The Balkan wars of 1912-13 helped seal the coffin of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. This was followed after World War I with the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Among the new states that emerged was the Kingdom of Serbs , Croats, Slovenes and Croatians-- Yugoslavia --which consisted of the two kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro , plus the former Austro-Hungarian territories of Croatia , Bosnia-Herzegovina , Slovenia and Dalmatia . After World War II, the multinational Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was created and lasted until the wars of 1991-95 which resulted in the breakup of the country. American foreign policy led the pack in bringing about that dissolution, ostensibly to stop ethnic cleansing and mutual massacres. While America's ire (for a variety of reasons--including, very probably, the need to show support for another Muslim group while blasting away at specific Muslim targets in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.) singled out Christian Serbs, the reality was that Muslim and various ethnic Christian populations had been at each others' throats and trading atrocities for centuries. Stephan Dusan of Serbia fought the battle in the 14th century. The glue which held this non-nation together was Marshall Tito.

      Tito was a nom de guerre. He was born as Josip (Joseph) Broz in Kumrovec , Croatia on 7th May 1892 and died in Ljubljana , Slovenia on 4th May 1980.  He ruled with an iron fist, and with Tito gone it was simply a matter of time before the non-nation nation tore itself apart. While some ethnic groups can and do get along with each other to the point of forming multi-ethnic nations, some groups should have never been thrust into such a creation. Yugoslavia is an example of the latter...as is modern day Iraq .

     In a region in which Arabs claim sole possession, some thirty million Kurds (the world's ancient Hurrians, Kassites, Medes, Guti, and so forth) predate them by thousands of years. Yet, to date, Arab nationalism has been awarded almost two dozen states--conquered and forcibly Arabized, since the 7th century C.E., with these processes still going on--while the Kurds still remain without one.

     The best chance all awakening nations had was after World War I, with the breakup of massive empires. Diplomats openly spoke of Arabia for the Arabians, Armenia for Armenians, Judea for Judeans (Jews), Kurdistan for the Kurds, and such.

     Kurds were promised independence, and until the Brits received a favorable decision from the League of Nations in 1925 on the "Mosul Question" (involving massive oil interests), this remained an open issue. President Woodrow Wilson's famed Fourteen Points had addressed their plight. Afterwards, however, the Brits (whose navy--the main arm of their empire--had recently switched from coal to oil) feared Arab wrath elsewhere in the oil-rich region, so decided to abort Kurdish aspirations. As we have already seen above, this happened during the same period that the Brits were shafting the Jews as well, separating the lion's share of the Mandate of Palestine from what was originally promised as the Jews' National Home. Arabs regarded the creation of an independent Kurdistan in the same light as they did the proposed partition of Palestine , an independent, non-Arab, black African Sudan, and so forth: None but Arabs were to rule over purely Arab patrimony.

     The ancient and predominantly Kurdish areas of Mesopotamia were thus added to the Arab center and south to help make the resulting nation more economically viable. The problem, of course, was that Arabs--Sunni or Shi'a--had no intention of granting fellow Muslim (but non-Arab) Kurds any semblance of equality. And forget about folks such as non-Muslim Jews, Assyrians, and such. For them, issues related to the Dar ul-Islam also came into the picture.

     Over the decades, in Arab Syria as well as Arab Iraq, Kurdish culture and language were suppressed, Kurds were forced to embrace Arab nationalism, were forcibly transferred from strategically important areas such as oil-rich Kirkuk (the heartland of ancient Kurdistan ), were repeatedly massacred, and so forth. The non-Arab Turks and Iranians were doing a similar number on their own Kurdish populations...which brings us back to the original problem.

     Having been denied their one best shot at independence after World War I in Mesopotamia by a coalition of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism, it was inevitable--in an era in which other formerly suppressed ethnic/national groups were reawakening and being granted political rights and real estate--that revolts born of frustration would break out elsewhere...in Turkey and Iran, in particular. The consequences of this tragedy haunt us today...at least some of us. But not the Foggy Folks.

     That brings us back to our starting point...President George W. Bush's overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

     George the First's earlier war against Saddam (after helping to build him up previously) resulted in tens of thousands of Kurds being slaughtered with American military might within a stone's throw of the action. Having answered the President's call to rise up against Saddam, the latter did nothing to stop their slaughter afterwards. No fly zones set up later on were established far too late to help prevent what was all too predictable. In the '70's, the American State Department was responsible for a similar travesty. Having encouraged Mullah Mustafa Barzani to lead a revolt against Saddam (he's been around a long time), it pulled the rug out from under Barzani's forces when America's ally, the Shah of Iran, made his temporary peace with the Arabs. Saddam unleashed his wrath against the Kurds, and hundreds of thousands of them had fallen victim to Arab (largely British-supplied) aircraft and superior fire power decades earlier as well.

     So, here we are today...The American death toll from Dubya's just war against Saddam (no weapons of mass destruction ?... just ask the gassed Kurds if he had them or not) is now approaching two thousand. This does not include the many others permanently maimed and the massive economic costs. Predictably, Dubya's approval rating for the handling of Iraq is falling...38% in a recent AP-Ipsos poll. This gives the jitters to fellow Republicans facing upcoming elections.

     All of this translates into America 's exit from Iraq sooner rather than later...regardless of Dubya's protestations of "staying the course and completing the job."

     The first time around--in part, not to further anger other Arabs--George the First allowed Saddam to keep both himself and the bulk of his forces intact. Big mistake, regardless of the excuses that were offered. The Kurds and others paid dearly for this, as we have already seen. Do the job right or not at all...or, at least do it "as right" as possible. And don't throw me the line about just needing to liberate that giant oil well,aka Kuwait .

     Now, however, as we prepare an exit strategy that should have more carefully been thought out prior to our latest invasion (there was, historically, no reason to expect that a Western power would be welcome by most of the Arabs, regardless of the actual good that it was accomplishing for them), someone needs to have the sense of justice to say that America cannot make this yet another deja vu for the Kurds.

     America must throw its previously perceived, immoral, and hypocritical practices of real politik out the window now.

page 1 | page 2 | page 3