[Part I]
In part one of my series on the unintentional creation of Kurdistan in northern Iraq, I focused on the Gulf War and its immediate aftermath. Since that war ended, the Kurds were cut adrift, slowling developing their own government, culture, and ultimately de facto country. By the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Iraqi Kurds had been running their own state for slightly over a decade.
When final liberation came, the political infrastructure had already been built to facilitate real independence, but as the President Barzani of the KRG noted that the Kurds volunteered to come back to “Iraq” which they were under no obligation to do. Young generations have no memory of Saddam or living together with the rest of the so-called state of Iraq. At times it seems like backtracking to now intentionally create new ties to Iraq after living on their own for so long.
After the invasion, the Arab insurgency quickly forced the Kurds to cut their ties to their newly freed countrymen. With three attacks in three years, Kurdistan has created a hard border between itself and Arab areas now allowing Arabs to enter without good reason and questioning, searching and potentially jailing non-Kurds. Safety comes at a price, but as Kurds aren’t the culprits here, few complain. Kurdish flags greatly outnumber the few Iraqi flags that can be found. Kurdish is now spoken as the official language in government buildings, schools and more.
Today’s Iraqi insurgency is the equivalent of yesterday’s no-fly zones. The Kurds are boxed in, but free, isolated, yet connecting themselves to the rest of the world. The longer the Arabs continue their civil war and terrorism, the more likely that the Kurds will head for the lifeboats, taking Kirkuk with them (and rightfully so). The question is only when.
The 88 years since WWI have been the equivalent of a long night’s sleep after a hard bout of drinking. The liberation of the vilayets of Mosul, Basra and Baghdad have woken the region from its sleep and the hangover is brutal. The United States in the end, may be “forced” to support an inevitably independent Kurdistan.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Hussein Execution Upheld: 30-day Countdown
- » Chirol in Puerto Rico
COMMENTS / 3 COMMENTS
Chief Wiggum added these pithy words on 27 Dec 06 at 12:00 amEver since the Gulf War there has been a suspicion that the West will abandon the kurds yet again.
Kurdistan is one of the notable successes of the Iraq war. Countries such as Syria, Iran and Turkey, where there are significant Kurdish minorities, are all against a Kurdish state. The reasons for this have been discussed in depth on CA. While Washington may not care about the misgivings of Iran and Syria, the opposition of Turkey must be taken seriously. Would Washington chose the Kurds over the Turks?
subadei added these pithy words on 27 Dec 06 at 12:29 am“”Would Washington chose the Kurds over the Turks?
Why not? Given the Turkish want for EU inclusion the US can very much afford to both back a Kurdish state and redeploy to enforce it.
That aside, Chirol, what of the Turkish element in regards to a Kurdistan?
ElamBend added these pithy words on 27 Dec 06 at 2:14 amYes, what of it. I don’t think any amount of US pressure in support of it’s EU bid would work. The Turks would just as soon flip the bird to the EU if they thought it was essential for their national integrity, and to many Turks; the Kurdish question IS an essential part of their national integrity. It would take us guarding the northern Iraq/Kurdistan borders against PKK terrorist or allowing Turkish incursion for them to even consider it, IMO.
So, I do wonder what Chirol thinks.
