Existing as it does on a great deal of what is truly stolen land, Turkey richly deserves to be divided, and the descendants of expelled Armenians and Greeks invited to return to their ancestral homeland. But I'm not at all sure that Ralph Peters, who seems to have only the dimmest awareness of the realities of Islamic teaching, knows what he is asking for when he calls for an "Islamic super-Vatican." Such an institition would inevitably take on a political character, and endeavor to advance the dreams of the caliphate that are so cherished by jihadists today -- and that would only mean further trouble for non-Muslims.
From zaman.com (thanks to Sr. Soph), where there is a small but somewhat readable map:
An article in the Armed Forces Journal, published in the United States, has suggested the Middle East map should be redrawn “according to the situation of the ethnic minorities.”In an article written by retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, it was claimed that the redrawing of the borders drawn by Westerners would correct the “injustice” in the region.
Suggesting a free Kurdistan to be established on the Turkish, Iraqi, Iranian and Syrian territory in this frame, Peters suggested such a state “stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan.”
Peters also suggested a sort of Muslim super-Vatican to be established in Mecca and Medina.
You have to be kidding!!
Look at the map(copy and magnify) and boggle.
I can see these happily interacting muslims all agreein upon this and the Saudis in particular giving up their little certain nest egg once the oil drys up(Mecca/Medina).
I vote that we advertise a new western welfare state on the moon and perhaps they will all illegally emigrate there.
(question...once the west install a colony on the moon, how long will it take for the first illegal immigrant to arrive?)
Not possible, but an independent Kurdistan is morally, and more importantly, geopolitically, to our, Infidel, advantage. It would be a disturbing threat to both Iran and Syria, and Kurdistan's claims on the Kurdish-populated areas of both Iran and Syria should and could be backed.
But what, some say, of Turkey, that they chose to describe, quite backdatedly (it's not the 1950s or the 1960s anymore) as "our NATO ally Turkey." Turkey is a member of NATO. But the main reason for NATO's existence in the past was the military threat posed by the Soviet Union, and Turkey, which was happy to collaborate in efforts to contain its ancient enemy Russia, was a good ally. But how good an ally can Turkey, with Islam in the ascendant and Kemalism under constant siege (only now are the Turkish secularists becoming aroused and fighting back against sly Erdogan and his troops), be if the main purpose of NATO is now to protect Western Europe, and preserve the Western alliance, from those who, within Europe, either Muslims or collaborators with Muslims (stupidity, cupidity, and timidity together providing the Esdrujula Explanation which I put forth at this site some time ago -- Copyright Office please take notice). Turkey is part of the damn problem, the problem of Islam, not part of the solution. Kurdistan, for complicated reasons, including a long history of enduring persecution and even mass murder at the hands of the "purest" Muslims -- that is, the Arabs whose ethnicity does not detract from, but merely reinforces, identification with Islam. Kurdistan could, if the Americans back it, a power with its own oil, and would always have to rely on the Americans for support.
What could Kurdistan do for us? It could concentrate on emphasizing "Kurdishness" and slowly, but surely, de-emphasizing the role of Islam, that "gift of the Arabs" that keeps on giving. It could provide a haven for Iraq's Christians, and prove its goodwill by punishing any Kurds who have behaved or intend to behave islamically (we know what that means) toward those Christians.
What about other map redrawings? We should not care whether or not Qatar or Kuwait or Abu Dhabi or any of the other sheikdoms any other place is bullied by a larger neighbor, but of course being indifferent, we could also charge a very large fee to protect Qatar, Kuwait, and other statelets from Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or even a conceivably intact Iraq. At the moment we appear to be so grateful for the use of bases. We are selling ourselves, and our implied protection, cheap -- far too cheap for what the Al-Sabah and Al-Thani and Al-Maktoum and the other ruling families could and should be paying. They not only need our protection, but they need the assurance that their assets abroad will remain intact, and not turned over to successor regimes. They need all kinds of things, and it is the Americans who appear not to realize this, nor to charge nearly enough for their services. Tens of billions annually should be the figures bruited about -- has no one ever neogiatied in an Arab souk? Does no one know how to deal with these people?
