Christopher Hitchens demands all US politicians make a committment to defend Kurdistan, no matter which direction the rest of Iraq takes.
In this region of Iraq, the local leadership has done almost everything that could have been asked of it by the United Nations or the United States. It maintains its own security, does not require foreign troops, has put an end to sectarian warfare among Kurds, fights against al-Qaida with some success, maintains a high regional standard for pluralism and democracy, and has enough left over to contribute soldiers to the policing of Baghdad and Fallujah.
I'm interested in hearing about their "high degree of pluralism." Is this a high degree of pluralism, period, or are we talking culturally relative pluralism? I only ask because the last time I heard about Kurdish "pluralism," it came from YouTube accounts of a group of some 1000 Kurds stoning a 17 year old girl to death for dating a guy of a different religion, and filming it to share with their buds.
I'm also wondering who Mr. Hitchens believes we should be defending Kurdistan from: the terrorists in Iraq, or the armies of our NATO allies since the '50's?
And, as far as that goes, if we create Kurdistan and defend it from the rest of Iraq, and they end up harboring individuals who take weapons into Turkey to engage in activities of armed civil disobedience, and Turkey is our signed-up-as-treaty ally, who do we end up siding with? Are we for or against terrorists at that point?