Independant Kurdistan Now!

So, I ask you... what is a better alternative?

Some kind of rigged Fake-O brand representative democracy so that moderates with little power are elected. A US ex-military diplomat/potentate totally in charge of aid and military operations, who sets the ROE, policy, strategy and controls the Iraqi security forces.

That would be my first thought.
 
Since we're at it Free Tibet! It has been a sovereign nation for hundreds of years despite what the Chinese are saying.

B
 
The Kurds would be perfectly willing to accept our help. They have been asking for our help since at least the early 70's and probably well before that.

This is true. They're also, at least from my experience (having been stationed in a largely Kurdish area for part of my time) quite friendly and cooperative towards us.

Hey, we want a permanent base in the region, right? We're wearing out our welcome in Saudi? I have little doubt the Kurds would let us keep a base in a theoretical Kurdistan.

I think the largest problem is that much of Iraq's oil lies in what would end up being Kurdistan. That and the Turkish issue. But seriously as long as the Turkish Kurds were willing to leave (rather than secede) I don't see what their issue would be.
 
The major issue is if the Kurds to ever gain independence then they will be invaded by Turkey, and maybe Iran who see them as a threat to their own countries. It not an easy situation. It would be creating another Israel which would be more dependent on the US because of the poverty of the area.
 
related article: WSJ: Kurdistan: successful Iraqi region

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009165

Kurdistan: A conversation with the president of Iraq's most successful region.
BY JUDITH MILLER
Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:01 a.m.


_______________________________________________________________________________
ERBIL, Iraq--Unlike Baghdad, 200 miles away, the air here does not echo with the sound of gunfire, car bombs and helicopters. Residents of this city of a million people picnic by day in pristine new parks and sip tea with friends and relatives at night. American forces are not "occupiers" or the "enemy," but "liberators." Mentioning President Bush evokes smiles--and not of derision.

American forces were "most welcome" when stationed here at the start of the invasion of Iraq, says Massoud Barzani, the president of Kurdistan in the north. Not a single U.S. soldier was killed in his region, he adds proudly, "not even in a traffic accident." Would U.S. forces be welcome back now? "Most certainly," he declared this week in an interview in his newly minted marble (and heavily chandeliered) palace. The more American soldiers the better, a top aide confirms.

The secret of Kurdistan's relative success so far--and of America's enduring popularity here--is the officially unacknowledged fact that the three provinces of the Kurdish north are already quasi-independent. On Oct. 11, Iraq's parliament approved a law that would allow the Sunni and Shiite provinces also to form semi-autonomous regions with the same powers that the constitution has confirmed in Kurdistan. And while Kurdish leaders pay lip-service to President Bush's stubborn insistence on the need for a unified Iraq with a strong centralized government, Kurdistan is staunchly resisting efforts to concentrate economic control in Baghdad.

The U.S., Mr. Barzani believes, should leave it to the Iraqis to decide if they want "one or two or three regions." Then, he adds: "But it already exists. The division is there as a practical matter. People are being killed on the basis of identity." As for Baghdad, "it should have a special status as the federal capital. But the rest should be regions that run their own affairs. Or they should be separate. Only a voluntary union can work. Either you have federalism with Baghdad as a federal capital with a special status, or you have separation. Those are the facts."

Even the most fleeting visitor cannot but notice that Kurdistan is almost a full-fledged state. The Kurds have been running their own affairs--badly at times--ever since Washington created a safe area after Saddam Hussein crushed their U.S.-encouraged uprising after the 1991 Gulf War, sending much of the traumatized population into the rugged mountains separating Kurdish Iraq from Turkey. After CNN filmed Kurds dying of cold and starvation, President George H.W. Bush declared a "no fly" zone north of the 36th parallel from which Saddam's planes were barred, enabling the Kurds, at long last, to begin governing themselves. And so they have, with a determination born of historic vengeance.

Kurds no longer speak Arabic, but various dialects of Kurdish, in offices and schools throughout the 74,000 square miles that comprise their provinces. They fly their own flag, provide their own services, raise their own army--the legendarily disciplined Pesh Merga, or "Those Who Face Death"--and have gradually consolidated their de facto state. Divided between two parties--Mr. Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party, his clan's power base in north Kurdistan, and the southern-based Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, headed by Jalal Talabani, now president of Iraq (or "President of the Green Zone," as Kurds here call the post)--Kurdistan is booming with construction, new businesses and ambitious dreams of self-rule.

