, 2005 11:14 AM

"I think a more realistic picture is put forth by comparing the Kurdish flag to the State flag here in Virginia complete with Don't Tread On Me threaded into it's fabric, of course this flag also flies next to the Stars and Stripes."

I think the comparison is only valid if there are other regional flags and 'national anthems', which I don't think there are. An independent Iraqi Kurdistan would be/will be problematic in many ways, but for many Kurds (the majority?) the horse has left the barn and they have no intention of calling it back (and the only way the US can call it back is to ... well shoot it, which I don't think anyone wants). I think the Kurds if given enough autonomy will be willing to continue to be part of Iraq on paper (and not much else) for quite some time (this is the Middle East after all, where people often think in stretches of time that Americans aren't accustomed to). But again, I don't think they're going to give up an idea that means so much to them just because it's dangerous and impractical at present (this is the Middle East, after all).

Posted by: Michael Farris at February 24, 2005 12:37 PM

Jeremy – thanks for the great dissection of disingenuous reportage. Even before you read the Counterpunch article, you knew Rosen was biased. He uses all the standard Guardian-style techniques.

During the war in Afghanistan, I read articles in the Daily News, The Post and the Guardian (among others) In some newswire articles, the Guardian omitted facts - they left out paragraphs that didn't suit them.

The persuasion techniques used by marketing and advertising executives are now used by many so-called nonfiction writers and journalists. They carefully set the scene (the commander doesn’t think of himself as an Iraqi…), the exaggerate some facts while downplaying others (or leaving them out altogether). They re-label the product they’re trying to sell (the insurgents! Poor Arab families chased from their homes!) while damning the product they despise with a darkly sinister product X tag (the neo-cons, the vengeful Kurds).

And lets not forget the now-standard scare quotes (“Arabization”)

When they try subliminal ice-cube tricks, I won’t be surprised.

Posted by: mary at February 24, 2005 03:56 PM

Michael Farris,

I think that the Kurds are capable of establishing their own identity civilly, now that they have the chance to do so. They might introduce a new phrase to the Turkish and Iranian governments: Brain Drain. A semi-autonomous and innovative Iraqi Kurdistan could draw their best cousins away from places they are not appreciated. Without a state oppressor, the Kurds could decide to succeed instead of fighting over worthless ancestral dirt. Honestly supported freedom leverages itself.

Posted by: Patrick Lasswell at February 24, 2005 04:03 PM

The descriptive prose of the chief of the traffic police with his special gift of an israeli automatic pistol made me think of "Happiness is a warm gun" I think that was the feeling the author was going for.

Posted by: Joshua Scholar at February 24, 2005 04:44 PM

I have to admit to still being very disappointed (well - pissed would be more like it) that the Kurds, of all people, apparently squashed the Assyrian Christian vote during the elections.

Assyrians prevented from voting

Frankly, I want to hear what Hitchens has to say about it.

Posted by: Caroline at February 24, 2005 05:08 PM

" Israelis on the other hand chose the war criminal that leads them, voted for the bloody policies of their government, and half of them support the "transfer" (the Israeli euphemism for ethnic cleansing) of Palestinians from the occupied territories."

This guy sounds like the typical leftist Democrat. Is he related to Eric Alterman? What about a close friend to John Kerry's stepson? When will the leading polling organizations research the extent of the Democratic Party's contempt for Israel?

Posted by: David Thomson at February 24, 2005 05:24 PM

I myself find myself disgusted with the left wingism at the NYT. I remember very well how the far liberal reporter Judith Miller wrote a whole series of articles from around 2002-2003 that were written to discredit the Bush administration's claims about nuclear and WMDs in Iraq. I mean, did one need to go much further than that alone to prove that the nYT is an anti-war anti-american newspaper?

Posted by: lucifer at February 24, 2005 07:36 PM

Jeremy, an excellent fisking. The last paragraph is a clincher. This Nir Rosen must be one sick puppy. I think I will always associate that name in the context of this revelation.

We need more work like this, - revealing the neurotic, ideological obsessions of otherwise intelligent observers who have, unfortunately, lost their moral compass.

