Monday, August 25, 2003
Here's a bit from The Independent's reporting on last week's ethnic violence in northern Iraq:
'Until now, the main friction in the region since the overthrow of Saddam was between the Arabs and Kurds bent on redressing years of repression at the hands of the old regime. But the new violence has ignited Iraq's small Turkoman minority, who complained of repression under Kurdish rule in the nearby provinces that attained de facto independence after the 1991 Gulf War. That poses an extra danger. The risk of attacks on Iraq's Turkomans has been repeatedly put forward by the Turkish army as a reason for it to send troops into northern Iraq as "peace-keepers".'
'The Turkish military's bid failed because of opposition at home as well as from Iraq's Kurds, who warned they would oppose any attempt by Turkey to send its troops into their territory, by force if necessary. But it may resurface if violence against Turkomans continues.'
We'd like to note that Turkey, a NATO ally, getting involved in the region would be a major problem since the U.S. has supported the Kurds in northern Iraq for so many years. The real question is, if it comes down to the Turks or the Kurds, who would the U.S. support?
Andrew 9:39 AM : |
|
News:
New York Times
The Independent
Google News
Magazines:
The New Yorker
The Atlantic Monthly
Bloggers we like:
Baseball on Blake Street
Non Tibi Spiro
Africapundit
blog.lukeclayton.net
Bloggers you already know:
Atrios
Daily Kos
Kevin Drum
Cursor
Andrew's Music:
Poser P
|