Why not an independent region for the Kurds?

Forums: Asia
Email this Topic • Print this Page

And here I am, out on the edges again. Sounds like lyrics to a song, or a line from a poem. No matter. But I seem to be finding the edges of this thread, or side issues, if you will, to be fertile ground for questions just begging to be asked.

This time I am pondering why it would necessarily be a bad thing for an independent, autonomous Kurdistan (?) to be formed, from the edges of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and anyone else wanting to get rid of this ethnic group of deviants.

What am I missing here? Just why is it so important that Iraqi territorial borders be sacrosanct? When have any borders been so regarded?

Other than setting precedent, is that four corners area sitting on some kind of natural wealth that I am unfamiliar with, which would cause the respective countries to be loath to giving up an edge?

Have we learned nothing from past history about the strength and resolve of a people, self-identifying themselves as a people different from other people, in their determination to be a people? Do we want to have to revisit this area in the future?

How about setting them up as a UN protectorate for "x" of years, and then having the citizenry vote on what they want to do?

All of the respective countries involved in this issue regard it as a nuisance thorn in their sides. So why not pull it out?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,760 • Replies: 17

No top replies

The domino theory. The same reason why Chechnya is denied by the Russians to become an independant state. When the first stone falls, all the others inevitably follow.

0 Replies

Another big concern is that we would alienate Turkey by doing this.

We also might go down in history as the people responsible for the disintegration of a nation.

Peoples striving for self-determination is a popular cause but it weakens the countries they wish to fork from. This is why our civil war was fought. If the south had separated I think the US would not be the super power it is today.

Granting self-determination is always a nice thought, but it's good to note that this is a common request and is commonly rejected. Many times it's a frivolous request as well (e.g. In Brazil the rich states wanted to separate from the poor ones so they would stop having to share their money with them).

0 Replies

Turkey was the only reason that came to my mind. Not to say that my regard for their sensitivities is quite as high as, say, a month ago.

0 Replies

roger,
Why would your concern for their opinions be lessened? They are the country most negatively affected by this war and they were against it all along. They are a loyal ally and despite the overwhelming public opposition in their country they try to help us in a war they do not support.

This war will hurt their ailing economy, reduce their security, cause them to need to deploy their own troops (in Iraq) to create a refugee buffer, strain their EU relations (they are already an outcast there because their demographics are not typical to Europe), and cause political instability (the Kurd issue).

They do not want this war and their people rejected participation in it. This was their choice and they are still helping in any way they can.

Turkey is our only ally that can supply Muslim peace keepers in the wars we wage on Muslim countries. It's the only muslim ally we can depend on. In this case they determined we were asking too much.

Why would that change your opinion of them? I'm curious because I suspect it is something I am not aware of, because I don't think your concern for their needs would decrease simply on the basis that they did not immediately accept our aid ultimatum (they might have eventually accepted it but after the firts vote it was taken off the table).

0 Replies

Let's get back on topic. Just why would Turkey (for example) be unwilling to get the Kurdish issue off their plate?

0 Replies

What's the question? Why Turkey doesn't want to split up their country?

0 Replies

The question seems to be why Turkey objects to an independent Kurdistan. I do not believe they are expected to part with any Turkish territory. I'm not trying to speak for Sumac, but that is my interpretation, as it is a thing I have wondered about, too.

Indeed, Turkey has been a strong ally in the region, and so little rewarded as to rightfully feel betrayed by the US. Nevertheless, I have a problem with anything that lengthens the war or increases American casualties. I do not perceive myself to be in a majority on this.

0 Replies

Aha, I see your point roger. But at the time they rejected it the war had not yet started. They couldn't delay the war, but they could delay the start of it. In any case I think they played their cards, wanted a bigger package and lost. We coulda thrown in a few more bucks but then it might have been a bidding war.

As to why they don't want an independant Kurdistan the stated reason is that it would cause political instability in their country. Their Kurds might want to join the new country and then the possibility of territorial severance is raised. I don't consider that a big problem but I know we want to minimize our footprint and if countries start dividing we will look bad.

0 Replies

The best the US can hope for, if Iraq is split, is to have a situation similar to the one which exists between the FYRM and Greece (FYRM is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which does not even have the right to call itself just Macedonia).
But I think that is hoping too much.

The Kurds are known to be quite fierce, even in regional terms.

And if Kurdistan is given independence, why not an independent Shiite nation in Southern Iraq?
After all, Sadam Hussein has played a similar unifying role as Tito did in Yugoslavia, only with the weapons of massive repression.

0 Replies

I wonder, then, would the Kurds be left alone more if they were NOT wanting independence? (Or, at least, if there were no independence fighters.) I understand that they suffer terribly from both Turkish and Iraqi military repression - including murder, torture etc.

The whole thing sounds like one of those Orouborosian vicious cycles - would it be feasible for a post-war US-puppet government to be nudged to come to some sort of formal agreement re the Kurds? Or are they too independent and "fierce" to agree to anything short of independence?

0 Replies

Can't help with your question, Deb. I just don't see reasonable agreements coming from any of the national or ethnic groupings over there, neither present nor postwar. I also don't see Turkey having a legitimate involvement in anything that doesn't involve her handing over Turkish territory to create a new state.

0 Replies

yes - I spoke of a puppet Iraqi government.

0 Replies

The primary reason that Turkey does not want Kurdish independence is the fear that the Kurds in Turkey would be prompted to fight to join with them.

0 Replies

Turkey also covets the Northern Iraq oil fields. Now - that is some big money. Oops, then again, the USA covets those fields also!

0 Replies

So, are the Kurds in Turkey like, prisoners, then?

Is Puppet a form of government? Has something been decided? Surely, there must be alternatives.

0 Replies

Indeed - but I will be surprised if it does not include strings attached to the USA - or the less salubrious alternative vis a vis means of puppetry - for a long time to come.

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

The Kurds are known to be quite fierce, even in regional terms.

Kurds critisize "low performance" of American Troops (in Spanish)

Excerpts from the note:

"They should let us get into action and they'll see. We now how tough can the Iraqis be", said commander Najib Yunus.

Stories of executions, detentions and expulsions against those who back away from Saddam Hussein or the Republican Guard are common in this Northern strip, where Peshmerga (Kurd) militia are strong, but uncapable of injecting their rebellious spirit into an arab community that considers them second class citizens.

After the first days of conviviality and complicity, the Peshmerga militia starts to question the strategy of the American military and gets impatient about the lengthy bombing against Iraqi troops in Mosul, Kirkuk, Chamchamal and Habjala.

"They say they want to finish first the militiamen of Ansar al Islam, because of their pressumed links with Al-Qaeda, and will concentrate later in Kirkuk and Mosul", says Kurdistan's Patriotic Union's general Mustafa, with a mocking and angry tone.

"They had told us it was all going to be very swift. And look, they still can't control the Iraqi regulars in Nasiriya, Najaf or Basta. With the Iraqis you cannot be so considered. You got to hit them hard. Very hard. You have to be as cruel, or more cruel than their master Saddam Hussein, or else they won't respect you", considered general Mustafa.

0 Replies

Why not an independent region for the Kurds?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know