Independent Kurdistan

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
It's hard to resent Turkey for not wanting to be a part of one of the greatest stupidities of recent American foreign policy. While American can pull out if things don't go like they imagine, Turkey is stuck in the Middle East and has to maintain relations with its neighbours. Besides Turkey had no interest in toppling Saddam Husseins regime. He wasn't a thread to Turkey and in fact allowed the Turkish military to conduct operations against Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan.

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.
While Rumsfeld and the Bush administration who pressed this war were disturbingly delusional about the might of American military power I don't think even they were stupid enough to do something like this.

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

1) The USA piss off their allies even more. Countries like Spain, with their own secessionist movements, would withdrew their troops and support immediately. (Note, that Spain doesn't even recognize the Kosovo, because they don't want to set a precedence for other secessionist movements.) And considering that the forceful separation of Kurdistan from Iraq would be a clear violation of established International law with unpleasant consequences for the stability of the entire Middle East and would set a dangerous precedent, those who opposed the war, because they considered its legality questionable at best, and were concerned about the international political consequences it would have, would see their concerns increased dramatically.

2) It strengthens the Message send by the war in OTL, which is “If we don't like your government, even if you are no direct threat to us, we will bring you down without regard for other opinions or established mechanisms of international law and do what we want with your country. So you better take an example of North Korea and equip yourself with weapons of mass destruction ASAP.” It also further destabilises the situation in Iraq making a bigger civil war likely and basically giving up on any chance of gaining a democratic Iraq as a long term ally.

3) The new Kurdistan would not receive widespread recognition. Of course a few members of the mighty “coalition of the willing” might recognize it, but as Russia and China would certainly veto it in the Security Council it has no chance of ever becoming a UN member.

Long story short, it would mean making an even bigger mess out of US foreign policy and the situation in the Middle East.

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.
Eh, what? The only area where the USA had any possibility of setting up an independent Kurdish state was in areas under their control, i.e. occupied Iraq. And how do you propose a Kurdish state that isn't near Turkey? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_%281992%29.jpg)
 

Don Grey

Banned
3) The new Kurdistan would not receive widespread recognition. Of course a few members of the mighty “coalition of the willing” might recognize it, but as Russia and China would certainly veto it in the Security Council it has no chance of ever becoming a UN member.

Long story short, it would mean making an even bigger mess out of US foreign policy and the situation in the Middle East.

France might also veto it to so as not to set a possible precedent for there own possible seccesionist movements. The US has always been blamed by second and third world nations for meddling in minority affairs arming them causing problams of succesion so they can have leverage on them. If the US tries to do this, this will only prove crazy conspiracy theorists correct and anyone with minority issues would crack down hard on minorities and thus try to get rid of any possibility to solve minority issue threw diolog.This will also cause said nations to acquire wmb for protection against the US and acts of ethnic cleansing so they dont suffer the same fate.Socalled "Kurdistian" is located in the north of mesopotamia and claims land in four diffrent countries(but this is "small kurdistan" im talking about because maps of kurdistan change on a weekly basses getting crazyer and crazyer.Just as an example there are maps that claim yerevan and parts of the blacksea). Which would effectivly destabalise 4 nations and cause a blood bath of ethnic cleansing since no two kurds can actualy agree on the exact border of "kurdistian".And dont get me started on the irredentist claimes and ethnic cleansing that will start once kurdistan is formed.Or how difficult it will for the US to literaly creat a nation out of thin air. Because kurdistan(the term poped up in the treaty of servé's then got on a life of its own threw kurdish discovery of blood nationalism) has never existed in human history no kurdish state that defines its self as kurdish has ever existed. Hence why its so difficult for even two kurds to agree what "kurdistan" actualy is other then a place for kurds. This is one of the main reasons why irredentist claims ethnic cleansing and faction wars will ingulf said mythical state.

Other problams arise from the fact that kurds are not monolitic people(contrary to popular belief). The "kurdish langauge" is a group of diffrent dialects from the farsi langauge familiy. Not a single langauge. And most are as incomprihensible to one another as german is to french and russian to manduran. To understand each other kurds must use turkish persian or arabic when dealing with other kurdish dilects a languge so simple you cant even count to 10 with out using turkish arabic or persian.The kurds from turkey iran iraq and syria cant understand each other properly so you will have a country divided into four parts that has trouble speaking too each other. Other problams are there majority clan based society that dont get along with each other. You have clan lords supporting a feudal system and class system such as the likes of barzani and talabani which belive in there own brand of elitism. Hence all the protest of northern iraq the cause being the infamous cronism and nepitism and elitism that has destoryed democratic hope in norther iraq and has turned it into another run of the mill mid east administration. Then you have the kurds that support hardcore sheria but there divided into 3 groups. Sunnies yezidihs and shia's that have sectarian wars that go about between them.

