| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq | ||
| US to station thousands of troops in Iraqi Kurdistan | ||
| 2003-02-24 | ||
| The US plans to station at least 40,000 troops in the Kurdish self-rule area of northern Iraq, but their mission will be to secure the region and provide logistical support for a US-led offensive on the key cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, rather than to use the area as a launching pad for an assault on Baghdad, a senior Kurdish official told the Guardian yesterday. "That's what we're tell you today, anyway!" During a campaign to remove President Saddam Hussein, US troops would be ferried across the border from Turkey and deployed at bases stretching from Dohuk in the west near the Turkish and Syrian borders to Mount Harir in central Iraqi Kurdistan and to the Derbendikan lake in the southeast, not far from the frontier with Iran. Other American infantry would move swiftly through the western edge of the Kurdish-controlled area from the border with Turkey to capture Mosul and Kirkuk, just outside the Kurdish zone, from where they would be able to thrust southwards to Tikrit, President Saddam's home town. Didn't he just say they weren't going south? "They will establish a northern bridgehead to protect their supply lines to government controlled territory, but also to help defend our area from invasion from the Iraqi army," the official said. "Kurdistan will not see much fighting, but it will be a strategically vital area to support the allied battle against [government] strongholds in Tikrit and Baghdad."
How about the border with the Soddis? The official said there were already up to 1,000 US troops in Iraqi Kurdistan, which has been free of Baghdad's control since 1991, in addition to intelligence teams. Military vehicles and communications equipment have been flown in, but as yet no heavy weaponry. "That is only a matter of time," said the official. He predicted that the weapons would include Patriot and Stinger missiles, but they would be for "defensive purposes only and be operated by US troops".
The Kurdish air force will be heavily involved as well. Sorry, old joke, I keep pushing it. The peshmerga fighters may also be called on to handle prisoners of war, or large numbers of defectors from the Iraqi army, said the Kurdish commander. His men were already in contact with senior Iraqi officers who say they are ready to bring their troops over once a US attack starts. He believes even President Saddam's republican guard will quickly surrender. "If the US is serious about removing the regime, it will be a short surgical attack. And we can prepare the way." I don't think anyone wants the honor of being the last Iraqi soldier to die for Saddam. Kurdish military leaders appear happy to accommodate the US, but hint they would like to play a more active role once the fighting starts. "We'll turn the whole of Kurdistan into an airstrip if they want us to," the commander said, "though our allies should know we are serious about being their partners in whatever happens." Now these are the kinds of allies you want to have. "Let us fight! Let us fight!" A few red lines have already been drawn, however. For fear of upsetting its regional ally Turkey, the US is eager to keep the Kurdish peshmerga under the direct control of a US-allied northern command. Turkey fears that any advance by Iraqi Kurds will provoke its own Kurdish population to rise up. It also fears Kurdish control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, just outside the self-rule area. "We will not be allowed to make a move out of our area without the agreement of the US," the Kurdish commander said. "We accept that. We welcome their help with our liberation." That's smart. But Kurds remain unhappy with a plan drawn up in Ankara which envisages Turkish troops deploying along a nearly 200-mile long, 20-25 mile deep "buffer zone" on the Iraqi side of the border — from the Kurdish town of Zakho eastwards. The deal, which US officials insist is not finalised, is part of a quid pro quo with Ankara for allowing US troops to use Turkish bases. According to the US, the Turkish presence will be for "humanitarian" reasons only, but Kurds believe Ankara has its eyes on regaining former Ottoman territories in the regions of Mosul and Kirkuk. And the oil. Don't forget the oil. It remains unclear whether the Turkish troops will fall under US allied command. "No Turkish troops will be allowed here without our prior agreement," vowed Babakir Zebari, commander-in-chief of the KDP's military forces in the Dohuk region. "We have stated very clearly that we are not seeking independence and that we are not going to make a move on Kirkuk." I sure hope the IFF is working when this starts. | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #13 I will side with Murat and Chuck here. I think we've all learned from the experience of the past decade-plus (most notably in the Balkans) that giving every ethnic group their own statelet, no matter how justified their past greivances, does not automatically bring the golden age of peace and prosperity. I think it will make much better sense in the long run - if it can be done - to recast Iraq, once Saddam is seen to, as a genuine federation where the rights of the Big Three - the Sunnis of the central region, the Shiite Marsh Arabs, and the Kurds - and the smaller groups received equal protection under the law, and, even more to the point, where *group rights* are deemphasized in favor of *individual* rights and responsibilities. I don't call for making Iraq a U.S. clone, but I do suggest that all Iraqis who want to rebuild their country should consider carefully studying the proceedings of the 1787 Convention and the writings of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. |
| Posted by: Joe 2003-02-24 17:17:34 |
| #12 The closer that I examine the Kurd issue, the more I realize that an independent Kurdish state would not be viable. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-02-24 12:11:43 |
| #11 Don't let me put a damper on an interesting discussion. All I ask is that the white spots are news, the yellow spots are views (and more news, if it clarifies or expands.) |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-02-24 11:53:01 |
| #10 This is one of the most rational disagreements I've ever seen on a blog. In reading the comments, my own opinion has been reshaped a bit. Thanks all. Very few people in the US really LIKE the US government. We will, however, fight like hell to protect it from 'them', whoever they might be. It provides a large neutral mass in the middle of the battlefield. Iraq presents a unique opportunity in that there are more than two distinct factions: Kurds, Sunni, Shi'ite, Turkmen. Each of the factions is itself a minority. The Iraqi experiment can succeed if each faction feels the government is better than 'them' having power. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-02-24 11:15:31 |
| #9 ...Sorry, Fred: Fred, not Frank. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-02-24 10:07:50 |
