Genocide in Tranquil Kurdistan
WASHINGTON-The next time you hear confident assurances from the White House and its supporters that the "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq is working and that something called "victory" is now within sight, remember the Yazidis.
The who? Before Tuesday, you almost certainly would have asked that question-before two villages in northern Iraq, populated by an obscure religious sect, suffered what is now officially the deadliest terrorist attack of the war, with more than 400 people confirmed dead. The final toll is expected to rise, but the coordinated suicide truck bombings in the Yazidi towns already constitute the second-worst terrorist attack of modern times, trailing only the carnage of Sept. 11, 2001.
Thanks to online encyclopedias, veteran foreign correspondents and the work of dedicated scholars, we now have a boilerplate definition. The Yazidis are ethnic Kurds who practice an ancient, pre-Islamic religion. Among their beliefs is that God created seven archangels, one of whom is sometimes called Shaytan, which is the name given to Satan in the Koran. This has led some Muslims to believe, incorrectly, that the Yazidis are devil-worshipers.
We also now know that in April, a Yazidi woman who had married a Muslim and converted to Islam was stoned to death by irate members of her community. This horror was captured on video and disseminated widely; angry Muslims gunned down 23 Yazidis in reprisal.
We can state these facts with confidence. But the truth is that we have only the most superficial idea of who the Yazidis are-and even less of a clue about who might have visited such utter devastation on their villages.
It was al-Qaida, U.S. military officers quickly announced. And maybe it was. Maybe it was part of an al-Qaidaal-Qaida effort to create chaos in the Kurdish northern provinces of Iraq, which are often held up as the great success story of the U.S. invasion-an oasis of relative peace and tranquility, if you discount the occasional stoning or retaliatory massacre.
But the White House and the U.S. military leadership in Iraq generally blame al-Qaida for trying to foment sectarian and ethnic violence by driving wedges between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. In that context, the Yazidi sect is so tiny as to be inconsequential-hardly worth al-Qaida's time and effort.
The bombings Tuesday looked more like an act of genocide, an attempt to erase as many Yazidis as possible from the face of the Earth. The motive for this atrocity might not have been political but religious; it might have been the work of Muslim fundamentalists who were trying to settle a centuries-old local grievance, rather than the work of Muslim fundamentalists trying to drive the Americans out of Iraq or establish a new caliphate in the Middle East.
The point is that here in Washington, we talk about Iraq as if we were intimately familiar with all its fractures, fissures and fault lines. The Bush administration touts as a breakthrough the recent decision of provincial Sunni Muslim sheiks to cooperate with U.S. forces-but it's also possible that the sheiks are just maneuvering to be in a better position when the Americans eventually leave. The administration says there might be genocide if the United States pulls out-but it looks as if genocide has already been attempted, in the part of Iraq that the White House cites as a model.
Some war critics confidently predict that if the United States were to withdraw its troops, the al-Qaida presence in Iraq would quickly become a non-factor-that foreign-born terrorists, having outlived their usefulness to the Sunni community, would be driven out or otherwise neutralized.
I happen to think this is a reasonable hypothesis. But I'm anything but confident.
There are those who will see Tuesday's awful bombings as an illustration of why U.S. forces should stay in Iraq. I see the carnage as an illustration of how little the presence of 162,000 American troops can accomplish in a country the size of Iraq.
I don't think anyone knows with certainty where "al-Qaida in Iraq" ends and "the Sunni insurgency" begins. I don't think anyone knows with certainty how the various Shiite factions will ultimately line up-or even whether a unitary Iraq, having been shattered by the U.S. invasion, can ever be reassembled.
What I do know is that anyone who says American forces have to stay in Iraq because they're protecting the Iraqi people should tell that to the Yazidis. Those who are left.
Eugene Robinson's e-mail address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.
(c) 2007 Truthdig, L.L.C.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
WASHINGTON-The next time you hear confident assurances from the White House and its supporters that the "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq is working and that something called "victory" is now within sight, remember the Yazidis.
The who? Before Tuesday, you almost certainly would have asked that question-before two villages in northern Iraq, populated by an obscure religious sect, suffered what is now officially the deadliest terrorist attack of the war, with more than 400 people confirmed dead. The final toll is expected to rise, but the coordinated suicide truck bombings in the Yazidi towns already constitute the second-worst terrorist attack of modern times, trailing only the carnage of Sept. 11, 2001.
Thanks to online encyclopedias, veteran foreign correspondents and the work of dedicated scholars, we now have a boilerplate definition. The Yazidis are ethnic Kurds who practice an ancient, pre-Islamic religion. Among their beliefs is that God created seven archangels, one of whom is sometimes called Shaytan, which is the name given to Satan in the Koran. This has led some Muslims to believe, incorrectly, that the Yazidis are devil-worshipers.
We also now know that in April, a Yazidi woman who had married a Muslim and converted to Islam was stoned to death by irate members of her community. This horror was captured on video and disseminated widely; angry Muslims gunned down 23 Yazidis in reprisal.
We can state these facts with confidence. But the truth is that we have only the most superficial idea of who the Yazidis are-and even less of a clue about who might have visited such utter devastation on their villages.
It was al-Qaida, U.S. military officers quickly announced. And maybe it was. Maybe it was part of an al-Qaidaal-Qaida effort to create chaos in the Kurdish northern provinces of Iraq, which are often held up as the great success story of the U.S. invasion-an oasis of relative peace and tranquility, if you discount the occasional stoning or retaliatory massacre.
But the White House and the U.S. military leadership in Iraq generally blame al-Qaida for trying to foment sectarian and ethnic violence by driving wedges between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. In that context, the Yazidi sect is so tiny as to be inconsequential-hardly worth al-Qaida's time and effort.