And then you have the only group that actualy supports full kurdish independence is the PKK which is one of the most brutal terrorist organizations in the world. Listed as a terrorists by the EU the US and the countries in the region that have claimed more then 40.000 lives. They make there money from drug trade arms sumuggling and human traficing not to mention getting protection money from kurdish bussines in europe. There hardcore oldschool statist communists who's ideology is inspired by mao.They are also blood nationalists and unequivocally racist to there core and they wish and "ethnicly pure" communist kurdistan.They wanted ethnicaly pure because in every region in the areas they claim to be kurdistan in 4 diffrent nations there are other ethnic groups which are either a majority or a pularity. And all those minorities pularities and majorities dont want to be apart of kurdistian for fear of what will happen to them not to mention because kurdistan will be a dirt poor land locked nation.

Even if we set aside the massive political ramifications world wide that US will face while it single handeldy destablises mesopotamia and creats multipile wars for irredentist claims ethnic cleansing and sectarian war creating a copy of the balkan wars most foriegner dont know or dont care to know that the kurds are not "one big happy family" hell there not even one family.Which is another reason why most kurds dont want full independence for fear from others and there selfs.
 
Last edited:
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

Yes the Turks are such bastards for not jumping right on board with ''Operation Fucked-Up Quagmire''. They should obviously followed the US national intrests instead of their own like good little darkies.:rolleyes:
 

Don Grey

Banned
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 ...

What kurds are you talking about since there not monolithic and you cant generalise the "kurds" there too diffrent from one another. The kurds in turkey and the ones thet have immigrated to turkey from syria iran and iraq are just as anti-semetic as the run of the mill anti-semit middle easterners.This doesnt mean kurds are majority anti-semetic it just means there not that that diffrent from the run of the mill mid east anti-semite.To put it plainly there no jew-friendly and saying other wise would be a lie. Kurdish administration may be pro-israel but that just your standred kurdish oppertunism there administartion will work with anyone to reach there goal(because they realy have no friends and there are good reasons for that). A israeli kurdish alliance may form but that will be more harm then good and cause both to be hated more. As for you first part the argument against it would be destabilaisation of mesopotamia and balkan style wars. But since you correctly called your self a hawkish maniac your personal opinion is worthless at best and cruel at worst.

And since you have been so bold as to be able to generalise the kurds (a very difficult group to analise) you shown quite a bit of confidence(but is it well placed). I hope its just not talk and you can walk the walk aswell. I belive this is a good oppertunity for both of us to share our vast personal experiances with each other which would offer an educational oppertunity to board members viewing this thread. We can start by discussing the socio-economic state of kurds the cultural diffrence there mentalities there cultural evolution how cultural laws pass there religous ones and the state of diffrent kurds in diffrent regions as we try to asses the reason for such divides in there society exist ,being by class lingusitic and cultural and try to understand why there are such radical diffrence between kurds from diffrent regions while they are so close to each other.You can offer your theories as to the problams in kurdish society by your years of knowladge and your travels to the regions where we both stayed and lived with diffrent clans of kurds for months at a time.So we can share our personal experiances.Ofcourse this will start from early kurdish history.

I hope this is how your able to generalise them in such a care free manner not because you saw some cute video's on youtube and read some articals on the internet from half-assed journalists that just fallow the ideological trends.Because i not only have kurdish friends and family members i have also spent quite a bit of time in south eastern turkey with kurdistian cultural institutes and state aid groups and quite a bit of experiance with personal contacts to not only kurds that live western turkey but eastern turkey persian kurds iraqi kurds syrian kurds and spoke to other minorites in those regions that have had constant contact with said groups to understand there relations there points of view and what they have experianced. Mainly turcomans and assyrians from syria and again turcomans and assiyrians from norther iraq armenians from eastern anatolia and azeri's from iran.From all this i have its very difficult from me to brush the kurds with such broad strokes and generalise them so easly. I can only come to conclusions by adding together there diffrent segments of there society assesing relations between them and comming at results and i can say with my knowladge that and indepentent kurdistan is a catastrophy and will have worse results then israel ever could.And not just for the region but the US aswell there will be repracusions as most of the members on the board have stated. And down the line it will be listed as one of the "what the hell were we think" on america's "bad idea" section of its history.

So i would like to know what you know that i dont so you have been able to come to such bold conclusions.
 
Last edited:

Don Grey

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

They tried remember in the treaty of serves but failed ans the kurds supported the republic of turkey to form a unitary state and they fought in the turkish war of independence.
 
