Retreat to Kurdistan

There's long been a certain strand of sentiment that we ought to basically withdraw our forces not out of Iraq, but out of Arab Iraq and into Kurdistan. This seems like a seriously bad notion to me; people need to think about how that's going to play in the Arab world. People also need to understand that "Kurdistan" is a contestable concept and that the people running it have a very expansive conception about what Kurdistan is. Having the US military underwrite Kurdish claims to rule over the Mosul region doesn't seem very smart.

That said, it makes sense to me that people are worried about the prospect of leaving the Kurds to be slaughtered once again. This, however, neglects the basic point that by every estimate I've seen the Kurdish peshmerga are a substantially superior fighting force to anything that exists in Arab Iraq. We don't really need to do anything at all. But if that's not the case (and this is something where, I think, you'd want to get an assessment from MNF-Iraq and not just rely on Google and bloggers) this is a situation where a "training / equipping" mission would make sense, particularly on the equipping front. Leaving Iraq is probably going to entail abandoning a certain amount of military hardware, and one can try to exercise some control over whose hands it falls into.

Comments

"Leaving Iraq is probably going to entail abandoning a certain amount of military hardware, and one can try to exercise some control over whose hands it falls into."

Why in the world would you believe this?

Sk

Posted by Sk | July 12, 2007 10:06 AM

People also need to understand that "Kurdistan" is a contestable concept and that the people running it have a very expansive conception about what Kurdistan is.

Four states, 25 million people, what could go wrong?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 12, 2007 10:08 AM

Over at your co-bloggers site (some guy named Sullivan), there's a lot of blather about Kurdistan a a light unto (Arab) nations. Putting aside the fact the Kurds aren'T Arabs, its worth noting that Kurdistan isn't really a much of a light.

It's basically two corrupt fiefdoms, run by the Barzani and Talabani families, respectively. They rigged the last elections to make sure there was no effective competition for any seat. And there's no evidence that its a particularly progressicve -- no Gay Pride parades in Erbil like they have in Tel Aviv.

And then there's the torture thing

"We know that arrests have been made without warrants; torture has been carried out; and detention facilities operate with minimal human rights criteria," said Sarwar Ali, a lawyer and a human rights activist at Democracy and Human Rights Development in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah.

Iraqi Kurdistan's main political parties -- the Kurdistan Democratic Party, KDP, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan -- each have their own security force, both called Asayish. The Asayish units function independent of government agencies and answer to their respective political party masters more than to the executive, according to Human Rights Watch and local Kurdish activists.

Posted by Ikram | July 12, 2007 10:13 AM

The main threat to the Kurds in northern Iraq is from Turkey (and vice versa) as well as from Arabs.
Leaving (or staying in) Irag is a mess - the definition of a quagmire.

Posted by Bryan C Kennedy | July 12, 2007 10:28 AM

We always leave lots of military hardware because it costs more than it's worth to bring it home. To give it to the Kurds to fight the Turks seems a really bad idea though.

When you look at ways to make our misadventure in Iraq not get but so much worse, keeping a military presence on the Turkey/Iraq border to keep a full-blown war from breaking out between them seems our moral duty. On the other hand, letting the Turks slap some sense into the Kurds may work about as well as the Chinese did to the Vietnamese, so maybe staying there would only postpone the inevitable.

As an observation; Turkey has almost as many troops on their border to control a few Kurdish rebels as we have to control all of Iraq.

Posted by Th | July 12, 2007 10:35 AM

Um, the part of Kurdistan in Iraq (or, if you prefer, the Kurdish part of Iraq) borders 4 countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. The Turks are very very unhappy with us and with the idea of Kurdistan so they aren't going to let us move supplies through Turkey. Syria and Iran aren't going to do it either. If we abandon the Sunni part of Iraq, how in fuck's name do we get supplies to American forces operating in (Iraqi) Kurdistan?

(Withdrawing from Sunni Iraq into Kurdistan fairly obviously entails moving at least tens of thousands of troops into Kurdistan, and possibly as many as one hundred thousand.)

