| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| U.S.-Kurds' special relationship at risk over fraying Turkey alliance |
| 2007-04-21 |
| From Geostrategy-Direct, subscription. The Kurds have been the best friends of the United States in Iraq. But Washington might have to decide between supporting the Kurds or losing Turkey as an ally. Sticky wicket. Turkey stuck it to the US when they did not allow the 4ID to cross Turkey during OIF. As a result, the Bush administration has been quietly urging the autonomous government in Kurdistan to meet Turkish demands to stop the Kurdish Workers Party, an insurgency movement in northern Iraq. The administration has also asked the Kurdish government to delay a controversial referendum regarding control of Kirkuk, the center of the oil sector in northern Iraq. The Kurds want the referendum held by the end of the year. "Postponement of the referendum is simply unacceptable," Qubad Talabani, the Washington representative for the Kurdistan regional government in northern Iraq, said at a conference in Washington. "It will lead to an escalation of the already tense situation, which may get out of control. The longer we delay the referendum, the worse the mess will be." For years, the United States angered the Turks with its open support of Iraqi Kurds. But now Washington needs Ankara's help with Iran and Iraq, and the harboring of the PKK by the autonomous Kurdish government has jeopardized U.S. interests. Needing Turkey's help is a bad thing. If we go along with their requirements, we are having Turkey call the tune. Not exactly a position of strength. At the Washington conference earlier this month, U.S. officials did not rush to the Kurdish side. Barbara Stephenson, deputy senior adviser and coordinator to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said the Iraqis must resolve the Kirkuk problem within its constitution. "We don't have a position on the timing, we don't weigh in on that," Stephenson said. "We don't have to express whether it has to be by Dec. 31 or not. But the outcome should be one that takes into account the worries of all parties." |
| Posted by:Alaska Paul |
| #6 Shipman, I think it's the 173rd Airborne Bde. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-04-21 12:06 |
| #5 Remind me how much oil Turkey has. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2007-04-21 10:50 |
| #4 Washington needs Ankara's help with Iran and Iraq, We haven't and won't get it. No gain for the US there. Stick with the Kurds, base the um.... what's the paratrooper regiment now based in Italy, went into Kurdistan 1st thing in the war? Did well. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-04-21 10:42 |
| #3 USDS strikes again. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-04-21 08:56 |
| #2 Big mistake. We lost the Sunnis from the very first day: we killed Saddam and overthrew Sunni rule. Does anyone imagine that will foster relationship building with the US for at least a generation? And now, we will lose the Kurds-betraying their loyalty, we kill off the one group who we have a chance of building a reliable alliance with, with a reliable base of operation. If we pick traitorous Turkey, we will have by default chosen the Shia as the demographic for the region for years to come, complicating pressure on Iran to abandon nuclear weapons development. Maybe this is Bush's way of picking up where Chirac left off-coming to accept a nuclearized Iran? |
| Posted by: Jules 2007-04-21 07:53 |
| #1 thanks AP, A few weeks ago on a similar thread about the PKK and Turkey I said, such is statecraft that Sovereign Nations will almost always recognize each others interests before they let semi-autonomous areas trump them, IIRC 99% of the time. Having said it, I'd like to add that in this instance I hope like hell we choose the Kurd's interests over Turkeys.. Do I trust our State Department to do the right thing visa vi the Kurds? Sadly no. >::( |
| Posted by: Dag Hammarskjöld 2007-04-21 02:34 |