France might also veto it so as not to set a possible precedent for there own possible seccesionist movements.
Yes, if China and Russia veto it France could jump on the bandwagon. However more in order to spite the US (“See, you fucked up. We told you so!”) than because of concern for separatism in France.


Socalled "Kurdistian" is located in the north of mesopotamia and claims land in four diffrent countries(but this is "small kurdistan" im talking about because maps of kurdistan change on a weekly basses getting crazyer and crazyer.Just as an example there are maps that claim yerevan and parts of the blacksea). Which would effectivly destabalise 4 nations and cause a blood bath of ethnic cleansing since no two kurds can actualy agree on the exact border of "kurdistian".And dont get me started on the irredentist claimes and ethnic cleansing that will start once kurdistan is formed.Or how difficult it will for the US to literaly creat a nation out of thin air. Because kurdistan(the term poped up in the treaty of servé's then got on a life of its own threw kurdish discovery of blood nationalism) has never existed in human history no kurdish state that defines its self as kurdish has ever existed. Hence why its so difficult for even two kurds to agree what "kurdistan" actualy is other then a place for kurds. This is one of the main reasons why irredentist claims ethnic cleansing and faction wars will ingulf said mythical state.
I think you are assuming the worst. A “Kurdish state” does not necessarily mean it includes all Kurds or that it is exclusively Kurdish. While their might be some quarrels with Iraq over where the border is like in OTL, considering the power differential with Syria, Turkey and Iran, claiming any of their territory would be suicide. As well as ethnic cleansing, which would give any of those three a perfect pretense to invade and subdue this new country.

kurdish dilects a languge so simple you cant even count to 10 with out using turkish arabic or persian.The kurds from turkey iran iraq and syria cant understand each other properly so you will have a country divided into four parts that has trouble speaking too each other.
Natives of Bremen and Bavaria wouldn't be able to communicate in their native dialects as well, though it helped that a commonly accepted standard form of German existed. However as cases like Switzerland or India show linguistic unity is not necessary to create a sense of national unity.

And why do you assume, that an independent Kurdistan would include parts from Syria, Iran, or Turkey. I can't see any of them giving up control, so as I have said before an independent Kurdistan could and would only encompass areas under US control, i.e. from occupied Iraq.
 

Don Grey

Banned
I think you are assuming the worst. A “Kurdish state” does not necessarily mean it includes all Kurds or that it is exclusively Kurdish. While their might be some quarrels with Iraq over where the border is like in OTL, considering the power differential with Syria, Turkey and Iran, claiming any of their territory would be suicide. As well as ethnic cleansing, which would give any of those three a perfect pretense to invade and subdue this new country.

Will it includes those regions aswell because there are large numbers of kurds in those countries. Such a formation will cause a surge of ambition and massive protests will fallow. It doesnt matter of turkey syria iran have resedence to invade and subdue because of double standreds. You cant fire on protests even if there basicaly riots the media will slautghter you. You cant invade kurdistian because it will look like your the agresser because there weeker. And since there much weeker then all three any war would be very one sides thus will have the term genocide thrown around. And im not assuming the worst because the only ones that are realy gunhoe about independence is the pkk and its sympathizers. And with the US backing then can claim what ever they like they might not get it the US might say know but the only alternative would be to subdue an american puppet state because that what it will be since they have no other life line. And can go on and on about the clusterfuck possibilities. It has too many flashpoints.

Natives of Bremen and Bavaria wouldn't be able to communicate in their native dialects as well, though it helped that a commonly accepted standard form of German existed. However as cases like Switzerland or India show linguistic unity is not necessary to create a sense of national unity.

Yess but the linguistic divides only intensify the existing divides with in there society.

And why do you assume, that an independent Kurdistan would include parts from Syria, Iran, or Turkey. I can't see any of them giving up control, so as I have said before an independent Kurdistan could and would only encompass areas under US control, i.e. from occupied Iraq.

Yes but it will drasticaly effect conditions of kurds in other countries and would set an awfull precedent and its very bad PR wise to subdue and ethnic protest/riot even if you have the moral highground.The pkk will increase there efforts and find more troops and will have the support of the state of kurdistian even if its unofficial atleast they will have a safe heaven.
 

Cook

Banned
They tried remember in the treaty of serves but failed ans the kurds supported the republic of turkey to form a unitary state and they fought in the turkish war of independence.

I think Paul was meaning a Kurdistan in what is now Northern Iraq.
 