Plans like this are why I'm convinced that the vast majority of people whose job is involved with foreign policy are fucking grossly incompetent; none of them seem to be able to read a map.

m, or do basic arithmetic

Posted by max | July 12, 2007 10:35 AM

"This, however, neglects the basic point that by every estimate I've seen the Kurdish peshmerga are a substantially superior fighting force to anything that exists in Arab Iraq."

Which nicely avoids talking about the 140k+ troops that Turkey has massed on the border. If we leave Iraq, what do you suppose the Turks are going to do? Will they wait for the Kurds to declare independence, or will they strike pre-emptively?

We don't get to return to the status quo-ante. We have to deal with the reality on the ground, which includes Turks massing on the border, Iran having enough internal stability issues that their leadership might welcome (however stupid it might be) an opportunity for a "look, a monkey!" war, with Syria having just re-occupied the Bekaa Valley, and Hamas in control of Gaza.

That entire region is ready to blow, and I am fairly certain that a US withdrawal will result in someone - Syria, Iran, the Turks, Hamas, someone - lighting the tinder. I don't think the party that lights that off will have any desire for a regional war, but then, the Black Hand didn't think that whacking the Archduke Ferdinand would bring WWI, either.

Once a regional war does break out, and oil supplies to Europe, China, and India will be threatened - do you think they'll all stand aside? Do you live in a dream world where the US can manage to avoid engaging in such a mess?

The left thinks things are bad now. What the left doesn't realize is just how much worse things can get - and are likely to get without the US keeping something like a lid on the problem.

Posted by James Robertson | July 12, 2007 10:41 AM

Interesting. It was just two weeks ago someone doing a telephone survey caught me in a generous mood and asked me an array of questions about my attitudes towards this very possibility. The interview questions were IMHO *poorly* framed, and by the third question I was laughing outloud... as, was the interviewer. In the interviewer's defense, she tried to apologize, noted that she was not the designer, and regretted she was clueless as to how to respond to my requests for clarification. Have wished a dozen times since that I'd taken the call more seriously, and noted who the survey company was. If other responses were like mine, and someone really does try to formulate an exit strategy from my response to these nonsensical questions - well, I wish them all manner of luck!

Posted by mk | July 12, 2007 10:45 AM

Leaving military equipment to anyone is foolish, although it comes to mind that one of the complaints of Iraqi security forces was that the US never equipped them as well as the Americans. As woefully equipped as our men have been, the Iraqis have been expected to do the same sort of fighting with far inferior equipment. But leaving it to them begs the question of who is truly the enemy? Is there any obligation, given our creation of the quagmire, to provide the best military equipment that we can?

We can probably expect, given their track record, that this administration will choose whatever is the worst option with respect to equipment abandonment.

Posted by Mudge | July 12, 2007 10:50 AM

That entire region is ready to blow, and I am fairly certain that a US withdrawal will result in someone - Syria, Iran, the Turks, Hamas, someone - lighting the tinder.

Lemme guess, you were fairly certain that Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapon/ missile delivery program up and running as well, right?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 12, 2007 10:53 AM

oh for god's sake, JR has a point:

there is little to no serious thinking about post-withdrawal scenarios on the side of those advocating withdrawal (which doesn't equal "the left" - Rumsfeld's instinct was always to withdraw as quickly as possible, it just wasn't feasible)

I'm not saying that those who oppose withdrawal have any kind of strategy besides wait and see, or that withdrawal as such is a bad thing, but the complete unwillingness to contemplate and plan for the post-withdrawal period by those advocating it, I find quite disturbing

Posted by novakant | July 12, 2007 11:38 AM

The left thinks things are bad now. What the left doesn't realize is just how much worse things can get - and are likely to get without the US keeping something like a lid on the problem.
Posted by James Robertson | July 12, 2007 10:41 AM

Humm. I am not sure if left right divisions matter much here, but ok since you associate left with 'bad' and therefore you are 'right' and good, I will take up the 'left' position.

