|
|
May 22, 2013
|
|
Genocide in Tranquil KurdistanPosted on Aug 17, 2007WASHINGTON—The next time you hear confident assurances from the White House and its supporters that the “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq is working and that something called “victory” is now within sight, remember the Yazidis. The who? Before Tuesday, you almost certainly would have asked that question—before two villages in northern Iraq, populated by an obscure religious sect, suffered what is now officially the deadliest terrorist attack of the war, with more than 400 people confirmed dead. The final toll is expected to rise, but the coordinated suicide truck bombings in the Yazidi towns already constitute the second-worst terrorist attack of modern times, trailing only the carnage of Sept. 11, 2001. Thanks to online encyclopedias, veteran foreign correspondents and the work of dedicated scholars, we now have a boilerplate definition. The Yazidis are ethnic Kurds who practice an ancient, pre-Islamic religion. Among their beliefs is that God created seven archangels, one of whom is sometimes called Shaytan, which is the name given to Satan in the Koran. This has led some Muslims to believe, incorrectly, that the Yazidis are devil-worshipers. We also now know that in April, a Yazidi woman who had married a Muslim and converted to Islam was stoned to death by irate members of her community. This horror was captured on video and disseminated widely; angry Muslims gunned down 23 Yazidis in reprisal. We can state these facts with confidence. But the truth is that we have only the most superficial idea of who the Yazidis are—and even less of a clue about who might have visited such utter devastation on their villages. Advertisement But the White House and the U.S. military leadership in Iraq generally blame al-Qaeda for trying to foment sectarian and ethnic violence by driving wedges between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. In that context, the Yazidi sect is so tiny as to be inconsequential—hardly worth al-Qaeda’s time and effort. The bombings Tuesday looked more like an act of genocide, an attempt to erase as many Yazidis as possible from the face of the Earth. The motive for this atrocity might not have been political but religious; it might have been the work of Muslim fundamentalists who were trying to settle a centuries-old local grievance, rather than the work of Muslim fundamentalists trying to drive the Americans out of Iraq or establish a new caliphate in the Middle East. The point is that here in Washington, we talk about Iraq as if we were intimately familiar with all its fractures, fissures and fault lines. The Bush administration touts as a breakthrough the recent decision of provincial Sunni Muslim sheiks to cooperate with U.S. forces—but it’s also possible that the sheiks are just maneuvering to be in a better position when the Americans eventually leave. The administration says there might be genocide if the United States pulls out—but it looks as if genocide has already been attempted. Some war critics confidently predict that if the United States were to withdraw its troops, the al-Qaeda presence in Iraq would quickly become a non-factor—that foreign-born terrorists, having outlived their usefulness to the Sunni community, would be driven out or otherwise neutralized. I happen to think this is a reasonable hypothesis. But I’m anything but confident. There are those who will see Tuesday’s awful bombings as an illustration of why U.S. forces should stay in Iraq. I see the carnage as an illustration of how little the presence of 162,000 American troops can accomplish in a country the size of Iraq. I don’t think anyone knows with certainty where “al-Qaeda in Iraq” ends and “the Sunni insurgency” begins. I don’t think anyone knows with certainty how the various Shiite factions will ultimately line up—or even whether a unitary Iraq, having been shattered by the U.S. invasion, can ever be reassembled. What I do know is that anyone who says American forces have to stay in Iraq because they’re protecting the Iraqi people should tell that to the Yazidis. Those who are left. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By jack, August 22, 2007 at 8:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This is going exactly as planned. Israel is going to steal Iraq’s oil and pump it through a pipleline from Kirkuk to Haifa. Israel has already suckered the Kurds into the deal with a promise of a homeland called Kurdistan. (Google it)
Report thisThe only problem is that it has to go through Syria. Why else do you think Joe Lieberman is trying to get our country to attack Syria?
This was one of the main reasons for the occupation of Iraq and we stupid Americans think we are dying for democracy and freedom.
By GILBERT, August 19, 2007 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
If we pull out, it gets worse for a while and then gets quiet. Many may die.
If we stay, it keeps getting worse. Many more will certainly die than if we leave.
Take your pick.
Report thisBy THOMAS BILLIS, August 17, 2007 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Oh plesase the great majority of people predicting horrible things in Iraq after we leave are those who decided to go into Iraq in the first palce.One thing for certain is our boys and girls are here in the United States they will not be getting killed by IEDs in Baghdad.Our solution is to arm everyone in the area so the idea of a protracted civil war becomes reality.We talk to no one relevant in the region and we just go day after day trying to make sense of the absurd.Congress takes off,Iraqi Parliament takes off and our President takes off.The only people working everyday in Iraq are our servicepeople.What is wrong with that picture?Do you see anybody working 24/7 to work the problems in Iraq out?Get our people out until someone decides to get serious about a solution.
Report thisBy atheo, August 17, 2007 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment
By Spencer Ackerman
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk
Almost as soon as I left Mosul at the end of March, attacks on Kurds spiked in the province. Yazidis, furious over the alleged persecution of their people in Kurdistan, burned the KDP headquarters west of Mosul, part of a pattern of targeting the KDP.
South of the so-called Green Line - the boundary separating Baghdad-controlled Iraq from the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) - in Nineweh and Tamim provinces, Kurds and Arabs compete for the temporary allegiances of Iraqi Christians, Shabak and Yazidis.
“We know what the KRG is aiming for: independence, sooner or later, as soon they get as much land as possible,” Shakir said. “But the way they’re doing it is causing trouble, and will create tensions for them as well.”
Report thisBy ~B~, August 17, 2007 at 7:56 am Link to this comment
With Congress doing as little as usual we won’t be leaving anytime soon. There is an effort in the Senate to end funding for the Iraq War. They also have a petition (to which I can’t find the link atm but it is posted on my blog if ya care to sign it).
Personally, I doubt it will pass since Americans are to stupid to understand the propaganda behind “abandoning the troops”. The intent is not to abandon the troops but to SUPPORT them by getting them out of a war clearly more about $$ than freedom or democracy.
Further, even if it does pass, redeploying the troops will only take care of about 40% of the forces there. I would expect more mercenaries to be shipped in immediately. What better way to continue privatizing the military (while simultaneously building up private para militaries here at home - worked so well in South America!!).
B
http://b-political.blogspot.com/
Report this