|
March
5, 2004
Who
Won't Be Making Jokes About WMD
by Gerald A. Honigman
The Bush Administration has come under
increasing fire lately due to its inability to find
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, one of the
main reasons it gave in launching its attack in the
first place.
While Jay Leno & Co. continue to crack
jokes, and AP writers such as Matthew Fordahl have
also made light of the subject in papers such as
The Herald in Rock Hill, South Carolina on
July 16th ("For Today's Giggle, Try Asking Google
To Find weapons Of Mass Destruction"), there is one
people who surely will not be joining in the
laughter. And they were not the only ones for whom
the subject is deadly serious--literally.
"The Kurds have no friends but the Mountain" is
a piece of aging Kurdish wisdom. And while the mass
gassings and other slaughter of this people have
too often been treated as "yesterday's news," all
the current hype about whether or not Adolph -- er
Saddam -- Hussein had/has weapons of mass
destruction brings their tragic story back onto
center stage...or at least should.
Thirty million stateless, used, and abused Kurds
are the native, non-Arab, non-Turkic, non-Semitic
people who were promised independence in
Mesopotamia -- the ancient heartland of Kurdistan
-- after the Ottoman Turkish Empire collapsed in
the wake of World War I. They were the Hurrians of
the Bible and the Medes of Persian history.
Saladin, the mighty medieval Muslim warrior, was a
Kurd.
Unfortunately, they soon saw these earlier
promises sacrificed on the altar of British
petroleum politics and Arab nationalism. Arab Iraq
was born instead.
It's imperial navy having recently switched from
coal to oil power, Great Britain did not want to
anger the strategically important "Arab" world,
possessing its own oil wealth, by agreeing to
support a Kurdish nationalism which was viewed by
Arabs with the same disdain as they display towards
the nationalist movement of Israel's Jews (one half
of whom descended from refugees from the
"Arab"/Muslim world) or any other of the subjugated
peoples -- Berbers, Black African Sudanese, etc. --
who dared to assert their own identities and
demanded political rights.
Despite their own internal differences, Kurds
from all over the region had largely put their
hopes and dreams into the creation of that one
independent Kurdish state, not unlike situations
involving Greeks, Armenians, and Jews in their own
respective earlier diasporas. The frustration
arising from the abortion of that earlier
Mesopotamian dream (a cause supported by such
personalities as President Woodrow Wilson, Mark
Sykes, and others) lead to decades of revolts and
problems in Syria, Turkey, and Iran as well.
In a post-imperial age when other dormant
nations were reawakening, the Kurds were repeatedly
told that they were unworthy of such desires... by
so-called "friends" and foes alike. That brings us
back to current times.
While repeated partitions have occurred and are
still being demanded of the geographic area of
"Palestine" (the first occurring when the Arab
nation of Jordan was created in 1922 as a result of
Colonial Secretary Churchill's separation of all
the land east of the Jordan River from the 1920
borders), none have been allowed for a much larger
Mesopotamia.. Only Arabs have been allowed to have
their nationalist desires sanctioned in a land in
which millions of Kurds and others have lived long
before the Arab conquests in the 7th century C.E.
and the continuing forced Arabization ever since.
In their frustration, the Kurds have subsequently
been caught up in numerous regional and global
rivalries, being used and abused by all...Syrian
and Iraqi Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Soviets, Brits,
Russians, Americans, etc.
Post-World War I Iraq was largely divided
between two major factions: Arab nationalists, who
saw Iraq simply as one part of the overall greater
Arab patrimony, and Iraqi nationalists. The latter
-- some Kurds, Assyrians, Turkmens, a few Arabs,
etc. (with few exceptions, Iraq's 200,000 Jews
basically watched carefully from the sidelines) --
deluded themselves into believing that Arabs would
allow a true equality to emerge within the country.
Yet earlier Iraqi history should have taught
another lesson: the Arab Caliphate of the 'Umayyads
based in Damascus had been replaced in the 8th
century during the Abbasid Revolution. The latter
established its imperial base farther east in
Baghdad and was supported largely by non-Arab
converts to Islam, the Mawali, who demanded an
equality that Arabs back then had also refused to
give.
Short of another major Abbasid-like revolution,
Iraq's Arabs (Shi'a or Sunni)--having once again
regained their position of dominance -- were not
likely to give it up. Sure enough, subsequent
massacres of non-Arab populations and the continued
forced Arabization of their cultures and lands
helped squash most of the modern "Iraqi"
nationalist delusions. While, in theory, this would
be a nice, American-styled democratic solution,
centuries of reality regarding actual Arab
practices and attitudes tell quite a different
story.
In the 1970s, after promoting Kurdish military
support for the Shah of Iran against Iraq, America
pulled the rug out from under Mullah Mustafa
Barzani when the Shah made his temporary peace.
Tens of thousands of Kurds were subsequently
slaughtered as a result. A repeat performance came
in 1991, when President George Bush, Sr. called for
the Kurds and others to revolt in order to topple
Saddam from within. When they heeded his call, he
then stood by and watched as Kurdish men, women,
and children were massacred by the thousands. Just
a bit earlier, thousands more had been gassed to
death -- 5,000 in Halabja alone...all of this with
the might of the U.S. military within a stone's
throw of the action. The pathetic excuse meekly
offered later on was that America had been
"tricked" by the Iraqis in agreements regarding
terms of the ceasefire. This will forever be a
stain on America's honor, despite after-the-fact
"no fly" zones subsequently set up by the
Allies.
