09.02.2005, 14:22
"The Coming Clash Over Kirkuk
...
Although publicly circumspect, Washington sees Turkish military involvement as a looming possibility on the complex political landscape of Iraq. Washington has quietly said that the Kurds will not be allowed to take control of Kirkuk. American military bases in northern Iraq are discreetly being reinforced. And the First Infantry Division that has been in charge of Kirkuk for the last year has balanced the rights of the Turkmens and Arabs against those of the Kurds.
So Washington recognizes that the Kurds, further emboldened by their anticipated numbers in the new Iraqi Parliament, could precipitate a crisis over Kirkuk. The question is whether the United States or the non-Kurdish members of the new Iraqi government can hold the Kurds in check - a difficult task considering the fervor, especially among younger Kurds, for an eventual Kurdish state.
This is one of the complications of the Iraqi election that the Bush administration has hailed as such a success. If the Kurds try to change the status of Kirkuk, the United States may find itself forced to turn its military power on them. But if America does nothing to hold Kirkuk, it may well find itself in another crisis. Only this one would not be confined to Iraq. "
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/09/opinion/09mackey.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/09/opinion/09mackey.html</a><!-- m -->
wie jetzt verstehe ich garnix mehr, das heisst doch die USA nutzen die Kurden total aus und am Ende gibst eine auf die Nuss ?
...
Although publicly circumspect, Washington sees Turkish military involvement as a looming possibility on the complex political landscape of Iraq. Washington has quietly said that the Kurds will not be allowed to take control of Kirkuk. American military bases in northern Iraq are discreetly being reinforced. And the First Infantry Division that has been in charge of Kirkuk for the last year has balanced the rights of the Turkmens and Arabs against those of the Kurds.
So Washington recognizes that the Kurds, further emboldened by their anticipated numbers in the new Iraqi Parliament, could precipitate a crisis over Kirkuk. The question is whether the United States or the non-Kurdish members of the new Iraqi government can hold the Kurds in check - a difficult task considering the fervor, especially among younger Kurds, for an eventual Kurdish state.
This is one of the complications of the Iraqi election that the Bush administration has hailed as such a success. If the Kurds try to change the status of Kirkuk, the United States may find itself forced to turn its military power on them. But if America does nothing to hold Kirkuk, it may well find itself in another crisis. Only this one would not be confined to Iraq. "
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/09/opinion/09mackey.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/09/opinion/09mackey.html</a><!-- m -->
wie jetzt verstehe ich garnix mehr, das heisst doch die USA nutzen die Kurden total aus und am Ende gibst eine auf die Nuss ?