On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Nathan Newman wrote:
> What is true according to their on the ground interviews is that the
> Kurds are actually far more in favor of US intervention than the papers
> are reporting.
That misses both points, Nathan. One, that the Kurds were against this when they thought there was a chance of stopping it, six months or a year ago. They are for it now because they have no choice, and only by supporting it can they maintain or improve their position; opposing the US when it is intent on invading would be complete political suicide.
Secondly, and vastly more importantly, is the fact that the Kurds in Northern Iraq are less oppressed now than at any time since WWI in any country in the Middle East. So under no circumstances can you cite their support as giving this the character of a humanitarian intervention -- there is no oppression to remove. They are, at the moment, the least suffering group in Iraq. If they are supporting invasion, it is to improve their position, not to remove oppression.
And as far as improving their position is concerned, the US government is squarely against that. We don't want them to get Kirkuk or Mosul -- and that's exactly what they hope the war to bring them.
In short, citing the Kurds as a possible justification for this war is wrong from top to bottom. The administration, god bless them, doesn't do it. I urge quite strongly that you should abandon it yourself. Even in double hypothetical form (i.e you're against the war, but if you were for the war, this is why you would be, if the administration could be trusted to do anything about it), it hasn't got a single grain of sense to it. If you want to hypothetically consider possible liberal humanitarian reasons for supporting the war, you should do it on behalf of Iraqi Arabs. They are the ones who could conceivably benefit.
Michael