Besides the thousands of Kurdish civilians who
were immediately killed, tens of thousands of
others have subsequently died due to the lingering
effects of the poison, etc. Remember this the next
time someone offers up a chuckle about Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction.
Adding insult to injury, at a time when much of
the world is now demanding that the sole,
miniscule, resurrected state of the Jews accept
that a terrorist 23rd Arab state -- and second Arab
one in Palestine--be created in its own backyard,
these same alleged voices of ethical enlightenment
still insist that there will be no "roadmap" for
the creation of an independent Kurdistan. Even
earlier talk of a federalist solution, whereby
Kurds would at least gain some local autonomy
within a united Iraq, now seems to be losing out to
the majority Shia's other plans for dominance and
demands.
While other butchers do indeed exist elsewhere,
and America cannot simply assume the roles of the
world's policeman, judge, and jury, there were
still very good reasons to bring about the end of
Saddam's regime...whether we're ever able to locate
his WMD or not. Just ask those Kurdish parents who
bore witness to mass graves holding hundreds of
their children being unearthed...a scene right out
of the Holocaust.
Just how do we define weapons of mass
destruction?
Thanks to Israel's surgical strike removing the
immediate nuclear threat some two decades ago (for
which it was universally condemned -- George Bush,
Sr. leading the pack in his pre-presidential days),
Saddam's nuclear option suffered a severe setback.
But ample evidence suggests that he didn't give up
on this endeavor, and Iranians and probably others
as well were also gassed by Saddam, so no one
doubts his possession and willingness to use this
latter type of WMD.
It's not too difficult to hide poison gas -- or
even its delivery systems -- in a country as large
as Iraq, especially since weapons inspectors had
been out of the country for a long time. And we now
know that Syria has been in collaboration with Iraq
regarding all kinds of things. Syria has its own
huge stockpiles of such weaponry, so it would
theoretically be easy to hide Iraqi WMD this
way.
Additionally, Saddam had plenty of time to learn
the lesson of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war that it
wasn't a good idea to leave your weapons easily
exposed. No one ever claimed that the Iraqis are
stupid....even if some of Saddam's actions
antagonizing America (and giving it little choice
but to act) in recent decades might suggest
otherwise.
So what's all the current fuss about WMD really
all about?
Could it be just domestic politics being played
out by opponents of Tony Blair and George W. ( I
voted for the "other guy" the first time around )
and/or another example of the hypocrisy and double
standards of the rest of the world which put Israel
under a high power lens in judging its struggle to
survive while ignoring the literally millions of
non-Arab people -- such as the Kurds -- who have
been massacred, seen their cultures and languages
"outlawed," etc. for simply daring to assert their
own identities and resisting forced
Arabization?
Is it that the murder of hundreds of thousands
of Kurds over the decades simply doesn't matter?
And if it really did, would it matter if we could
or could not locate the hidden WMD we already know
that Saddam had and used against this
people?
The current real concern and debate should
therefore not be about locating Saddam's WMD, but
providing the long term justice the victims of his
WMD deserve. What will happen once America packs up
and leaves the country and the tax payers, Turks,
etc. get tired of the "no fly" zones? Unless we
work out an arrangement for our own long term
presence (i.e. bases in Iraqi Kurdistan, etc.), the
tanks and planes Iraq's Arabs mostly kept leashed
in confronting America will very likely once again
wreak vengeance against America's strangely loyal
Kurdish friends. A mounting American death toll and
other costs will bring ever more pressure for an
American retreat...right or wrong.
Yet, despite all of this, America insists that
-- at the most -- a modified federal version of a
failed "Iraqi" nationalism will be all that Kurds
will be offered in post-Saddam Iraq...as if Saddam
alone was the problem and created those subjugating
Arab attitudes towards non-Arabs himself. It's more
than doubtful that a post-Saddam Iraq will view
"political equality" any differently than when
Saddam was forcibly removing Kurds from their
oil-rich lands around Mosul and Kirkuk and
replacing those he didn't kill with
Arabs.
Once again...the American occupation, despite
the good that it has brought to the land, will
increasingly -- as we are seeing--be resented. And
those who aligned themselves with America -- the
Kurds in particular -- will once again be sought
out for revenge. Yet, without a prolonged, guided,
and powerful American occupation, there is no
chance whatsoever for an inclusive "Iraqi"
nationalism to emerge. With America's presence,
this still has only a slight chance for success.
There are simply too many powerful forces working
against it.
While America has been playing a delicate
balancing act trying to soothe Turkey's fears
regarding its own large Kurdish population and not
angering the Arab oil sheikhs and autocrats with
the prospect of the loss of what they see as
"purely Arab land" to the Kurds, it must begin to
reassess this policy.
Certainly if Arabs, most of whom still deny
Israel's right to exist, are deemed deserving of
their 23rd state, some thirty million stateless
Kurds living in varying degrees of danger and
subjugation are, at long last, deserving of
one.
This should be the issue being debated and under
scrutiny right now...not Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction.
Honigman
Archive
Gerald
A. Honigman is a Florida educator who has done
extensive doctoral studies in Middle Eastern
Affairs. He has created and conducted counter-Arab
propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured
on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has
publicly debated many Arab spokesmen. His articles
and op-eds have been published in dozens of
newspapers, magazines, academic journals and
websites all around the world.
Enrich
your life with a book about politics and current
events...
Enrich
your political & social life with a politics or
news magazine...
|