Washington's refusal to accept this self-evident political reality does not trouble Mr. Barzani. On the contrary, he insists Kurdistan will remain part of Iraq--as long as Iraq remains federal, secular and democratic, and officially blesses the autonomy the Kurds managed to enshrine in the new Iraqi constitution. Besides, the fig-leaf of Iraq is useful: Declaring independence would risk provoking Turkey, for which an independent Kurdish state is anathema given its own 18 million strong Kurdish population and the continued existence of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers Party--the PKK--on the Iraqi-Kurdish side of the border. Yet Mr. Barzani adamantly denies that his fidelity to Iraq is born of fear. "Having an independent state is the natural legitimate right of our people," he insisted. "We are not ready to say that because we fear displeasing our neighbors or because we are frightened that they may attack. That's not the case," he said. "We say that because at this stage, the parliament of Kurdistan has decided to remain within a federal, democratic Iraq."

Kurdish aspirations for autonomy, however, clearly require Turkish and Iranian acquiescence, or a persuasive reason for Turkey not to attack. Hence the desire for the redeployment of some American forces to Kurdistan. "The presence of American forces here would be a deterrent to intervention by the neighboring countries," Mr. Barzani says, with characteristic bluntness.

That is unlikely anytime soon, say officials in Washington. How would the presence of American forces in what one official called a "landlocked aircraft carrier" help prevent the emergence of an Islamist entity in Iraq's Sunni-dominated center or deter Iranian control of the Shiite south? Moreover, as President Bush noted last week, dismissing proposals to carve Iraq into three virtually autonomous regions as destabilizing, such a division of Iraq would exacerbate Sunni-on-Sunni and Sunni-on-Shiite tensions. "The Kurds will then create problems for Turkey and Syria," President Bush said.

On the contrary, Mr. Barzani insists, Kurdistan seeks good relations "with all its neighbors." Indeed, Turkish-Kurdish and Kurdish-Iranian talks have been ongoing, diplomats say. As for Baghdad, Mr. Barzani adds, no one has tried harder to keep Iraq from splitting apart than the Kurds. "We worked hard with the Sunni community to bring them into the process," he says, "and also to establish Iraq's governing council, the interim and transitional government, and the drafting of the constitution. We played a leading role in the success of the process." But he was clearly annoyed by a slight: the fact that the congressionally created Iraq Study Group, headed by former Republican Secretary of State James Baker and Democratic co-chairman Lee Hamilton, which is weighing policy alternatives for Iraq, has not traveled to Kurdistan--the only successful region of postwar Iraq--to consult with him. "It's a huge failing in their deliberations," he says. "We remain willing and ready to help whenever our assistance is needed."

Mr. Barzani is not shy about offering advice to Washington. The U.S. needs to revise its policies because "the existing strategy is not effective," he says. American forces could be reduced--perhaps by half--he said, but only when Iraqi forces are ready to restore order. But that will not happen, he warns, until the U.S. permits the Iraqi government to rid itself of the "terrorists, chauvinists and extremists" in its ranks who condone and "openly incite the violence on TV" that is destroying what remains of the capital and the country. He refuses to name names. But other Kurds point to such figures as Salah Mutlaq, an extremist Sunni leader, and aides to Moqtada al-Sadr, who heads a radical Shia militia.

"You have a different culture; you're a different people," Mr. Barzani said. "With America's mentality and approach and regulations, we cannot win like this. There must be decisive action so the government can enforce the law and restore its prestige." This Barzani, confident and candid, is different from the reticent figure I first interviewed 15 years ago in his mountain fastness of Barzan. Although plainspoken, "Kak Massoud"--a respectful but affectionate "Mister" in Kurdish--was reluctant then to offer an American journalist a frank assessment of his frustrations and aspirations. Not so the man who has evolved into "President Barzani" of Kurdistan, who, based on an informal power-sharing agreement with his rival, President Talibani of Iraq, is determined to seize this historic opportunity to advance his people's interests.

