Independent Kurdistan

[MikeTurcotte]

In 2003, the US invaded Iraq. Turkey denied the transit of the US 4th ID to attack from the north.

While opposed to that war, I was at the time angered by this, and remember a friend (who just out of the military at the time) saying something like:

Thank you Turkey, for your outstanding support during the war. I fully understand that you did not support our attack, and that nothing in the NATO agreements said you should. I get that. However, I do hope that you understand we will be endevouring to make use of the local conditions as we can. For example, the one group in Iraq that truly supports us is the Kurds. Can you say 'Independent Kurdistan'? I can. Can you say 'Independent Kurdistan armed with M1 tanks and Apache attack helicopters backed by US SAM systems?' I can. The fact that such a polity would destabalize Iran is just kind of...gravy.

So, WI? What if the US supported an independent Kurdistan, and then armed it? What happens?

Mike Turcotte

[abc123]

Originally Posted by MikeTurcotte

So, WI? What if the US supported an independent Kurdistan, and then armed it? What happens?

Mike Turcotte

Collapse of NATO?

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Err. The United States of America would be shooting itself in the foot if they ever recognized an independent Kurdish state. The moment that they do so, they would make enemies out of the Turks, Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis. It was not going to happen.

[GBurch]

At the risk of (correctly) being labelled a hawkish maniac, this idea had a lot of appeal to me at the time and, especially during the darkest years of US involvement in Iraq before the "Sunni Awakening." Yes, midwifing the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq would have caused serious issues with Turkey, but saying that it would make Syria or Iran adverse to US interests doesn't serve as an argument against it -- that's the way things already were, have remained and likely will continue to be.

An independent Kurdistan would have been a very powerful and reliable US ally. From what I have been told by Israeli military folks who have been involved in training and equipping the Peshmurga, the Kurds don't share the rest of the Islamic world's antisemitism or even anti-Zionism. A real, open and potent Israeli-Kurdish alliance might well have developed.

Yes, all of this might well have brought on a general regional war in the ME, but I think that's inevitable, anyway. And we STILL might see an independent Kurdistan before it's all over ...

[Cuāuhtemōc]

The problem that if the United States helps in the creation of an independent Kurdish state, what is to stop the Kurds elsewhere in Turkey, Iran and Syria where they make up a significant portion of the population in certain areas to rebel against their respective governments, secede and join this independent Kurdistan. And that's not even mentioning how the Sunni and Shia Arabs would react to having the Americans grant the Kurds their own independence: you can expect secessionist movements to arise among these two factions in what remains of Iraq.

[GBurch]

Originally Posted by Cuāuhtemōc

The problem that if the United States helps in the creation of an independent Kurdish state, what is to stop the Kurds elsewhere in Turkey, Iran and Syria where they make up a significant portion of the population in certain areas to rebel against their respective governments, secede and join this independent Kurdistan. And that's not even mentioning how the Sunni and Shia Arabs would react to having the Americans grant the Kurds their own independence: you can expect secessionist movements to arise among these two factions in what remains of Iraq.

Yes, I would fully expect that. I have slightly more confidence Iraq may persist in its current form than I did back in '04-'08, but I still think it's possible it won't.

Kurdish secession in Iran and Syria doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. As for the Turks ... I'll hold my tongue.

In the end, though, as "radical" as the '03 invasion of Iraq was, I'm sure the BushII administration wouldn't have been willing to bet this way -- too risky, too likely to anger the Saudis...

[Blackfox5]

By doing so, the US would radically be expanding the war and put its prestige on the line to keep a viable independent Kurdistan. The US would destroy any relationship it had with Turkey. It would risk war with Iran and Syria. It would make any chance of a peaceful occupation of the rest of Iraq almost impossible. Not only that, it would send shockwaves throughout the rest of the international community and make enemies of anyone else that harbored a minority group wanting independence (not just rivals like China, or wretched regimes like Burma, but allies like Spain). It would turn the fear/concern that the US was a rogue great power into a legitimate issue with horrible repercussions for the US on the world diplomatic scene.

And why?

An independent Kurdistan is completely indifferent to US national interests. It would be a landlocked state surrounded by enemies. It would require a lot of aide to keepits economy going. And in 2003, there different Kurdish parties were still not getting along and there is no guarantee they could make a viable, stable country.

So while emotionally satisfying, it would be a complete disaster for the US with no real benefit.

[GBurch]

Originally Posted by Blackfox5

By doing so, the US would radically be expanding the war and put its prestige on the line to keep a viable independent Kurdistan. The US would destroy any relationship it had with Turkey. It would risk war with Iran and Syria. It would make any chance of a peaceful occupation of the rest of Iraq almost impossible. Not only that, it would send shockwaves throughout the rest of the international community and make enemies of anyone else that harbored a minority group wanting independence (not just rivals like China, or wretched regimes like Burma, but allies like Spain). It would turn the fear/concern that the US was a rogue great power into a legitimate issue with horrible repercussions for the US on the world diplomatic scene.

And why?