Posted by: Finnpundit at February 24, 2005 07:41 PM

"So I find myself in the unique and painful position of calling for international sanctions against Israel and wondering if a punitive bombing of Tel Aviv, the city I love, "

Precision bombing has been becoming extremely accurate, could we limit our bombing raid on Tel Aviv to only this fellow? ;-)

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at February 24, 2005 10:20 PM

I'd like to know why the Times retains Judith Miller, the lady who went out of her way to attack and discredit the Bush administration before the war against Iraq? With radical liberals like her, who needs Al Qaeda or Saddam?

Posted by: lucifer at February 24, 2005 10:39 PM

Michael,

There is no memory in Oregon. Thank god for the 'net.

Well done.

Posted by: OregonGuy at February 24, 2005 10:54 PM

Joseph, the motto on the Virginia state flag is "Sic Semper Tyranus" which translates to "Thus Always to Tyrants".

Posted by: john cheeseman at February 25, 2005 07:13 AM

I'd like to know why the Times retains Judith Miller, the lady who went out of her way to attack and discredit the Bush administration before the war against Iraq?

Say what? She actually went out of her way to report the WMD stories that greatly HELPED the Bush Administration make the case for the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Stephen Silver at February 25, 2005 07:31 AM

David Thomson -- "will the leading polling organizations research the extent of the Democratic Party's contempt for Israel?"

A complete crock. 95% of Dems in the House and Senate and 99% of Republicans regularly vote for resolutions that Ariel Sharon fully concurs with. They vote yearly for massive amounts of US military aid, with no strings attached. This is a completely bipartisan exercise. In fact, you'll note that the pro-Israel PACS regularly give more money to Dems in Congress than to Republicans.

see: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May_2004/0405026b.html

The only "anti-Israel" elected officials as you would define it are a handful of black caucus members and members who happen to represent a large Arab population. And Jim Moran, now stripped of his House leadership post by Pelosi for his comment.

Posted by: markus rose at February 25, 2005 07:35 AM

I think the reason his article pisses you off is the same reason that antiwar types get pissed off reading about some post-invasion success, like the election: it challenges your preconceived notions, weakens the old, familiar argument on either side.

It seems to me that someone's pre-conceived notions say something about the person, or at the very least his ideology.

If we are going to have "pre-conceived notions" at all, at least they should be the right ones. Like believing freedom and democracy can prevail in the middle east. In my opinion, that's a good pre-conceived notion to have. Isn't it?

But why would the anti-war crowd be pissed off by reporting of successful elections unless it was because they hold the pre-conceived notion that freedom and democracy CANNOT prevail in the middle east, and that Arabs ARE NOT capable of self-rule? And don't tell me the Left hasn't been pissed off by all the reporting of successful elections (not just the successful invasion.) Don't you think those are pretty F--K up pre-conceived notions to have? I do.

Don't get me wrong, if your fucked up pre-conceived notions were solidly backed up by facts and empirical evidence, I could forgive you your choice of notions. But we all know this is about ideology and politics, not facts and impirical evidence.

And the tragic comic part about it (more comic than tragic) is that it is purely a reaction to Bush. That's why democracy and freedom in the middle east clashes with your currently held pre-conceived notions. Essentially, Bush chose your pre-conceived notions for you. It wasn't your choice at all. Because to be a Lefty is to be against the Right. There exists the Right, and their is the anti-Right. You Lefties are the true "Reactionaries." You simply react. Which means you have no core principles other than being anti-Right, and reactionary. That's certainly true of the Left today. This whole little episode in Iraq has demonstrated that. So wherever the Right goes, you go the other way. Even if it means having fucked up pre-conceived notions. It's like a hybrid ideology, cobbled together by all those who are anti. With few things in common other than being anti. The Right is matter, Lefties are anti-matter. If the Right didn't exist, you would find a different foil to be anti, and your pre-conceived notions would adjust accordingly. Who knows, without the Right, you would probably go after islam, or each other, or somebody. Because you have no core.

Posted by: Carlos at February 25, 2005 08:01 AM

Patrick Laswell:

"Honestly supported freedom leverages itself."

