In some ways Ralph Peters has a good idea. It is 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 now be, 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. How good an ally can Turkey now be if the main purpose of NATO is now to protect Western Europe and preserve the Western alliance from those who, within Europe, are 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 — may be part of a workable solution. 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 negotiated 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 in 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. (Even more ridiculously, that name became standard in the Western world, rather 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 choosing 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?