| #8 Murat, I'm not sure what you mean by nations getting territory under British division. Exchange of Ottoman rule for British and French - supervised independence gave the middle east a degree of self government, but it wasn't ideal. These new states might have got territory, but didn't necessrily get the right territory. To deny the Kurds the chance of self-government because their neighbours 'couldn't guarantee their safety' is apretty lame excuse for keeping one people divided, if I may say. We should stop this thread now, because as Frank said, this site ain't a forum for arguments and opinions. just let me have the last word ;) |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-02-24 10:04:35 |
| #7 Isn't it also fair to say that much/most of the middle east didn't exist as defined states until the arrival of European colonialists and their cartographers? Well the middle eastern countries are after the fall of the Ottoman empire created by the British to suit their interests in the best way, thatâs true. The difference however is that at those times (WW1) more than 23 nations where created on what was once the Ottoman empire. So most of those nations didnât lose a part of their territory, they got territory, as it would not be the case with a creation of a Kurdistan nowadays. How feasible would it be to take territory from Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria to create such a country, and how many years would it stay there until one of these would recapture it? I am not a specialist to answer the consequences, but I think it will unleash more wars than bringing peace. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-02-24 09:46:37 |
| #6 Murat, "To be short a creation of a Kurdistan in the middle east would create an unforeseeable chaos, nations are not created that easily, it takes an evolution of centuries." Isn't it also fair to say that much/most of the middle east didn't exist as defined states until the arrival of European colonialists and their cartographers? An "evolution of centuries" could be overdrawn in an afternoon by a man wielding a pencil, to create Frankenstien states like Iraq. I know Turkey has problems with Kurdish separatists at the moment, and I'd think the problem will worsen unless issues like this are dealt with, even if it means partial autonomy or gradual independence. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-02-24 09:20:47 |
| #5 Chuck, I think we can expect to see something akin to what happened in the Balkans once Saddam's gone - removal of the iron fist results in internecine squabbling which, unless forcibly prevented, will stabilise at something like independence for each group. The Kurdish community may be a small minority in Iraq, but there are other contiguous Kurdish communities in Turkey, Armenia, Syria, Iran... The USA is a very different situation - it's a country that has grown from immigration, it's a phenomenon peculiar in recent times to the new world. Imposition of invented states such as Iraq which clumped together disparate cultures and communities and rent existing ones, was a disastrous idea. It may sound nationalistic to voice support for national rights to self-government, but it's fair to say that imposed shared-rule or subjugation is the cause of a great deal of the world's conflicts. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-02-24 09:08:51 |
| #4 Bulldog, Partly I do agree with you, Kurds could be given a homeland, but I agree partly because the big difficult here is that Kurds never had a homeland. All the existing Kurdistan maps are imaginary maps, look up any historical map and you wonât find a Kurdistan, simply because it never existed. The big difficulty is that you have to take a part from one or few countries and create it. The big question here is how to find a country giving up voluntarily a part of its territory, would this create peace or would it create a second Palestine/Israel. Suppose you take a part of Iraq and create a Kurdistan, how to protect it, I think such would only create a lightning rod taking Arab anger from Israel to a Kurdistan. Israel could resist the Arab world, but can Kurdistan resist it too or would such create an even bigger bloodbath in the middle east? About your question of Turkish popular opinion, I can be very clear, that would be very problematic for Turks as well as Kurds. Such would create scenes like WW1 i.e. the population exchange of Greeks and Turks, millions of Turks would have to leave a âKurdistanâ and millions of Kurds would have to leave western Turkey. To be short a creation of a Kurdistan in the middle east would create an unforeseeable chaos, nations are not created that easily, it takes an evolution of centuries. I think Chuck has perfectly analyzed the situation. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-02-24 09:07:08 |
| #3 Bulldog, I disagree slightly. Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East illustrate what happens when you impose boundries and borders. Giving every little group its own country may not be the solution. A country must be large enough and have enough resources to be viable. Otherwise, you're just setting up an series of Salvation Army missions. And independance does not solve the problem of intermixing. Afghanistan is a perfect illustration, where a variety of different groups are intermixed. In Kurdistan, there are some places that are mostly Turk. The Armenia / Georgia / etc. region is another example where handing out countries based on ethnic origins isn't working. Then, you get the "It used to be ours before the hated ... came along" factor. America has worked to date because it overcomes ethnic and national origins. That, I believe, is the key. A federation, where everybody is sure that they are being treated as fairly as the next guy and an effort is made to forget centuries old grievances. |
| Posted by: Chuck 2003-02-24 08:53:46 |
| #2 Murat, There's little chance of long-term peace in the ME unless peopls like the Kurds are given autonomy. Isn't their 'homeland' currently divided between four or more countries? You only have to look at maps of the region to see how clumsily 'national' boundaries were often drawn up, mainly by European powers in the last century. Would Turkish popular opinion allow granting the Kurds self-determination in that part of your country where they predominate? Is it time countries like Iraq were re-assessed from a distance and partitioned on a more sensible basis? There's something positive the UN (or its successor) could actually do... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-02-24 08:21:41 |
| #1 Officials have stated that the Turkish troops gathered on the Iraqi border region have reached twice the size of the troop build-up of 1998, which forced trembling Syria to expulse terrorist leader Ocalan. I really wonder if such an extraordinary huge force is needed for a small piece of Northern Iraq. It makes me believe there might be plans that Turkish forces will also act beyond the 36th parallel. Not to be to suspicious, but I canât let go of the suspicion there might be more in the game than newspaper make us do believe. 40.000 US mechanized/tanks troops covered by A10âs and Apacheâs rumbling in a lightning speed towards Bagdad followed by thousands of Turkish troops covering /occupying/securing the back flank makes a perfect sense. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-02-24 02:46:20 |