Azure magazine just published a long essay I wrote in early summer where I make the case for an independent American-backed Kurdistan in Northern Iraq on moral and strategic grounds. At the time I was slightly more pessimistic about the prospects for Iraq as a whole than I am now, but I still think something like this may be a viable Plan B if the surge fails or if the American public tires of fighting in Iraq before the country is stable.
Here is a brief excerpt from the second half of the essay:The United States will possibly withdraw from Iraq before the fighting is finished. American public opinion may well demand it. But if that should happen, the war will simply rage on without the Americans, and the Iraqi government might not survive the post-withdrawal scramble for power from insurgents, militias, terrorists, and their foreign patrons. And if the government falls, there probably won’t be another.Read the whole thing in Azure magazine.Iraq may end up resembling other regional weak-state anarchies, such as Somalia, which exist solely as geographic abstractions. Or it could go the way of Lebanon in the 1980s and divide into ethnic and sectarian cantons. Perhaps it will be invaded and picked apart by Turkey, Syria, and Iran, all of which have vital interests in who rules it and how. Iraq could even turn into a California-size Gaza, ruled by militants who wear black masks instead of neckties or keffiyehs.
But one certainty, at least, is that if Kurdistan declares independence and is not protected, one of two possible wars is likely to begin immediately. The first will involve Turkey; after all, few things are more undesirable to Ankara than Turkish Kurdistan violently attaching itself to Iraqi Kurdistan. The second will be about borders: Iraqi Kurdistan’s southern borders are not yet demarcated. If Turkey doesn’t invade, the Kurds will want to attach the Kurdish portions of Kirkuk Province, and possibly also Nineveh Province, to their new state.
Even if Kurdistan doesn’t declare independence, there may still be more war on the way. “We believe if the Americans withdraw from this country there will be many more problems,” Colonel Mudhafer said. “The Sunni and Shia want total control of Iraq. We are going to get involved in that. Iran is going to be involved in that. Turkey is going to be involved in that. Syria is going to be involved in that. The Sunni and Shia fighting in Baghdad will pull us in. We are going to be involved. Turkey and Iran will make problems for us. It is not going to be safe. All the American martyrs will have died for nothing, and there will be more problems in the future. Americans should build big bases here.” For obvious reasons, the idea of the American military garrisoning its forces in Kurdistan is wildly popular among the Kurds.
Well, it looks like American backed Turkey is going to move in F@@k the less American backed Kurds because - despite their strange endearment to neocon types - the Kurds are a terrorist harboring wannabe nation and one target of their terrorism is a valuable NATO ally.
So get as misty eyed as you want to over the Kurds, but they aint getting what you think they are; nor do they deserve their own country anyhow. Why you don't expect them to play nice and participate in a democratic Iraq is beyond me.
avedis: the Kurds are a terrorist harboring wannabe nation
Terrorists from Turkey militarily seized a remote portion of the Kurdistan mountains on the border. That does not make them "terrorist" harborers. You sound like a neocon on PCP.
Why you don't expect them to play nice and participate in a democratic Iraq is beyond me.
The Kurds don't want Baghdad as their capital for the same reason you don't.
nor do they deserve their own country anyhow
Do the Palestinians deserve their own country?
Why shouldn't the Kurds have their own country? The Palestinians could have their own since 1948, its just easier to be "victims" of the Zionist plot. The rebel Kurds want to be independent, not a bad aspiration.
Michael J. Totten, you've been to Kurdisan, I haven't. I'd like to ask for your thoughts on something.
First, my perspective. Saudi Arabia is a hostile state and the more resources it cancels out against its fellow Islamic states the better. The same applies to Iran. And really, the same applies to Iraq. Its future should be be less rather than more. As for our efforts to build it up, we were stupid and we should stop being stupid.
Now the questions:
1. Would a Kurdisan guaranteed by American military power facilitate or inhibit the canceling out of Saudi, Iranian, Iraqi and other Islamic forces and resources in Iraq?
2. Would a Kurdisan guaranteed by American military power facilitate or complicate efforts to stay clear of the Islamic tar-baby and let the needed canceling out happen without either our promoting it or our getting pulled into it?
3. In both cases, why? What is it about Kurdistan (or other places you have been) that would lead to the results you expect to occur as a result of an American military commitment?
#3 from Senor Bumblebee: "Why shouldn't the Kurds have their own country? The Palestinians could have their own since 1948, its just easier to be "victims" of the Zionist plot. The rebel Kurds want to be independent, not a bad aspiration."
