A professional acquaintance of mine, who is affiliated with the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, recently forwarded me an article about a speech delivered at a conference of Kurdish leaders from Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. The author of the article, Dr. Jack Wheeler (who also gave the speech at the conference in early April), provides some insight into one of the most significant problems faced by the United States in its quest to establish a stable and democratic Iraq. The problem: what to do about the Kurds.
The article begins with a telling paragraph: "A muezzin is calling people to pray from a minaret nearby as I am writing this. I am in Hewlar, Iraq-more appropriately Iraqi Kurdistan, or even more appropriately South Kurdistan. That's what Kurds in Iraq call their portion of Kurdistan. Kurds in Turkey call theirs North Kurdistan. Kurds in Syria call theirs West Kurdistan. And Kurds in Iran call theirs East Kurdistan."
The paragraph is significant because it captures in just a few sentences the sentiments of the vast majority of Kurds in Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran: they are an independent people whose homeland is being denied to them by other states. The Kurds want, above all else, an independent state that they can call their own. And not just any state. They want Kurdistan, with clearly defined borders that reach into the territories now claimed by four other nations.
Dr. Wheeler said in his speech: "...the Kurds...remain the largest ethnic group in the world without their own country. This must change." In Iraq, the situation is indeed changing, and the consequences of that change could put at risk everything President Bush and the U.S. military have been striving to achieve for the past four years.
The Kurds in Iraq have steadily moved toward independence, establishing a stable and secure environment in northern Iraq, one that has been touted as the model for the future of that war-torn country and one that has been self-governed by the Kurds since the Persian Gulf War of 1991. The Iraqi Kurds' repeated moves toward independence (resistance to giving up oil rights, flying the Kurdish flag instead of the Iraqi flag, insisting on regional autonomy, deployment of an armed and trained militia, etc.) have irritated the Iraqi government in Baghdad and have increased tensions with Iraq's neighbors.
Turkey has vowed repeatedly, as has Iran, that there will be no independent Kurdistan, for the creation of such a country would cause what would probably be violent unrest in the Kurdish regions of those states as the minority Kurds sought to break away from Ankara and Tehran to become part of the new Kurdistan. And the Turks and Iranians, as well as the Syrians, have a very real basis for their fears.
In his speech, Dr. Wheeler urged the Kurds to act: "The peoples of Turkey, Syria, and Iran...must understand they can only have a truly free country when all their people are not oppressed by their governments. It is the Kurds of Syria who can bring freedom to Syria. It is the Kurds of Turkey who can bring freedom to all the peoples of Turkey. And it is the Kurds of Iran who can end the horrible tyranny of the mullahs in Tehran and bring freedom to Iran."
And Dr. Wheeler does not hide the fact that with Iraq currently in turmoil and Iraq's Kurds increasingly gaining autonomy, the next set of steps should be taken in Iran: "Today there is the opportunity for Kurds to join with other people, such as the Azeris, the Ahwazi Arabs, the Baluchis, and democratic Persians to rid Iran of Mullah Fascism and bring freedom to Iran." He goes on, writing in his article, to say unambiguously that "...the target has got to be Iran."
This Kurdish nationalism presents a difficult problem for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. The United States knows that continued independence moves by the Kurds could inflame Iraqi Arabs, and that there exists the distinct possibility of military intervention by Turkey, Iran and Syria.
Turkey is a NATO ally and a crucial bridge between the west and the Islamic Middle East. The strategic interests of the United States dictate that the maintenance of Turkey as a member of NATO and a regional ally takes precedence over the establishment of an independent Kurdistan. Similarly, the strategic goal of a stable, democratic Iraq is severely undermined by the creation of a separate Kurdish nation that would provoke Iran into fomenting even more regional instability and violence. Syria, too, must be considered, with the Assad regime's ability to undermine the Lebanese government and to incite violence against Israel, as well as the already demonstrated capacity to facilitate the funneling of weapons and fighters into Iraq.