Bullseye. Belief in this basic idea determines whether or not one is a freedomist, or a collectivist. It divides the progeny of Burke and Locke from those of Rousseau and Marx.

In this struggle between ideologies the very nature of mankind itself is disputed, and the left has reacted to a long series of setbacks with increasing rage and hysteria, exposing the corruption of the soul and the totalitarian nature inherent in their worldview.

Posted by: Paul at February 25, 2005 08:51 AM

Carlos -- wouldn't you agree that both supporters of the war and its opponents have had plenty of opportunities to say "i told you so" about specific news coming from Iraq. Consequently, both sides have tended to ignore facts that seem to contradict their argument. Pro-war groups ignore or minimize Abu-Ghraib, or all of the Kurdish, not Iraqi flags flying in Kurdistan on election day, and the many Arabs getting evicted from their homes in Kirkuk. Anti-war groups ignore ordinary Iraqis holding up their ink stained fingers and thanking Bush.

The reason both sides can say I told you so is that the jury is still out. Iraq is not the disaster that most anti-war people thought it would be, but neither is it the success its strongest supporters hoped for. People who don't admit this are blinded by their partisanship.

Posted by: markus at February 25, 2005 09:43 AM

Iraq is not the disaster that most anti-war people thought it would be, but neither is it the success its strongest supporters hoped for. People who don't admit this are blinded by their partisanship.

Markus,

I can agree with that. But it doesn't explain the choices of pre-conceived notions (as you put it) that each side has chosen to adopt. Nor does that address WHY each side has chosen to adopt them. I think it's very revealing, as I stated in my post.

The Right, generally tending to be the status quo, gets to choose it's own direction. The Left, often tending not to be the status quo, can only react. The Right, having chosen democracy in the middle east, leaves the Left no other choice but to be in opposition to democracy in the middle east. It's reactionary. The Arabs aren't ready for it, you say. Democracy can't be imposed, you say. It's all about oil, you say. The elections were a sham, you say. The Kurds aren't Iraqi patriots, you say. Etc., etc. Reaction, opposition, anti.

Today, the Left is purely about reaction. Granted, that may not have always been the case. There was a time when the Left had a direction, a purpose, a destination. But no longer. The Left is in a shambles, able only to react and oppose. That's a hell of a message to try to sell.

Posted by: at February 25, 2005 10:08 AM

Posted by: Carlos at February 25, 2005 10:10 AM

95% of Dems in the House and Senate and 99% of Republicans regularly vote for resolutions that Ariel Sharon fully concurs with. They vote yearly for massive amounts of US military aid, with no strings attached. This is a completely bipartisan exercise.

It is, as it should be.

Posted by: Stephen Silver at February 25, 2005 12:49 PM

Dougf, FYI, you got smacked in the "Rethinking" post and it deserves retaliation. It's guys like Hans Wall who give conservatives a bad name.

Mike, you're a sneaky bastard having Doug gang up on me knowing I was not following this thread. But no hard feelings I can take some heat . By the way is this what ISI pays you for?

Quoting Buchanan approvingly just doesn't do it for me.

Doug, you seem to be the bully of the blog scene spreading flames as if you were a paid AIPAC lobbyist - are you?. I would definitely improve the quality of this blog if everyone would try to take an argument at face value and answer with just a little more intellectual honesty.

In any case, Rosen's views on Israel are irrelevant to the accuracy or inaccuracy of his reporting in Kurdistan.

Markus, nice to hear a voice of sanity in this hitherto rather low level name calling thread. But I think Jeremy does have a point when he accuses Rosen of having an agenda - he obviously has one too.

What I was missed in Rosen's article was at least an attempt to adress the historic roots for Kurdish separatism.IMO the adherence to Zoroasterism as manifest in the Alevis and Yazidis are the main reason for mainstream Islam hostility and this in turn will probably play a role with religious parties on the rise in Baghdad.

Posted by: Hans Wall at February 25, 2005 02:04 PM

Uhm, no, you're wrong,the NYT left radical liberal writer Judith Miller was busy writing articles that made the claims of WMDs and nuclear bombs in Iraq look silly and making it hard for Bush to make war. The only reason the NYT hired Judith Miller was to support the antiwar movment and show their antitroops predisposition. Entirely typical of the NYT, to hire someone who was anti-Bush before the attack on Iraq started, like Judith Miller. Thanks for nothing alqaeda symps at the NYT!