The Kurds don't want to take the territory for their state from us, the Americans or any other allied state, so why should we object?
(And no, the Turks are not real allies - their reaction to the invasion of Iraq illustrated that.)
And, Arabs have done enough to show that their culture is unfriendly even beyond the Islamic average. So if non-Arabs, whether Kurdish, Turkish or Persians, kick a few Arab tails and establish their own territory, again why should we object?
I just don't see the benefit of getting involved to make this happen, when what's wanted is for hostile forces to cancel out without our provocation and involvement.
But I'm potentially willing to be persuaded, if the idea makes sense.
Mr. Totten:
I've been to Kurdistan. It's geographically remote, making it nearly impossible to support, beyond the current conditions of US military deployment. What's more, there is little physical unity to the region. Kurdistan can exist as it does while the US retains its current level of presence. Given the unlikely event of a US pullout, the Kurds will probably ally themselves with the Shia in the ensuing war, and settle for an eventual deal, trading political subordination in return for a form of measured autonomy. Turkey and especially Iran would have a hand in this eventuality.
David Blue,
I find your premise a bit odd, but haven't thought it through fully.
To your questions, though:
1. Would a Kurdisan guaranteed by American military power facilitate or inhibit the canceling out of Saudi, Iranian, Iraqi and other Islamic forces and resources in Iraq?
I don't think it would have much effect either way, but I don't know everything and my trips there don't help me much here.
2. Would a Kurdisan guaranteed by American military power facilitate or complicate efforts to stay clear of the Islamic tar-baby and let the needed canceling out happen without either our promoting it or our getting pulled into it?
Again, I don't think it would have much effect either way. There isn't much of an Islamic "tar baby" in Kurdistan, though, I'll tell you that much. Islamism is pretty thin on the ground there.
Re: #7 from Michael J. Totten: Thanks, I can't ask for more than such straight answers.
nor do they deserve their own country anyhow
Do the Palestinians deserve their own country?
Oh come on Michael, you seem to have a rather silly, or at least, ill-defined, conception of equivalence:
A Palestinian state in no way poses a threat to the State of Israel. Nor have the Palestinians---in the past, or currently, and therefore in the conceivable future---ever proposed anything but friendship and coexistence with Israel.
On the other hand, the Kurds have continually pledged to destroy the Turkish State---tiny and vulnerable as Turkey is; moreover, if Kurdistan is ever established, it will constitute a continual, existential threat to Turkey's existence.
So why is Turkey's absolute refusal to countenance such a state so hard for you to understand?? (Although, Turkey, to her credit, does support the creation of a Palestinian State, as does Israel, for that matter.)
#9 broke my sarcasm detector, can anyone spare me a reading?
My question on the viability of a Kurdish nation has always been economic, no seaports and they'd be surrounded by hostile nations. What would be the economic basis for the nation? How would they conduct trade to the outside world?
I don't see them being long term viable under the current borders.
I believe the Kurds have spent a lot on developing airports and are seeking to be the region's air cargo transportation hub.
Barry - when you say "A Palestinian state in no way poses a threat to the State of Israel. Nor have the Palestinians---in the past, or currently, and therefore in the conceivable future---ever proposed anything but friendship and coexistence with Israel." - you're kidding, right?
A.L.
I wasn't sure what to make of Barry Meislin's comment either. Here is a previoius posting from him:
Nov. 17, 2006
"At the time I was slightly more pessimistic about the prospects for Iraq as a whole than I am now"
Really? You are more optimistic about IRAQ as a WHOLE? Or are more optimistic about the parts of Iraq, split up, but giving up on fighting each other?
At any rate, that Azure article isn't too bad, but it's a bit contradictory. You state conclusions in the first couple of paragraphs, that then are contradicted by the decent journalism you present later in the article, where you present the facts.
a. In the beginning you talk about the Kurdish people, as if they are united. Only later, in an aside, do you speak about the "bitter civil war" that Kurds fought in the mid 90's, and then only to reference why they aren't cracking down on the PKK. But, from what I understand, there are basically two Kurdistan's, right? At least, up til 1995, there was an inability of Kurdistan's two principal parties, Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party and Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, to reunify their parallel administrations, one in Erbil, the other in Suleimaniyeh.
I don't know if this is still the case, and I don't have time to check.
You gloss over that history, in your overwhelming positive take on Kurds.
While again, there is a lot in that article I agree with - I certainly think the Kurds should have their own state, and functionally, of course they do - this type of simplification isn't useful.