Christians in the Middle East should also be encouraged, on a one-for-one basis, to replace Muslim Arabs who should be forced out of the West Bank. It should be made clear to them that the farce of the "one-state solution" is over, that the farce of the invented "Palestinian people" will soon be over, and that the Israelis will not surrender, will not be allowed to surrender. If Olmert proceeds with his crazed plan as formerly announced, it is up to the American government to discourage or prevent him -- neither Judge Reinhardt's Ninth Circuit, nor the Supreme Court, nor the World Court, nor any court of the mind one can imagine, would ever sanction Ally-Assisted Suicide. The Western world would become unhinged, in more ways than one, if Israel were forced to surrender still more territory, including control of the aquifers, and forced to live in a condition of maximum peril until such time as the Muslim Arabs could, at long last, go in for the kill. [It would do the kind of secret moral damage, create the kind of wounds, that were caused the Western world, in ways scarcely recognized, by the genocide of the Jews during World War II.] Christians or those who are no longer Christians because they cannot believe, but recognize the great and civilizing value of Christianity if practiced correctly, should stake a physical claim to the Holy Land, and not leave the Jews of Israel alone to stave off the Muslims. Middle Eastern Arabic-speaking Christians, such as those now in Iraq, may wish to consider moving to eastern Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank" as it was ridiculously renamed by the Jordanians in 1948, and even more ridiculously, that name became standard in the Western world, reather than the toponyms that had been in use for several millennia, and were good enough for, inter alia, Jesus of Nazareth). Christians in the West could agree to spend a year or two, as living witnesses, living in Israel, and possibly deliberately choose to live in that area now called "the West Bank."
But the Muslim Arabs should be encouraged in every possible way to leave that area, for if they realize that the Israelis are not going to leave, not now and not ever, and that Christian refugees from Islam will be moving in, they will not stay for ever. They are not "bearing witness" to anything. They are simply there as the shock troops of the Jihad, and if their lives are made sufficiently difficult, some of them, perhaps many of them, will see the reasonableness of leaving. Why should they sacrifice themselves on the altar of Jihad, if the Saudis and the Kuwaitis and all the others do nothing or so very little to support them?
I agree with setting up a kurdish state. I don't see the need to split up saudi arabia. I don't like the country but splitting it up won't create a friend in any of the offshoots. The top part of the map definately sounds good. I want the kurds to get their own country. They do deserve one. And it will create a good ally in the region.
Hugh wrote: "What could Kurdistan do for us? It could concentrate on emphasizing "Kurdishness" and slowly, but surely, de-emphasizing the role of Islam, that "gift of the Arabs" that keeps on giving. It could provide a haven for Iraq's Christians, and prove its goodwill by punishing any Kurds who have behaved or intend to behave islamically (we know what that means) toward those Christians"
I strongly disagree with your positive assessment of an independent Kurdistan. While there is much hope from potential leaders like the imprisoned Abdullah Ocalan, most Kurdish leaders are Islamic to the core. Remember, the Kurd's national hero is Salah al-Din! As for the Kurds offering a haven to Christians... well just ask any of the tens of thousands of Assyrian Christians who have fled the Kurdish Muslims and now are refugees in Alawite Syria.
Don't get me wrong, I favour a Kurdish state in historic Kurdistan, i.e. north-eastern Iraq, south-east Turkey, and most importantly north-west Iran centered on Mahabad. An Alevi mini-state west of Lake Van is also justified. However, most of what the Kurds now claim in Iraq and Turkey belong to Armenia and Assyria and Col. Peters' map completely ignores this reality.
The ONLY safe haven possible for the local Chaldean/Assyrian Christians is the re-establishment of their ancient nation in the Ninewa and Dohuk districts of Iraq and including the area of Turkey stretching from Hakkari to Urfa. All of Turkey north and east of Lake Van rightly belongs to Armenia and should be returned.
All of these areas were overwhelmingly Christian until a little more than a century ago when the Ottomans invited in the Sunni Kurds from Shi'ite Iran with the promise of being able to take Christian land. Before the arrival of these Kurdish jihadists, the non-Christian population of this area (west of Lake Van) were mostly non-Muslim, or only semi-Muslim, Kurdish speaking Alevis whom the Ottomans wanted to force into Sunni Islam. Bringing in the Sunni Kurds was seen by the Ottomans as a final solution to both their Christian and Alevi "problems". Read the accounts of the Armenian and Assyrian genocide and you will see that these Kurds were the worst perpetrators of genocide.
Super-Vatican, I don't like that term at all....
adobe-
Sub-Human is more like it.
Let's not help consolidate anything for the Muslims.
The more they war among themselves, the less energy they have for exporting it.
Chaos within Islam; peace without it.