Posted by: lucifer at February 25, 2005 02:21 PM

Mike T.: Dougf, FYI, you got smacked in the "Rethinking" post and it deserves retaliation. It's guys like Hans Wall who give conservatives a bad name.

Hans Wall: Mike, you're a sneaky bastard having Doug gang up on me knowing I was not following this thread. But no hard feelings I can take some heat . By the way is this what ISI pays you for?

Hans,

You never mentioned you were so goddamn witty?

Anyway, as an individual who realisticly classifies himself as generally right of center on most issues; I happpen to identify with Dougf, at least on some issues, as a fellow conservative. Since I have been posting here long enough to know that (still following me here stupid?), I thought dougf would like to know about your snide retort to his well intentioned comment.

Why would I think that you ask? Because I know that dougf, as I know him as a rational conservative, thinks as I do that Patrick Buchanon is a reactionary anti-semite. Thus, out of mutual respect, I felt he might like to respond to your snide remark.

If you feel I was being sneaky, I really don't think you want to know what other people get by you, because I'm not exactly Albert Einstein here.

Oh yeah, and Kurdish "seperatism" is actually Kurdish nationalism; which is probably a result of their historic pursecution in as many as 3-4 neighboring coutries including Iraq, NOT of two minority religious separitist movements.

Use logic and common sense instead of dropping the the names of religious denominations to make yourself sound more intelligent than you are; you might actually get it right.

Oh, and IGI pays me to coordinate their operations including personnel management, inventory management, Project Estimation and Cost Assessment, and collections when necessary. We are a small technology start-up located in southeastern Pennsylvania, USA. We offer technology salutions to small and medium size businesses, and individual residential clients. We specialize in custom asp.net development of business management/accounting software (ERP) software, and the installation of commercial network wiring and hardware. Anything else you want to know Hans?

Posted by: Mike T. at February 25, 2005 09:18 PM

Judith Miller is an interesting case. Before the Iraq war, she and two other reporters from the NYT wrote a book--Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War. I think the book discussed Iraq, but it wasn't central. (It was a great book, BTW!)

But my point is that she certainly seemed very concerned about both WMD and terrorism--that these are both real threats.

I have not followed her reporting, though, so I don't know what she has said since then.

Posted by: Bostonian at February 25, 2005 09:20 PM

I just want to make it clear that I am no way, no how related to Nir Rosen.

Markus - Moran wasn't dumped from the House leadership for an "anti-Israel" comment, but for antisemitic comments. I suggest you read the column on the subject by the WaPo's Colbert King, who ain't exactly a right-wing neocon Republican Bush-worshipper.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at February 26, 2005 01:44 AM

Mike, tsk, tsk! – my innocent question got you so upset? Wasn’t really my intention. But you understand that it would have been interesting if you were connected with the Intermedia Survey Institute (ISI), who are running their (spook) business on the same server you do.

Kurdish "separatism" is actually Kurdish nationalism; which is probably a result of their historic persecution in as many as 3-4 neighboring countries including Iraq, NOT of two minority religious separatist movements.
That is the famous hen and egg dilemma: What was first: the persecution or the Kurdish nationalism? But why were they persecuted? Here is my 101 version:

Kurds are seen as heretics by mainstream Islam because of their association with e.g. Alevi permission to drink alcohol and the Yazidi fire worship. In the past, Islamic rulers have persecuted them as apostates. The Kurds therefore anticipate being discriminated by a clerical Shiite government and prefer a ruling coalition with secular parties. It remains to be seen if Sistani lets them get away with this.

Mike, I appreciate you are working hard in this ERP business of yours and I applaude your effort to do some meaningful blogging. I spent a couple of years in the hot spots of the Middle East can still cannot figure out a lot of what is going on now. Maybe to post at this blog isn’t such a bad idea after all.