The Kurds MUST work with Turkey, become friends with Turkey, to eliminate the PKK. No call for a country will work, unless that happens. If they do not work with Turkey, Turkey will invade, and there is a very good case to be made they should. Certainly a MUCH stronger case than the case for the U.S. overthrowing Saddam. Terrorists are attacking citizens of Turkey, and then retreating to the Kurdish mountains. Certainly the Turks cannot be faulted for going 30 miles inward, to pursue those terrorists.
Make that "at least until 2005", not 1995.
hypocrisyrules:But, from what I understand, there are basically two Kurdistan's, right?
There were, but they unified into a single government two years ago. This isn't an issue anymore so I didn't address it.
The Kurds MUST work with Turkey, become friends with Turkey, to eliminate the PKK.
I agree. Their disagreements are fixable, but neither side is making much of an effort.
Micheal,
I will preface the following by saying that I have nothing but admiration for you and what you are doing.
That being said, this scheme and would be impossible to pull off. I admire your passion, but this idea comes more from the heart than from the head.
For what possible reasons, aside from emotional ones, would we want to ally ourselves with people who have not had a state since before Xenophon's encounter with them more that 2,000 years ago. I people totally surrounded by enemies, landlocked, without any means routes or means to export their resources across hostile borders, nor import necessities.
What would you suggest? A Berlin airlift on a massive scale. Geo-strategically Kurdistan is a disaster. How would we supply our troops, let alone the Kurds? No land or sea route and 6,000 miles away? Talk about a logistical nightmare. We would have to dedicate every cargo plane we have and then some.
Some people are cursed by a geography that makes their situation untenable. The Kurds throughout history have been one of those people. Also, I don't think you could ever make this kind of case to the American people.
#10 from Treefrog: "#9 broke my sarcasm detector, can anyone spare me a reading?"
My sarcasm detector is reading high intensity throughout post #9.
It's a simple "shoe on the other foot" substitution, but carried through with consistent brio. Graded: fine.
TOC,
Yes, the logistics are a pain. But there are functional international airports in Kurdistan that I have landed at many times on civilian airliners from Europe.
Mongolia is landlocked and surrounded by hostile countries (Russia and China) that are far more powerful than those next to Kurdistan. Yet Mongolia survives as a sovereign state and pro-American ally.
It sucks to be landlocked in a bad neighborhood, but it isn't necessarily fatal.
Switzerland is landlocked as well. But being landlocked is only one part of the Geography curse. What part of the world you are landlocked in is a much more weighty one.
The Kurds are in an area where they have been under constant attack since their were Kurds to attack. That is not going to let up anytime soon. Mongolia doesn't sit in the center of the Middle East with the history that the area has. Mongolia is remote in the extreme and works as a buffer area for China and Russia. There is no foreseeable threat to Mongolia from either. The polar opposite can be said for Kurdistan.
As far as the quality of the airports, all the aiports in the world are not going to supply Kurdistan and add to that, the fact that the electorate in the U.S. has less and less stomach for the war in Iraq. What would possibly make them agree to sending their sons and daughters to defend Kurdish independence. What is in it for us? What do we gain by supporting the Kurds vis a vis Turkey. Unfortunately for he Kurds, not much.
There are limits to our powers. The defense of Kurdistan, surrounded as it is, by hostile neighbors and an Iraq in chaos is one of those areas where our power is exceeded by the situation. In the scenario you are drawing, the Kurds, as always, will be left to fend for themselves.
This is one of the tragedies of the invasion. We committed an historic and amateurish strategic blunder by creating a power vacuum that we could not fill. A lot of people are going to suffer for that, a suffering I am sure you have witnessed, not only the Kurds.
Please find a brief history of the Kurdish Freedom Struggle in Turkey here: (link)
-
Link formatting fixed: David Blue. Hevallo, posting bare links is against Winds of Change rules.
The Kurds MUST work with Turkey, become friends with Turkey, to eliminate the PKK. No call for a country will work, unless that happens.
This is reasonable, under the circumstances. However, something like 80% of kurdistan is currently occupied by iran, turkey, and syria. By one logic it makes sense for the small fraction of kurds that currently have their own government to be thankful for that and not try to liberate any of their relatives suffering oppressive government. But as long as there is a free kuristan somewhere it will bring hope to kurds in those countries, and those governments will want to destroy kurdistan for that reason.
