Absurd. The Kurds cooperate with us because they see us as the only thing standing between them and domination by either the Turks or whoever emerges on top of the inevitable thrashout to the south. Self-interest, pure and simple, and the cooperation will last only as long as the self-interest lasts.
Where did I suggest for a second that the Kurds' motives were other than self-interested? My point is, they want a state, and have used our protection constructively for their own ends to build one. Not unlike the Zionists used the British. The Kurds had their internecine fighting, but now seem to have settled their affairs, and have a functioning government.
The point is, that the Kurds are keeping their 'eyes on the prize' - their own goals of independence. To that end, they are suppressing both resentment of occupation (and they don't seem to have much of it) and longing for full sovereignty (of which they have a lot). In a word, political discipline. What a concept.
The Shi'a seem easily turned towards resentment of America, towards telling America to get out, now! when their interests are not that different from the Kurds' - wouldn't it be rational to make sure that Iraq had set up a majority-rule democracy, in which they would be the main beneficiaries, before telling the Americans to leave? What part of their self-interest is served by turning on the Americans now? This is the politics of immediate emotional gratification (the emotions being injured pride and resentment of foreigners) at the expense of self-interest. All too damn common in the Arab world.
no force exists with the capacity to govern the country, and we do not have the ability to create such a force
The real question is, why don't the Shia have the ability to create such a force, at least in areas where they are a majority? How come the Kurds can, but the Shia can't? |