Posted by: Hans Wall at February 26, 2005 03:26 AM

Hans,I prefer not to think of myself as a 'bully'.Probably just a conceit,but I prefer to believe that I just have a little problem with certain forms of expression.Allow me to demonstrate from your initial post which has occasioned this 3-way spiral.

"the success of Iraq's election seems to have tear-blinded this discussion"---
"Chief puppeteer Karl Rove masterfully twisted the Jeffersonian concept of "freedom for the oppressed" ----
"As Justin Raimondo points out the Jacobine roots of the megalomaniac GWB agenda..."
"Also Patrick Buchanan makes a convincing case for foreign policy restraint"---
"So much for the unholy alliance of neocon greed with Christian righteousness."---

Now it probably is just me,so I apologise in advance, but none of those statements appear to me to be designed to elicit a 'reasoned discussion of the issues'.Rather they point to a conspiracy driven view of the world,which I find frankly unbelievable.I have no problems discussing the wisdom or lack thereof of the 'tactics'pursued by the Bush administration,but when someone starts the conversation by blaming the Prince Of Darkness(aka KR),right out of the box,and goes downhill from there,I tend to lose interest quickly.I have a very low tolerance for this type of dialogue.
One can argue the merits or lack thereof of a given position without ascribing MOTIVES to those who hold alternative outlooks.
Just FYI.

Posted by: dougf at February 26, 2005 07:25 AM

Doug, apology accepted – here is mine to you: When I was reading your last post to Mary I realized that there was a sensible caring person behind the smoke screen of snide remarks. Yes and I seem to have difficulties with the use of epithets which I admit can be offending to some people.

Having said this – do you know if there is something wrong with Michael Totten? Please let me know if help is needed to keep this blog going.

Posted by: Hans Wall at February 26, 2005 11:09 AM

Please let me know if help is needed to keep this blog going.--Hans W.

I have no doubt that the 'main man'will show up here in due course,and that he will be posting the pictures from his vacation so we can all say how great they look,while muttering jealously under our collective breath.
Nice to get that minor communication problem addressed if not actually yet resolved,and I really look forward to your becoming a regular visitor.Opinions are 'to each his own',but any avoidance of what might be lovingly considered as Moonbatese would be much appreciated.

Posted by: dougf at February 26, 2005 12:45 PM

Consider the (partial) parallels between iraq under saddam and yugoslavia under Titov.

In both cases we have a secular strongman trying to suppress religious and ethnic hatred to keep his patchwork country together.

Of course Saddam tried to mix up the people. He tried to defuse things as best he could, ruthlessly. He let shia like Allawi into the Ba'ath party, he tried to reduce local ethnic majorities, etc. The more the populations were mixed up, the harder it would be for any one of them to secede.

And in both cases when the strongman is gone the civil war has a better chance to start.

The relocations mean that if they do separate some degree of ethnic cleansing is likely with the resulting hard feelings. As it turns out maybe they'd been better off if Saddam hadn't tried so hard to keep them together, but he didn't know that. And it might still work. Yugoslavia split but it's too soon to be sure that iraq will.

But apart from the ideologies etc, there's the oil. Northern oil and southern oil and nothing in the middle where the sunni arabs are strongest. If they split 3 ways the kurds and shias will be richer than if they have to share with the sunnis. Is that likely to make the difference? "Follow the money" is always worth doing, but the money isn't always decisive every single time.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 26, 2005 06:08 PM

"I seem to have difficulties with the use of epithets which I admit can be offending to some people."

You also have difficulties with using virulent anti-semites such as Patrick Buchanan and Justin Raimondo as references, Hans.

"Having said this – do you know if there is something wrong with Michael Totten? Please let me know if help is needed to keep this blog going."

I don't know Michael personally, and I don't know where he's been the last few weeks. But I'll take a wild stab and guess that he doesn't need your "help", not one bit.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at February 26, 2005 11:23 PM

What's this about rejecting stuff because of the politics of the source?

I try to evaluate ideas independent of whether they came from zionists or antizionists or republicans or whatever.