At the same time that we try to soothe turkey, we encourage kurdish support for kurdish separatists in iran, and we sneak guns to iranian kurds. We want kurdistan to help us against our enemy iran, but we want them to ignore the oppression by our ally turkey? What would be ideal for them and for us would be if iran fell apart to the point that the kurds could slice off enough of northern iran to get a coastline and at least one iranian port. Then they'd be in much better shape. And as David Blue points out, we could dump Turkey as an ally and help the kurds liberate a big slice of turkey too. And syria.
This would very much further David Blue's strategy, too. Partition iran, syria, turkey, and iraq, get a big strong kurdistan in the middle of the middle east with no friends but USA and israel, and we could probably keep regional wars going on there for generations. Maybe centuries! And while that's going on the arabs won't have time to threaten the existence of the USA the way they do now.
(That last line was sarcasm.)
...we could probably keep regional wars going on there for generations. Maybe centuries!
not much of a feat. they have already been going on for Millenia, as they have in Europe.
J Thomas, "However, something like 80% of kurdistan is currently occupied by iran, turkey, and syria"
J, "kurdistan" is something like Santa Clause. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there is no such thing. It is merely a fairly tail for children and people like Totten (that like to put lipstick on pigs).
So Iran, Turkey and Syria cannot possibly be occupying "Kurdistan" any more than than the US is occupying La Raza's "Aztlan".
The Kurds are - historically - bandit nomads. This idea of settling down in their own country is brand spanking new. It arises only because the modern world has evolved to the point where a life of piracey is no longer viable.
The Kurds need to chill out and accept citizenship of whatever country they find themselves in and become active participants in that society. Or face the consequences that come from being violent clannish insurgents (e.g. Anfal, the coming Turkish invasion, etc).
Avedis, are there regions in turkey, syria, iran, and iraq where mostly kurds live? The USA has accepted that there are in iraq -- we call it kurdistan because we believe that.
How about turkey? Are there places in turkey that mostly kurds live in? Sure, about a third of turkey's land area. An unknown number of turkish kurds want to secede. The number is unknown partly because the turkish government cracks down on people who look like they'd try it. Turkey appears to take PKK more seriously than they would a bunch of apolitical bandits who occasionally killed people. They appear to take the threat seriously.
Agreed, "kurdistan" is like santa claus. As is lithuania. As was, until 1948, israel. I figure if they want their own country and they have what it takes to smoothly get that nation, then more power to them. If they try and it turns into genocide and defeat, then less power to them. I hope they'll only try it when they can get the odds heavily in their favor. I don't want them to be the first big genocide of the 21st century. But it's their choice.
Which ties in to the other thread. We tend to think of them as our proxies who'll do what we want because they're good guys and the good guys always do what we want because we're right and our enemies are wrong. And that mindset leads us to encourage the kurds to cause trouble in iran and discourage them from causing trouble in turkey. But they aren't just our proxies. They have their own goals. They want to liberate all their people, or at least all the land that mostly has their people on it. They might not be able to. They might lose everything trying. But it doesn't make sense to tell them they mustn't want to. This passage
shows the US-centric view. It might make sense practically -- the turkish army may be so strong that kurdistan couldn't hold out against them even in mountains. But for kurds I expect this idea would be rejected. It's like -- remember the UN partition of israel, with all the weird borders and little enclaves and all that, which gave israel something like 48% of its pre-1967 land? Would you have said "The israelis MUST work with jordan, become friends with jordan, to eliminate the Stern Gang." Would you have said "The jews need to chill out and accept citizenship of whatever country they find themselves in and become active participants in that society."?
Something like half the kurds are in turkey, and the kurds in iraq naturally like the idea of liberating them. This is a reality that kurdish leaders have to deal with.
#22 from J Thomas at 10:33 am on Oct 19, 2007
At the same time that we try to soothe turkey, we encourage kurdish support for kurdish separatists in iran, and we sneak guns to iranian kurds. We want kurdistan to help us against our enemy iran, but we want them to ignore the oppression by our ally turkey? What would be ideal for them and for us would be if iran fell apart to the point that the kurds could slice off enough of northern iran to get a coastline and at least one iranian port. Then they'd be in much better shape. And as David Blue points out, we could dump Turkey as an ally and help the kurds liberate a big slice of turkey too. And syria.
___________________________________
40 years ago my roommate tried this strategy in a game of Risk one night in the dorm. It didn't work!!!
I see certain people working at cross purposes. On the hand they call for a stable region with secular plurastic societies modeled after the US and on the other they advocate fracturing the region along ethnic and religious fault lines.
It seems to me that you just cannot have both. If the later, then unrest and war will be perpetual.