1. The 'left' knows things are going to get worse. We've known for a long time and have spoken quite a bit about it but you know how it is, you just can't have a liberal speaking his mind on TV, that would be unAmerican, plus the Presidents feeling might get hurt.

2. What amazes me is that the 'right' thinks that the US can keep a lid on the problem
That is the unrealistic, irresponsible, delusional position in the choice between strategic engagement and strategic redeployment of American forces out of Iraq. The idea, in the face of massive empirical evidence to the contrary that the US can control the situation in Iraq and the larger ME via military power and the idea that things will get better if only the US military stays, are wrong simply based on 6 years of evidence.
Iraq will find a political equilibrium without American input, whether America likes it or not. This may or may not invlove a larger ME civil war between Shia and Sunni. Many will die, but that die was cast when America went into Iraq and there is no way to take that back now. There is as good an argument to be made that the removal of the American military presence will force a stable political solution in Iraq quickly. What is certain is that America can not impose a solution with its presence. That's the magical thinking, which for political reaons President Bush will cling to until his last day in office. After which I think Bush will never metion Iraq again.

3. No oil sales means no money. People like money, even bad people, and since oil is fungible any selling will increase world supply. The islamic oil boycott is a bluff.

For a brand new excellent essay on Iraq after the US please see Gwynne Dyer, The Mess They Made.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 12, 2007 11:38 AM

No, I had no idea whether Hussein had any advanced weapons programs. I don't think anyone knew for certain at the time. Looking at events in the region at the moment though:

-- an authoritarian Iranian regime that has been using very nasty rhetoric about Israel, and is having massive internal issues (mostly due to their own incompetence vis-a-vis gasoline)
-- The Syrians just reoccupied the Bekaa Valley, and warned their citizens that things could get ugly in Lebanon by mid-July
-- Hamas has just taken Gaza, and I suspect they have their eyes on the West Bank
-- Turkey has 140k+ troops on the Iraqi border, and has been fighting Kurdish revolutionaries for decades - how happy do you think they are with the idea of a safe haven for them?

Things are very unstable in that region right now, and pulling US troops out won't improve that. One could argue that a regional war is inevitable (as the Balkan war was), and that a rearrangement of borders is long overdue. The current post WWI borders are a legacy of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and other post imperial lands:

-- Eastern Europe after WWI
-- The Balkans in the 90's
-- all of Western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire

have had instability for varying times, and have typically "solved" the problem only via truly ugly wars of ethnic rearrangement.

What many people - including the current administration, I think - avert their eyes from is this reality. Where the left sees a profit/oil war in Iraq, I see the same naive idealism that Wilson brought to WWI - where he thought that he could bring Democracy to all of Europe.

What's happened since is the same kind of thing that happened after WWI - the breaking of hard rule in Iraq has brought the same kind of thing that swept Eastern Europe in the early 20's, when the borders all got rearranged. The idealists in the White House didn't see that coming, just as Wilson didn't see the Eastern Europe trouble coming. What the left doesn't see is the reality of the instability. If we leave, it won't all go magically back to 2002 rules. We have opened the floodgates, just as the end of Ottoman and Habsburg rule opened them in the early 20's. Right now, the US is the only force holding back that chaos.

Now, I think it's fairly reasonable to assert that the region has to go through the same crucible that the Balkans and Eastern Europe went through, and that we just have to let it happen. What's not reasonable is pretending that nothing of the sort is likely to happen, and that the exit of US forces will put the region back into the state it was in back in 2002. The idea that we could "bring Democracy" to Iraq without side effects was naive, but no less naive than the left's idea that this is all our fault. The kind of regional chaos I see happening was going to come, whether we went into Iraq or not. By being there, we have some chance of helping manage some of it. Again, you could argue that we shouldn't be doing that. But pretending that the chaos won't come is a "head in the sand" thing.

