Article

2003-02-24 Iraq

US to station thousands of troops in Iraqi Kurdistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-02-24 12:04 pm|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2003-02-24 02:46:20|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-02-24 08:21:41|| Front Page Top

#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|| [blog.simmins.org] 2003-02-24 08:53:46|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-02-24 09:07:08|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-02-24 09:08:51|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-02-24 09:20:47|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-02-24 09:46:37|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-02-24 10:04:35|| Front Page Top

#9 ...Sorry, Fred: Fred, not Frank.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-02-24 10:07:50|| 2003-02-24 10:07:50|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-02-24 11:15:31|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-02-24 11:53:01|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-02-24 12:11:43|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-02-24 17:17:34|| Front Page Top

09:38 raptor
08:38 raptor
08:17 raptor
00:50 RW
23:58 True German Ally
23:51 Rex Mundi
23:51 True German Ally
23:41 Rex Mundi
23:09 RW
22:53 frank martin
22:46 Fred
22:32 Alaska Paul
22:24 Alaska Paul
22:17 Alaska Paul
22:12 True German Ally
22:07 Anon
22:04 Steve White
21:44 Anonymous
21:39 Anonymous
21:29 Anonymous
21:22 Chuck
21:14 RW
21:14 Drew
21:08 Denny