I try to evaluate "facts" based partly on who the eyewitnesses were and how many of them there were. There are disinformation teams trying to get false "facts" into third-party sources since they know their lies would be discounted coming directly from them, and they seem to generally be successful. So it's hard to be sure about "facts". The MSM looks like it accepts disinformation from all sides. And if you get a blogger or somebody reporting what he personally saw, that's even easier -- he saw little disconnected events that he and his readers will spin to fit their needs. If he's a blogger you don't know he might even be a disinformation team.

It's just plain hard to know what's going on. But rejecting sources just because you don't like their politics? At least you know what spin to expect. And they might say something interesting.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 27, 2005 02:41 AM

Jeremy, thanks for an outstanding example of critical reading. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Asher Abrams - Dreams Into Lightning at February 27, 2005 08:22 AM

I don't know her books, I only know at the NYT they paid her to attack Bush's claims of WMDs in IRAQ and to undermine the war effort. The NYT had a long series of articls written by her and MIchael Red Gordon that did nothing but quote extensively from Scott Ritter before the war. She is one of the most antiwar pacifist journalists at the NYT.

Posted by: lukes at February 28, 2005 06:05 AM

Lukes, you are attacking her motives in writing her articles.

But there's another thing to consider -- was she right?

It's more important for a reporter to be right than to have a good attitude.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 28, 2005 06:46 AM

I don't know her books, I only know at the NYT they paid her to attack Bush's claims of WMDs in IRAQ and to undermine the war effort.

You sure we're talking about the same Judith Miller? She wrote dozens of articles, mostly using Chalabi and other exiles as her source, that the WMDs were there. Her sin, therefore, was getting that wrong, as opposed to "attacking Bush's claims." Attacking Bush's claims would've meant getting the story right.

Posted by: Stephen Silver at March 2, 2005 07:14 AM

Aeg , Aged , Amica , Antom , Ariston , Bosch , Candy , Canon , Creative , Delonghi , Dyson , Electrolux , Eltax , Emtec , Faber , Fuji , Gorenje , Hoover , Hp , Indesit , Iriver , Jvc , Kenwood , Kodak , Krups , Lg , Liebherr , Lowepro , Marantz , Mastercook , Miele , Minolta , Moulinex , Nikon , Olympus , Panasonic , Philips , Pioneer , Polar , Samsung , Sharp , Siemens , Smeg , Sony , Tefal , Thomson , Whirlpool , Yamaha , Zanussi , Telewizory , Telewizory projekcyjne , Telewizory lcd , Telewizory plazmowe , Projektory lcd , Kamery cyfrowe , Kamery video , Kasety do kamer , Karty firewire , Przewody firewire , Aparaty cyfrowe , Torby do kamer i aparatów , Kino domowe , Odtwarzacze dvd , Magnetowidy video , Magnetowidy cyfrowe , Nagrywarki dvd , Wieże hi-fi , Magnetofony , Radiomagnetofony , Amplitunery , Wzmacniacze , Odtwarzacze cd , Odtwarzacze minidisc , Zestawy kolumn , Subwoofery , Walkmany , Odtwarzacze mp3 , Dyktafony , Car audio , Karty pamięci , Pralki , Kuchnie , Piekarniki , Zmywarki , Lodówki , Kuchenki mikrofalowe , Płyty gazowe , Płyty elektryczne , Telewizory , Aparaty cyfrowe , DVD , Kamery cyfrowe , Aparaty cyfrowe , Lodówki , Telewizory , Pralki , Aparaty cyfrowe , Aparaty cyfrowe

Posted by: Kamery cyfrowe at March 3, 2005 02:52 AM

Hello nice page and it downloads very fast, enjoyed it very much, take care. The internet is a great place to showcase art and increase awareness in the variety of excellent work available.
U-booty okręty podwodne ubooty Katalog stron camcoo katalog on-line Website Directory katalogi stron internetowo www Przepisy Kulinarne mniam smaczego Camcoo on linie 24 hTelewizory plazmoe lcd Aparaty ofertaopinie serwis Aparaty cyfrowe canon minolta nikon sklep dvd odtwarzacze mp3 Kamery minidv cena Aparaty cyfrowe cennik i ceny Dvd sklep Kamery cyfrowe promocje Camcoo.de promocja Maximedia polecane E-shop