Peter W. Galbraith is on the right track with his report from Irbil. He's noticed that America's support for its Kurdish friends is not all they expected. No surprise there.
The constitution and the Kurds
By Peter W. Galbraith | July 25, 2005
ERBIL, Iraq
THERE ARE NOT many places in Iraq where the locals want to celebrate American Independence Day. But, in Iraq's self-governing Kurdistan region, the newly elected government decided to host a Fourth of July party for their American allies. Top coalition officers were invited along with US civilians, food and drinks ordered (the secular Kurds serve and drink alcohol), and the Kurdistan prime minister had prepared his speech. Then America's top diplomat in the region delivered an ultimatum: She would not attend unless the Kurds flew Iraq's flag at the party. The Kurds refused and canceled the party.
[...]
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/25/the_constitution_and_the_kurds/
********************************************************************************************
That the Iraqi people are fussing over the allocation of their natural resouces should not come as a surprise. The Interim Constitution that Bremer shoved down their throats made it quite clear that the American occupation was directed towards achieving what they had failed to get out of Saddam Hussein, preferential access to ALL of Iraq's natural resources (land, water, minerals and oil).
What most Americans probably missed was that, under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a socialist state and most natural and capital assets belonged to the state. In theory, this should have made it easy for American corporate interests to acquire exclusive long-term leases and buy up Iraq's resources cheaply. In theory, it also should have made it easy for the United States to negotiate the construction of those fourteen military bases we wanted to have there-- in order to assert our dominance over the Indian Ocean basin. But, Saddam was resistant. That's why he had to be removed.
Easy access to Iraqi oil is nice, but we really don't need it. Much more important to military bases in the desert are water and electricity to keep the troops cool and replicate all the comforts of home.
John Kerry has challenged the Administration to declare that the US has no interest in the permanent bases we are even now building. He expressed that conviction during the campaign. Which made it absolutely imperative that he be defeated. A permanent American military presence in the region has been the Pentagon's goal for several decades. Very likely it's what drove the occupation of Vietnam. Fat chance they will give up that dream without a fight.
And to think, that fellow Chalabi promised it would be easy.