Posted by James Robertson | July 12, 2007 11:49 AM

I'm not saying that those who oppose withdrawal have any kind of strategy besides wait and see, or that withdrawal as such is a bad thing, but the complete unwillingness to contemplate and plan for the post-withdrawal period by those advocating it, I find quite disturbing
Posted by novakant | July 12, 2007 11:38 AM

I'm not sure this is true. I am sure the American military has a plan in place. Probably the State Department too. It's their job to plan worse case scenarios. Your concern really should be directed at the White House for not articulating a realistic post occupation vision for Iraq.

There is one other thing too. I think one of the hardest thing for Americans to accept is that they are not omnipotent. There are limits to American power that have nothing to do with 'will' or 'effort'. Rivers don't flow up mountains and American armies don't stay engaged in wars indefinately. America can not control the post withdrawl outcome of the Iraq conflict. America will influence but not control Iraq after withdrawl.

So any 'plan' will be dynamic and reactive. The quality of America's government officials will be tested. To ensure to best possible outcome all you can do is elect responsible and intelligent politicans. I would avoid people who quote AEI studies or signed on to PNAC in the 90s. Their track record is poor.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 12, 2007 11:58 AM

The chaos will come. The question is whether Kurdistan is a good place (as opposed to, say, the western desert of Iraq) to do anything about it from.

Never mind the Turks. You're not going to be able to redeploy substantial forces to Kurdistan without eventually taking, or being seen to take a political position, on whether Kirkuk or Mosul belong to the Kurds. Say they don't, and you've got Insurgency Mark 2. Say they do, and the Iraqis cut off all your logistics.

Actually, it's clear already that you would say they did... you're not going to house any significant force in a backwater like Irbil, after all. So the inevitable consequence of a mass movement of American troops north would be a lasting Iraqi-American antagonism and a logistically unsustainable situation. Oh, you could put a few advisers up there, and back up the Kurds with air power, but that's it. The rest is pretty much well-meaning folly.

Best case for an American redeployment is the last part of the country that hasn't gone to hell goes to hell. Worst case is a regional war, with Kurds, Americans and Israelis against everyone else. Have fun with that.

Posted by BruceR | July 12, 2007 12:07 PM

Ikram is wrong. Kurdistan is a light to Iraq nations, not because Kurdistan is so terrific (as he pointed out), but because Arab nations are in such bad shape. Torture and disappearances are routine across Arab countries. The Kurdish elections are fairer than the small number of Arab countries that even bother to have elections. Religious freedom is greater in Kurdistan than it is in any Arab country, as far as I can tell. That's why so many Christians go there.

Kurdistan has a long way to go, but there's no comparison with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, or Algeria.

Posted by Hektor Bim | July 12, 2007 12:10 PM

What the left doesn't see is the reality of the instability.

Jeebus. Link? Or, you know, several, unless there's a norbizness (the Official Very Face of the Left) in there.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 12, 2007 12:14 PM

James Robertson, no one on the left expects US withdrawal from Iraq to lead to a general outbreak of sweetness and light in the region--unfortunately we're in a position in which we have to choose the less bad result. Chaos and general regional war in the region is less bad than chaos and general regional war with US troops stuck in the middle. If we didn't want chaos and general regional war, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place.

My mind is boggled by your willingness to undertake war against our NATO ally Turkey in defense of Kurdistan--and your confidence in the result.

Posted by rea | July 12, 2007 12:25 PM

Dear James Robertson,
I think the WWI analogy is correct in terms of the tensions in the larger ME, but I would add one caveat. We just don't know how it is going to play out. We don't know if a massive conflagration is around the corner or not. So the question becomes, what is the most prudent thing for America to do?

What is the most prudent thing to do?

First, I would argue that the US needs to free the American military from Iraq ASAP. I want that margin of maneuvre back. (General Odom thesis)

Second, I think the US should move back to a foreign policy that places stability and evolutionary change above regime change and revolutionary change. It is just too dangerous and too unpredictable. Democracy moves at its own rythem and pace for the society that is brave enough to embrace it, America should respect that, remove obsticles where it can but get away from Napoleonesque ideas.