The bombings Tuesday looked more like an act of genocide, an attempt to erase as many Yazidis as possible from the face of the Earth. The motive for this atrocity might not have been political but religious; it might have been the work of Muslim fundamentalists who were trying to settle a centuries-old local grievance, rather than the work of Muslim fundamentalists trying to drive the Americans out of Iraq or establish a new caliphate in the Middle East.
The point is that here in Washington, we talk about Iraq as if we were intimately familiar with all its fractures, fissures and fault lines. The Bush administration touts as a breakthrough the recent decision of provincial Sunni Muslim sheiks to cooperate with U.S. forces-but it's also possible that the sheiks are just maneuvering to be in a better position when the Americans eventually leave. The administration says there might be genocide if the United States pulls out-but it looks as if genocide has already been attempted, in the part of Iraq that the White House cites as a model.
Some war critics confidently predict that if the United States were to withdraw its troops, the al-Qaida presence in Iraq would quickly become a non-factor-that foreign-born terrorists, having outlived their usefulness to the Sunni community, would be driven out or otherwise neutralized.
I happen to think this is a reasonable hypothesis. But I'm anything but confident.
There are those who will see Tuesday's awful bombings as an illustration of why U.S. forces should stay in Iraq. I see the carnage as an illustration of how little the presence of 162,000 American troops can accomplish in a country the size of Iraq.
I don't think anyone knows with certainty where "al-Qaida in Iraq" ends and "the Sunni insurgency" begins. I don't think anyone knows with certainty how the various Shiite factions will ultimately line up-or even whether a unitary Iraq, having been shattered by the U.S. invasion, can ever be reassembled.
What I do know is that anyone who says American forces have to stay in Iraq because they're protecting the Iraqi people should tell that to the Yazidis. Those who are left.
Eugene Robinson's e-mail address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.
(c) 2007 Truthdig, L.L.C.
WASHINGTON-The next time you hear confident assurances from the White House and its supporters that the "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq is working and that something called "victory" is now within sight, remember the Yazidis.
The who? Before Tuesday, you almost certainly would have asked that question-before two villages in northern Iraq, populated by an obscure religious sect, suffered what is now officially the deadliest terrorist attack of the war, with more than 400 people confirmed dead. The final toll is expected to rise, but the coordinated suicide truck bombings in the Yazidi towns already constitute the second-worst terrorist attack of modern times, trailing only the carnage of Sept. 11, 2001.
Thanks to online encyclopedias, veteran foreign correspondents and the work of dedicated scholars, we now have a boilerplate definition. The Yazidis are ethnic Kurds who practice an ancient, pre-Islamic religion. Among their beliefs is that God created seven archangels, one of whom is sometimes called Shaytan, which is the name given to Satan in the Koran. This has led some Muslims to believe, incorrectly, that the Yazidis are devil-worshipers.
We also now know that in April, a Yazidi woman who had married a Muslim and converted to Islam was stoned to death by irate members of her community. This horror was captured on video and disseminated widely; angry Muslims gunned down 23 Yazidis in reprisal.
We can state these facts with confidence. But the truth is that we have only the most superficial idea of who the Yazidis are-and even less of a clue about who might have visited such utter devastation on their villages.
It was al-Qaida, U.S. military officers quickly announced. And maybe it was. Maybe it was part of an al-Qaidaal-Qaida effort to create chaos in the Kurdish northern provinces of Iraq, which are often held up as the great success story of the U.S. invasion-an oasis of relative peace and tranquility, if you discount the occasional stoning or retaliatory massacre.
But the White House and the U.S. military leadership in Iraq generally blame al-Qaida for trying to foment sectarian and ethnic violence by driving wedges between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. In that context, the Yazidi sect is so tiny as to be inconsequential-hardly worth al-Qaida's time and effort.
The bombings Tuesday looked more like an act of genocide, an attempt to erase as many Yazidis as possible from the face of the Earth. The motive for this atrocity might not have been political but religious; it might have been the work of Muslim fundamentalists who were trying to settle a centuries-old local grievance, rather than the work of Muslim fundamentalists trying to drive the Americans out of Iraq or establish a new caliphate in the Middle East.
The point is that here in Washington, we talk about Iraq as if we were intimately familiar with all its fractures, fissures and fault lines. The Bush administration touts as a breakthrough the recent decision of provincial Sunni Muslim sheiks to cooperate with U.S. forces-but it's also possible that the sheiks are just maneuvering to be in a better position when the Americans eventually leave. The administration says there might be genocide if the United States pulls out-but it looks as if genocide has already been attempted, in the part of Iraq that the White House cites as a model.
Some war critics confidently predict that if the United States were to withdraw its troops, the al-Qaida presence in Iraq would quickly become a non-factor-that foreign-born terrorists, having outlived their usefulness to the Sunni community, would be driven out or otherwise neutralized.
I happen to think this is a reasonable hypothesis. But I'm anything but confident.
There are those who will see Tuesday's awful bombings as an illustration of why U.S. forces should stay in Iraq. I see the carnage as an illustration of how little the presence of 162,000 American troops can accomplish in a country the size of Iraq.
I don't think anyone knows with certainty where "al-Qaida in Iraq" ends and "the Sunni insurgency" begins. I don't think anyone knows with certainty how the various Shiite factions will ultimately line up-or even whether a unitary Iraq, having been shattered by the U.S. invasion, can ever be reassembled.
What I do know is that anyone who says American forces have to stay in Iraq because they're protecting the Iraqi people should tell that to the Yazidis. Those who are left.
Eugene Robinson's e-mail address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.
(c) 2007 Truthdig, L.L.C.