This article speaks about the frightening possibility that Turks will roll on Kurdish territory (it was decided in the same bill that gave us overflight). http://slate.msn.com/id/2080461/
It also accuses the administration of quietly selling out the Kurds, noting that it’s previous total support for the Kurds and rejection of Turkish incursions has vanished.
It also notes that neoconservatives, who are riding high right now, have been increasingly more and more dismissive of the Kurds.
What should we do if Turkey invades? Would we be willing to meet the Turks with force?
But what if they are engaging the Kurdish forces? We promised to take the side of the Kurds, and it hardly seems legitimate to protest Iraq seizure of Kuwait for oil when that seems to be part of Turkey’s reason for seizing the territory?
We might turn a blind eye as long as it was “small”. We would find a way to contain Turkey. I guess I could see a slim possibility that we could fight Turkish forces INSIDE IRAQ. But there is no way we would attack them inside Turkish territory.
If the Kurds get out of hand (initiating attacks against Turkey) we would most likely whack the Kurds hard.
Turkey isn’t interested in the oil in Northern Iraq (I’ve heard that this is an accusation that some in the Bush administration are making). The Turks are concerned that the Kurds might use the fog of war to establish an independent Kurdistan. Turkey has a Kurdish minority (which the refer to as “mountain Turks”, IIRC) that has employed the usual methods in seeking self-determination. Turkey fears that if the Iraqi Kurds get too uppity, their Kurds will get uppity too and destabilize the country.
IMO, if the Kurds and the Turks get it on, the US will side with the Turks. We could always argue that the Kurds were threatening the physical integrity of Iraq, which we promised to maintain. It wouldn’t be the first time we screwed the Kurds.
—Turkey isn’t interested in the oil in Northern Iraq (I’ve heard that this is an accusation that some in the Bush administration are making).—
They are almost certainly interested in both things. They would like their border to be streched into Iraq in order to provide a cut of a valuable resource AND to provide a security buffer.
I think we have to ‘let’ Turkey do what they say they are going to do, protect their borders and intercept refugees before they get into Turkey.
There is a real problem if the Kurds - though a compelling case can be made that they deserve an independent state - try to form a true independent state. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and the rebellious Kurds all get into a huge fight. I’m not looking at a map, but I think that’s it. I have excluded any mention of ethnicity or religious distinctions for simplicity.
OTOH, if the Turks make a land grab into Iraq and plant the Turkish flag, that is a real problem.
I agree. I’ve read quite a bit about the Kurds, and they really have gotten the short end of the stick throughout the years. It’s very unfortunate for them that the “realpolitik” of the times is against their ambitions.
What needs to happen is for all the relevant states to allow the Kurds some degree of autonomy within their national borders. They should do this in recognition of the fact that even really intelligent British gentlemen with good intentions sometimes screw up national boundaries when inventing them on a piece of paper. There could be a Greater Kurdistan or Inner Kurdistan. But, instead we got chunks of three nations. Four, if Syria has Kurds. Yes, of course. I’m a good guesser. That helps make up for a lack of actual knowledge. What a potential MCF if that whole area boils over.
Is anyone willing to bet that the U.S. won’t screw the Kurds if we have to choose between the Turks and the Kurds? We’ve done it before. I sure wouldn’t put money on us holding the moral high ground now; this seems to be a realpolitik sort of moment.
We could always use the same strategy we are using in S. Corea. Place U.S. forces amongst the Kurd Forces. That way the Turks cannot attack the kurds without attacking us, which would, of course, invoke the NATO charter on our side.
Let’s not knock the US too soon. The Kurds in norther Iraq are probably the most independent of the lot. Thanks to whom? The US, of course.
I think we’re going to be ultra careful about the post-war situation. I believe we’ll find a way for Turkey not to screw this up. The Turks have been pretty good to us overall. I can imagine their economy took a big hit due to the 1st Gulf War.
Well, that’s part of the article’s point: the Kurds have been a big part of our moral highground, and beloved among neocon circles… but now that it seems that they might be inconvienient, people have suddenly discovered that the Kurds are nasty bastards.
I don’t think all the Kurds can be described as anything. That’s one of the issues, divisions within the Kurds. I concede, I don’t know that much about it.
Yeah, whenever I hear about the “three” ethnics groups in Iraq, I wonder if perhaps there aren’t thirty or more. It’s easy for the media to report about three groups. Makes for a nice story.
Shiite? Well, he’s a Shiite from Bumfuck village. I’m a Shiite from UpShitsCreek village. Everyone knows the Shiites from Bumfuck are thieves and liars.
That’s actually one of the issues that concerns me. Current Kurdish unity, even in northern Iraq, is a comparatively recent and fragile thing. Rival clans ( like the Barzani and Talabani families ) have been fighting each other for decades - Often about as much as they have fought the Turks, Iraqis, or Iranians.
The PUK ( Talabani ) has in the past allied with Iran against the rival KDP ( Barzani ) and with the PKK ( Turkish-centered ) against the KDP. The KDP has allied with the Turks against the PKK and with Saddam Hussein against the PUK. All have been implicated ( i.e. have pointed accusing fingers at each other ) in attacks on Assyrians in N. Iraq ( who have their own political group, the ADM ). Then there are the Iraqi Turkmen, who apparently also feel excluded, have a strong presense in Kirkuk and Mosul and would be happy to see Turkish troops introduced ( or at least see the possibility as a useful counterweight against Kurdish domination). Quite messy, potentially.
Loathing of Saddam has them united now - But remove that and I wonder just how solid that coalition will be. Can only hope, I guess.
Oh and to make it even more confusing, Iraq just happens to be an area that seems to be more or less equally split between speakers of Kurmanji ( Northern Kurdish - Turkey, N.Iraq, Syria ) and Kurdi/Sorani ( Southern Kurdish - Iraq, Iran ). Two dialects sufficiently divergent that some authorities consider them separate languages. Mutual intelligibility is apparently a problem.
The KDP - Kurmanji speakers. The PUK - Sorani. Not to mention speakers of various other related dialects/languages and cultural distinctions ( like Alevi Kurds, Yazidi Kurds, etc. ).