For the United States, the choice seems perfectly clear. While the Kurds have demonstrated the ability to establish a peaceful, secure region in a country torn by violence and sectarian hatred, their dreams of an independent Kurdistan must take a back seat to the more important strategic goal of a stable and non-threatening Middle East. The Kurds must be convinced that the United States can be a far greater ally if their nationalist ambitions give way to the greater good of the region.
Restraining Kurdish ambitions for self-determination while working toward a diplomatic solution to the war in Iraq is an extremely difficult undertaking, even with 150,000 U.S. troops on the ground. It is a task that will likely prove impossible if our forces are withdrawn before a political accommodation can be reached. And while the Kurdish problem is but one piece of the puzzle in establishing a peaceful and secure Iraq, it is a piece that the United States cannot afford to ignore.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
That is the high water mark for the Kurds. The early departure of the American military is the only way to promote a continuation of their currently good fortunes.
As far as your commentary about an independent Kurdistan is concerned, the sooner the Americans get their butts out of country, the sooner they will see a reduction of the unstablility across the region that encourages a Turkish invasion of the north. You said it: "their dreams of an independent Kurdistan must take a back seat to the more important strategic goal of a stable and non-threatening Middle East." Then you tacked on a "requirement" that US forces are necessary to a political accomodation. Where, in the last 4 years, do you see any support from the US military for "political accomodation?"
To believe that Kurdish good fortunes will continue without a U.S. military presence is naive at best. If the Kurds agree to to stay part of Iraq, they will in all likelihood be fine. If they follow up on the rhetoric though, typified by the comments in this article, there will be increased violence. Should we not take the Turks and Iranians at their word about preventing Kurdish independence? That's a dangerous gamble.
Heavy pressure from the United States is barely keeping the Kurds in line and they refuse to take action against the PKK (which is what pisses off Turkey). Turkish troops have massed at the border with Iraq and the Turkish Army Chief said last week he was prepared to conduct strikes into Iraq with ground troops.
I think a precipitous withdrawal of American troops will spell disaster for the region and create a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. Most of the violence in Iraq is NOT directed at coalition troops, but is Iraqi on Iraqi violence. That will not decrease with our departure.
Back to the political accommodation: the sticking point has been the Iraqis themselves. They have shown no desire or willingness to reconcile. The Shia and the Kurds are not interested in sharing oil revenues with anyone, much less the Sunnis that oppressed them for thirty years. That's the gist of the problem in Iraq right now. No military strategy short of half a million troops keeping the warring factions apart will work without the desire among the parties to reconcile. That is the key ingredient that is missing.
Your article, Greg, is an excellant explanation of why this issue needs to be understood before any large decision concerning Iraq can be made.
"precipitous withdrawal" - not going to happen under any circumstances.
"typified by the comments in this article" - extremist and, uh, what was that word you used, "naive."
"the Turkish Army Chief said last week he was prepared to conduct strikes into Iraq with ground troops." - then tell your bosses in the military to invade Turkey. Cheezo, I thought they were our NATO pals. What a crushing disappointment to hear all this talking out of school.
I am fairly certain that Iran, Syria, and Turkey would react very badly to giving the Kurds am autonomous territory within an umbrella of the Iraqi government. Turkey has already threatened to invade if that happens to stop it from being accomplished.
General Ludd: "the U.S. is having a hard time negotiating a peace between Shia and Sunni" -- I am not aware of any tangible US effort at negotiating. Would you be referring to scolding press conferences hosted by SOS (pun intended) Condi Rice?
For any of the creative thinking you so aptly qualify for conflict resolution in the area, the US administration would need a bulk order of brain transplants, or--let's just say a new administration. In other words, the heightened risk of further cross-border disorder and regional instability are locked in until at least Jan. 20, 2009, expressly because this administration has neither the desire or diplomatic and intellectual firepower to conduct the kind of high-level and fair-minded diplomacy that leads to positive change.