An independent Kurdistan is completely indifferent to US national interests. It would be a landlocked state surrounded by enemies. It would require a lot of aide to keepits economy going. And in 2003, there different Kurdish parties were still not getting along and there is no guarantee they could make a viable, stable country.

So while emotionally satisfying, it would be a complete disaster for the US with no real benefit.

Very good analysis. An independent Kurdistan would have had to have been part of a much, much more aggressive and ambitious intervention in the whole region which, after things started to go down the tubes in Iraq, was off the table, if it ever could have been on it.

[MikeTurcotte]

Originally Posted by Cuāuhtemōc

The problem that if the United States helps in the creation of an independent Kurdish state, what is to stop the Kurds elsewhere in Turkey, Iran and Syria where they make up a significant portion of the population in certain areas to rebel against their respective governments, secede and join this independent Kurdistan. And that's not even mentioning how the Sunni and Shia Arabs would react to having the Americans grant the Kurds their own independence: you can expect secessionist movements to arise among these two factions in what remains of Iraq.

And from the US perspective in 2004, that would be bad because...??? Seriously, armed revolts and political destabalization in Syria and Iran? Why is that bad from Rumsfeld's position?

Mike Turcotte

[yourworstnightmare]

Chaos. US would have trouble finding allies in Iraq, since most Iraqi Arabs would feel betrayed. No Iraqi government would recognize Kurdistan. Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran would declare themselves part of Kurdistan, and the new nation would soon find itself at war with all it's neighbors, and there's a chance the rivalling Kurdish factions would start fighting each other over the control of the country.

[ThomasTheviking]

Originally Posted by MikeTurcotte

In 2003, the US invaded Iraq. Turkey denied the transit of the US 4th ID to attack from the north.

While opposed to that war, I was at the time angered by this, and remember a friend (who just out of the military at the time) saying something like:

Thank you Turkey, for your outstanding support during the war. I fully understand that you did not support our attack, and that nothing in the NATO agreements said you should. I get that. However, I do hope that you understand we will be endevouring to make use of the local conditions as we can. For example, the one group in Iraq that truly supports us is the Kurds. Can you say 'Independent Kurdistan'? I can. Can you say 'Independent Kurdistan armed with M1 tanks and Apache attack helicopters backed by US SAM systems?' I can. The fact that such a polity would destabalize Iran is just kind of...gravy.

So, WI? What if the US supported an independent Kurdistan, and then armed it? What happens?

Mike Turcotte

Huge troubles ahead. The Arabs would rebel against it (making Iraq even worse), the turks would be ready to go to war (though proberly not against the US), few other countries would regognize Kurdistan....but that said, I like the idea .

The Kurds is a large ethnic group, and should get their own nation after being oppressed for so many years by the Turks and Arabs. It would be a good way to ensure Turkey leaving NATO (who needs them anymore), while agitating Syria and Iran at the samt time....I would like to see a TL.....anyone up for grabs??

[Falastur]

I suspect it would be followed by the immediate withdrawal of all non-US troops from the coalition, in protest over the US' lassaiz-faire attitude to which countries it hacks off in order to play "let's draw new borders for fun". And people have mentioned the precedent set over the US supporting (or encouraging) secessionist groups. What about the precedent that would be set where the US would publicly have announced to the world "you may be an ally but if you don't get in line, we will attempt to destabilise your country"? The bravest course of action might not be stepping out to oppose the US, but instead to stay by their side.

At the extreme end of the scale, it could push the EU to a course of action which leads it to state as a public objective the replacing of the US as world's dominant power, in order to marginalise the rogue state - in the mid-to-long term, that is.

[Don Grey]

Originally Posted by MikeTurcotte

In 2003, the US invaded Iraq. Turkey denied the transit of the US 4th ID to attack from the north.

While opposed to that war, I was at the time angered by this, and remember a friend (who just out of the military at the time) saying something like:

Thank you Turkey, for your outstanding support during the war. I fully understand that you did not support our attack, and that nothing in the NATO agreements said you should. I get that. However, I do hope that you understand we will be endevouring to make use of the local conditions as we can. For example, the one group in Iraq that truly supports us is the Kurds. Can you say 'Independent Kurdistan'? I can. Can you say 'Independent Kurdistan armed with M1 tanks and Apache attack helicopters backed by US SAM systems?' I can. The fact that such a polity would destabalize Iran is just kind of...gravy.

So, WI? What if the US supported an independent Kurdistan, and then armed it? What happens?

Mike Turcotte

This has been discussed sevral times on the board by well versed members i sugest using the search fucntion as it would be very helpful for you. And because im not in the mood to day to explain it with wall apon wall of posts.

Originally Posted by Blackfox5

By doing so, the US would radically be expanding the war and put its prestige on the line to keep a viable independent Kurdistan. The US would destroy any relationship it had with Turkey. It would risk war with Iran and Syria. It would make any chance of a peaceful occupation of the rest of Iraq almost impossible. Not only that, it would send shockwaves throughout the rest of the international community and make enemies of anyone else that harbored a minority group wanting independence (not just rivals like China, or wretched regimes like Burma, but allies like Spain). It would turn the fear/concern that the US was a rogue great power into a legitimate issue with horrible repercussions for the US on the world diplomatic scene.