Just as "Kak" has become "president," the Kurds have gone from resistance to nation-building, with all the challenges such a transformation implies. Mr. Barzani has complained that while he and his Pesh Merga knew how to fight, it was "easier to destroy two dams than to build one power plant." Kurdistan is changing, in substance as well as style. The capital is no longer called Erbil (the Arabic), but "Howler," its Kurdish name. While Mr. Barzani, age 60, still wears the pantaloon, cummerbund, tight jacket and twirled turban favored by traditional Kurds, Western-style business suits--expensive labels, at that--are favored by Nechervan Barzani, his nephew and the energetic 40-year-old prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Gone are the refugee tents--except for the thousands of Sunni Arab refugees from Baghdad, who, along with some 7,000 Christian families, have migrated here for safety. Temporary structures are being replaced by new brick and cement houses and apartment buildings--among them many lavish "castles," as the Kurds call these houses nestled in the hills surrounding Erbil. Expensive glass office buildings are springing up throughout the region. Apartments are priced at between $100,000 and $200,000--prohibitively expensive; and yet several of these are sold out.

(continued here)
_______________________________________________________________________________
 
Why are we so crazy about a unified Iraq? It was never historically one nation until it was colonized by the British and only stayed unified through the strongarm tactics of a world-class dictator. Let's let it split into the three nations that it should be.

Absolutely. Oldbillthunderchief speaks very wisely. NOW is the time to partition and allow for independence along natural cultural lines, not later after neverending civil war and the next dictator is in place.
 
while the idea of allowing the three major sects to go their separate ways sounds nice...wouldn't there still be just as much fighting considering the uneven allocation of resources among the various areas of iraq?
 
The Saudis have already said that they will support their Sunni brothers in the middle of Iraq in the event of partition and I've heard several Sunni politicians endlessly screeching that they don't want any part in oil production. Let the fat-wallet House of Saud foot the bill for the wretched midsection of Iraq and give the Shiites and Kurds the southern and northern oil fields respectively.

The Brits can help out the south, the Saudis can help out the middle, and we can help the Kurds.

I bet the Iranians and Turks would be happy to expell their Kurdish populations into Northern Iraq. Like I said before, it's a cheaper option than the concentration camps they are running now.
 
oldbill: I bet the Iranians and Turks would be happy to expell their Kurdish populations into Northern Iraq. Like I said before, it's a cheaper option than the concentration camps they are running now.

That would be a Class A War Crime. Are we ready to support and commit those now? We bombed the Serbs to stop the one in Kossovo.
 
It would be no worse than the migrations that resulted from the partition of India, the foundation of Israel, and half a dozen similar situations.

If I was a Kurd rotting away in a Turkish concentration camp, I think I would be quite happy to be expelled into a peaceful and soon to be prosperous Kurdish state.

An exodus would be no more a war crime than what is already happening to the Kurds in Turkey and Iran.
 
Why would another Israel be a problem?

So maybe they would have a tense relationship with their neighbors... every nation in that part of the world has a tense relationship with its neighbors.

If you mean that it would be another Israel in the sense that we would have a strong relationship with them, I think you are right. If you meant that we will have to bail them out all the time in the early days, you may also be right, but I doubt it. Israel was founded on profits from mellons and turnips and some assistance from Jews living elsewhere, Kurdistan sits on top of a massive lake of oil. They should be able to buy their own gear at least.
 
what is there to stop it from becoming another Israel?

LOL. Israel is our ally.

I guess that when we "partition" the country, the respective ethnic groups are just going to accept our version of the "partition", give each other a big group hug, and go merrily on their way. The Americans say that these are the property lines, so that's just the way it is! :D

How do you propose to split up the oil pursuant to this grand partition? Are you going to give one group more oil based on a larger population, or based on the property lines, or what? What if the majority of oil fields happen to be located in the property partitioned for only one group?
 
I know that Israel is our ally... I'm just saying an independent Kurdistan will be a "black sheep". They don't usually like the black sheep over there and they REALLY won't like it if the Kurds were given all of Iraq's oil.

We just don't need to create any more conflict in that area, I think.
 
They won't get ALL of the oil, just the Kirkuk field.

There are no white sheep in the region so who cares about another black one?

Arm them well with US gear and nobody will try anything.
 
The more I look into th idea the more I'm warming to it. The premise of having another ally in th middle east, another example of a functional Democracy, an American friendly oil producer, and they are already in place more or less. Could be just the compromise to bring a resolution to the problem. Let those bent on killing each other do it south of 'Kurdistan'.

They would have a near by ally in Israel and serious backup in the USA.

I like it.

Down side?
 
Down side?
The costs may outweigh the benefits.


Perhaps it's time we stop making decisions based on how it benefits us when those decisions affect millions of lives around the world.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top