Third, let's get back to diplomatic basics. America knows who its friends and allies are and who its enemies are. Help your allies and hurt your enemies, but do it without sending in the 101 airborne at the drop of a pin. I think the quiet American involvement in Lebannon to help sinoria deal with the islamist uprising in the refugee camp is an example of 'the right way'. Ditto whatever the US may have done to get Musharraf to act on the Red mosque radicals. Maybe America did nothing, which would show that sometimes, that's the best thing to do.

Finally I want to make a comment about the 'left'
It is very easy to make fun of street protesters with no blood for oil signs, but don't go generalising that statement to every liberal critic. I would argue that most of the liberal criticism of the Iraq war has been quite sophisticated but has been simply ignored, mostly because it doesn't sell. Simple conflict sells, so Bush43 is pitted against ANSWER as the media narrative.

My main concern with the War has been twofold. First that the American action in Iraq did a lot of damage to the international system, in particular the general rule of no aggressive warmaking or preventative war. This was supposed to have ended with WWII and although it has been violated repeatedly since 1945, the countries that did so were always regarded as outcasts or partially illegitimate. When the US went into Iraq it lowered the threshold permanently for unilateral Great power military action in the future. One of my first thoughts was that if China ever wants to invade Taiwan they will use the US Iraqi intervention as a president. Basically, it made the world more unpredictable and unsafe.

Second, the risk of failure was too high. It was so recklessly risky to try and reengineer a non European society into a democracy. Japan was such a unique case in that the Americans were able to secure the cooperation of the God Emperor Hirohito to force the compliance of the Japanese population from the top down. Few societies are as reverential or hierachical as Japan. It was the only way to make the change happen. There was no template to change an Arab society. And there still isn't today.

So if you look around you will find liberals or nonRepublicans who have thought a lot about this. But you have to go looking for it.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 12, 2007 12:36 PM

there is little to no serious thinking about post-withdrawal scenarios on the side of those advocating withdrawal (which doesn't equal "the left" - Rumsfeld's instinct was always to withdraw as quickly as possible, it just wasn't feasible)

I'm not saying that those who oppose withdrawal have any kind of strategy besides wait and see, or that withdrawal as such is a bad thing, but the complete unwillingness to contemplate and plan for the post-withdrawal period by those advocating it, I find quite disturbing

I completely agree. I favor withdrawal, but I'd like to see some ideas of "what next"? Its clear we can't just clap our hands and proclaim "we're out" and that'll be the last we ever hear of ol' Iraq.

Posted by JayhawkMax | July 12, 2007 1:28 PM

Rea:

"My mind is boggled by your willingness to undertake war against our NATO ally Turkey in defense of Kurdistan--and your confidence in the result."

How you read that into my response is baffling. What I'm saying is, if we leave completely, Turkey will almost certainly intervene. If we pull to Kurdistan, we risk massive alienation of Turkey.

I don't foresee us fighting Turkey, although a particularly bad series of missteps could bring that to pass, I suppose.

To "Northern Observer" - the main issue I have with quitting the field is that I think massive instability will result, and that will disrupt oil supplies. We don't get a ton from that region, but Europe, China, and India do - and their dependence only gets bigger as time goes by.

Sure, one could assert that it then becomes "their problem" - but I'm not convinced that their solutions will be happy ones.
Basically, we have seen the "bug out" scenario played out twice in US history:

1) US South, 1876: A century of black oppression followed

2) Vietnam/Cambodia, 1975: Genocide followed

I'm not really eager to see what take three looks like.

And to all and sundry who are ready to swoop in and say "had we just stayed out.." about Vietnam then, or Iraq now, we don't have that option. For good or ill, we are where we are.

Posted by James Robertson | July 12, 2007 2:21 PM

JR,

A couple of thoughts.

First, how long can we contain the violence? Are you aware of the strain on the military? Budget? Diplomatic capital of the US?

Do you have a solution to impending the military meltdown?

Second, what is the endgame? At what point would you feel safe that civil wars/regional wars won't break out in our absence? Could you describe what such a "safe" arrangement would look like.

Third:

I'm not really eager to see what take three looks like.

How not eager? Do you plan on sacrificing in a way that could alleviate the situation, or are you just "not eager" as long as it's someone else dying for the salve your conscience requires.