Will it includes those regions aswell because there are large numbers of kurds in those countries.
So? As those countries won't let them secede and IIK (independent Iraqi Kurdistan) won't press the issues if there is any sanity in them

Such a formation will cause a surge of ambition and massive protests will fallow. It doesnt matter of turkey syria iran have resedence to invade and subdue because of double standreds. You cant fire on protests even if there basicaly riots the media will slautghter you.
I think, OTL Syria and Iran have recently proved that they are quite willing to fire on protesters without concern about the media and international public opinion.

You cant invade kurdistian because it will look like your the agresser because there weeker. And since there much weeker then all three any war would be very one sides thus will have the term genocide thrown around.
If the US are still in IIK then there won't be an invasion because none of them is suicidal enough. And there probably won't be any after they have left and IKK is still considered an US ally. However, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't fully respect the borders but unless any of them descend into a full civil war it would be “hot pursuit” actions, and not a full-scale invasion. And I really don't understand how the accusations of genocide fit in this scenario.


And im not assuming the worst because the only ones that are realy gunhoe about independence is the pkk and its sympathizers. And with the US backing then can claim what ever they like they might not get it the US might say know but the only alternative would be to subdue an american puppet state because that what it will be since they have no other life line. And can go on and on about the clusterfuck possibilities. It has too many flashpoints.
Yes, you are. A US backed unilaterally declared IIK would be a bad thing, but your scenario has no base in facts.

Yes but it will drasticaly effect conditions of kurds in other countries and would set an awfull precedent and its very bad PR wise to subdue and ethnic protest/riot even if you have the moral highground.The pkk will increase there efforts and find more troops and will have the support of the state of kurdistian even if its unofficial atleast they will have a safe heaven.
I don't think that IIK will be much more supportive or a safe retreat for PKK fighters than todays autonomous Kurdistan in Iraq. But I agree with you, the psychological and moral boost for Kurdish separatists in adjacent countries will be enormous.
 

Don Grey

Banned
I think Paul was meaning a Kurdistan in what is now Northern Iraq.

Oh i see. My bad.

So? As those countries won't let them secede and IIK (independent Iraqi Kurdistan) won't press the issues if there is any sanity in them

Not letting them succed is one thing which wont be easy because they will be vilified for denying and ethnic minority there "Freedom!(tm)" and the process of subdueing such ambitions will get bloody.

I think, OTL Syria and Iran have recently proved that they are quite willing to fire on protesters without concern about the media and international public opinion.

Which will only make the situation worse. It will become a headacke for everyone in the region.

If the US are still in IIK then there won't be an invasion because none of them is suicidal enough. And there probably won't be any after they have left and IKK is still considered an US ally. However, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't fully respect the borders but unless any of them descend into a full civil war it would be “hot pursuit” actions, and not a full-scale invasion. And I really don't understand how the accusations of genocide fit in this scenario.
If its a hot pursuit type of case that latter become large scale is the US willing to get into a firefight in the same region again(because you know things can easyly escalate). If the Us leaves and IIK still cause problam for its neabghours and the likes of turkey iran and syria do cross border operations what then? What if they shell areas and bomb with planes in hot pursuit? What will the US do then is IIK worth it?And IIK will be in a very bad economic state as all here neagbour are either enemies or hostile. The only thing IIK will have is oil and they need to reach the cost. The nations around her to ask for crippling transit fees or deny trade all together leaving here completly isolated. And would the region tolerate another israel like entity? when i mean like i mean something that has been planted there by foriegn nations.

As for the genocide claim if war does brake out even if its small scale it will be very one sided the kurds will lose alot. And all thats needed is some one to throw out the word genocide and say [incert nation or nations here] are denying the poor minority to have its own country and are slaugthering them on the field. And seeing the nations that have a problam with it will be turkey syria and iran the accusation will not be as hard to belive. Failing genocide they will say ethnic cleansing.

Yes, you are. A US backed unilaterally declared IIK would be a bad thing, but your scenario has no base in facts.

And why does it not?What solid facts do you have to counter it? Most of the kurds are not for full independence only the pkk is out spoken about it. And there is no real define borders for kurdistian its always artifical. Making irredentist claims are inevitable as there will being kurds on all sides of IIK borders which will inevitably get ambitious and make the other nations nervous.Somehow in some time some one is going to do something stupid. You basicaly placing a power keg in the middle of mesopotamia and hoping nothing goes wrong.


I don't think that IIK will be much more supportive or a safe retreat for PKK fighters than todays autonomous Kurdistan in Iraq. But I agree with you, the psychological and moral boost for Kurdish separatists in adjacent countries will be enormous.

Northern iraq region is quite supporter of the pkk(albiet unofficialy) and the mountain region especialy kandil is a well know out in the open safe heaven. As for your last part im glad we can atleast agree on something :D.
 
Last edited:
Top