And why?

An independent Kurdistan is completely indifferent to US national interests. It would be a landlocked state surrounded by enemies. It would require a lot of aide to keepits economy going. And in 2003, there different Kurdish parties were still not getting along and there is no guarantee they could make a viable, stable country.

So while emotionally satisfying, it would be a complete disaster for the US with no real benefit.

This is a good post it talks about the political ramifications that few people talk about.

Originally Posted by ThomasTheviking

Huge troubles ahead. The Arabs would rebel against it (making Iraq even worse), the turks would be ready to go to war (though proberly not against the US), few other countries would regognize Kurdistan....but that said, I like the idea .

The Kurds is a large ethnic group, and should get their own nation after being oppressed for so many years by the Turks and Arabs. It would be a good way to ensure Turkey leaving NATO (who needs them anymore), while agitating Syria and Iran at the samt time....I would like to see a TL.....anyone up for grabs??

Im not even going to bother because this borders on inflamitory.

[ThomasTheviking]

Im not even going to bother because this borders on inflamitory.[/QUOTE]


Wasn't out to step on anybodys toes. What was the inflammatory part?

[Valdemar II]

Originally Posted by GBurch

At the risk of (correctly) being labelled a hawkish maniac, this idea had a lot of appeal to me at the time and, especially during the darkest years of US involvement in Iraq before the "Sunni Awakening." Yes, midwifing the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq would have caused serious issues with Turkey, but saying that it would make Syria or Iran adverse to US interests doesn't serve as an argument against it -- that's the way things already were, have remained and likely will continue to be.

An independent Kurdistan would have been a very powerful and reliable US ally. From what I have been told by Israeli military folks who have been involved in training and equipping the Peshmurga, the Kurds don't share the rest of the Islamic world's antisemitism or even anti-Zionism. A real, open and potent Israeli-Kurdish alliance might well have developed.

Yes, all of this might well have brought on a general regional war in the ME, but I think that's inevitable, anyway. And we STILL might see an independent Kurdistan before it's all over ...

I have dealt with Kurds a lot of them, while they isn't as anti-Jewish as the Arabs, to call them pro-Israeli or Jewish would be a lie.

But beside that, why is it relevant for American foreign policy? USA have had no problem allying with antisemitic regimes in the past, and honestly USA support of Israel doesn't make any sense if we look at it with either realpolitical or even ethical googles. Israel isn't a good American friend, in fact it's a chain around USA legs, which is only kept for domestic reasons.

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Originally Posted by Cuāuhtemōc

Err. The United States of America would be shooting itself in the foot if they ever recognized an independent Kurdish state. The moment that they do so, they would make enemies out of the Turks, Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis. It was not going to happen.

Alrighty, while I feel an independent Kurdistan is ASB for the reasons you mentioned I did have a few nitpicks...

1. US policymakers could care less about what Syria and Iran think about that particular matter, in fact, getting their opposition would only encourage them to do it.

2. Turkey and Iraq aren't a problem if they locate the proposed Kurdish state in the right place. Of course the only place where the US would actually have the power to create a Kurdish state is Iraq and that's a bad idea if the United States is looking to make friends with Iraq but is at the same time double-dealing and setting up a new country carved from territory that is considered an Iraqi possession by its government. The US is probably better off creating it out of Iran or Syria though, waiting for instability in either of those countries so as to opportunistically set up a US ally.

3. Turkey could be handwaved as long as the US is super careful with Turkey's own Kurdish issues and as long as the state is not within immediate geographic proximity of Turkey for fear of causing any instability.

[Joke Insurance]

Originally Posted by abc123

Collapse of NATO?

And why would that lead to collapse of NATO?

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Joke Insurance

And why would that lead to collapse of NATO?

I was wondering the same.

Originally Posted by Cuāuhtemōc

The moment that they do so, they would make enemies out of the Turks, Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis. It was not going to happen.

Syria, Iran were US enemies and Iraq was showing few signs of going towards stability and democracy.

That just leaves Turkey, which is a NATO member, alongside Greece, another NATO member and Turkey’s principal enemy.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ThomasTheviking

Wasn't out to step on anybodys toes. What was the inflammatory part?

Well it did come across as actively wanting to push Turkey out of NATO rather than simply as a happy by-product and be rather anti-Turkey. Although from the US standpoint what does a lot of NATO contribute? The whole point of it was to keep the USSR and Warsaw Pact at bay and now that's disappeared. Turkey at least has their location and Incirlik air base but other than that doesn't have much in the way of attractions for them aside from being friendly with Israrel and even that's falling by the wayside. Post Cold War and for a number of other factors a lot of Europe had to, or in some cases still has to, come to terms with the fact that it wasn't the most important region in the world any more.

[Paul V McNutt]

The best way to get an independent Kurdistan is to have France and British do it as they divided up the Ottoman Empire.