Unless there is a likelihood of improving the situation, then feeding soldiers to the meat grinder because of your lack of eagerness seems a bit solipsistic.

Posted by Eric Martin | July 12, 2007 2:38 PM

I'm not saying that those who oppose withdrawal have any kind of strategy besides wait and see, or that withdrawal as such is a bad thing, but the complete unwillingness to contemplate and plan for the post-withdrawal period by those advocating it, I find quite disturbing

Bollix.

Here's a place to start:

Simon, Steven N., “After the Surge: The Case for U.S. Military Disengagement from Iraq,” Council Special Report No. 23, Council on Foreign Relations Press, February 2007.

Biddle, Stephen, Larry Diamond, James Dobbins, Leslie H. Gelb, and Chaim Kaufmann, “What to Do in Iraq: A Roundtable,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2006.

Cole, Jaun, “How to Get Out of Iraq,” The Nation, April 23, 2007.

Leverett, Flynt, “To the Incoming President: On Iraq,” The American Prospect, May 20, 2007.

Biden, Joseph R. Jr., and Gelb, Leslie H., Iraq: A Way Forward.

When you're done with that, I can give you more. There's plenty out there. Shoot me an email.

Just please, think twice about repeating that spurious claim. Those advocating withdrawal, myself included, have come up with rather nuanced, detailed and thoughtful plans.

In your defense, the press hasn't exactly been shining a light on them.

Posted by Eric Martin | July 12, 2007 2:45 PM

"How not eager? Do you plan on sacrificing in a way that could alleviate the situation, or are you just "not eager" as long as it's someone else dying for the salve your conscience requires."

Well, here's the thing: It's the military's job to fight wars, and those in the military (all volunteers) know the risks. It doesn't mean that losing soldiers isn't costly in human terms; it is. Having said that, on a comparative basis (to nearly any other war we've ever fought), this one is not a huge sacrifice. Against a far smaller population base, we lost more people in minutes at Antietam and Gettysburg. We lost more in a handful of days during the late stages of WWI.

I fail to see how the deployment of 140k soldiers by a nation of 300 million is really a strain. Put another way, if it is a strain, then I fail to see how any of the Progressive plans (like national health care) are affordable. They are clearly more expensive (in terms of federal dollars spent) than this war.

Posted by James Robertson | July 12, 2007 4:50 PM

OK Eric, you're correct. I actually have read half of the papers you are recommending and should have qualified my statement accordingly. Also I was irate.

Why? Because, as you mention this line of discourse hasn't exactly penetrated public discussion yet and it is not widely talked about it in the blogosphere, which was the actual target of my allegation, either. Instead, it's mainly about "no end but victory" on the right, and "get the troops home" on the left. This is driving me nuts, because the fate of the Iraqis tends to be disregarded.

To give you an example, I was particularly dismayed by a comment thread at Obsidian Wings awhile ago, a blog I respect with many intelligent and well-informed people, in which the only constructive suggestion was to let lots of Iraqis emigrate to the US. When I was trying to open the discussion to debating the consequences of a withdrawal and started asking hard questions such as what if a full-blown genocide breaks out and we have to go in again, this in itself was regarded as undermining the consensus for withdrawal.

I don't think such a state of discourse is fruitful at all and sincerely hope that serious discussions on the future of Iraq, such as the ones you were pointing out, will become more widespread so that we can finally get out of this stalemate.

Posted by novakant | July 12, 2007 5:13 PM

I fail to see how the deployment of 140k soldiers by a nation of 300 million is really a strain.

You're talking about costs in excess of $12 Billion...a month! You don't see how that's a strain?

So far, the costs associated with Iraq are estimated to come due in the area of $1-2 trillion dollars. You could fund a lot of "Progressive plans" with that kind of loot.

As for strains on the military, you'd have to read actual military men who are predicting a meltdown. While comparisons to the Civil War is interesting, our military was much larger fueled by a far-reaching draft. Currently, not so much on either front.

If you doubt that our military is strained, you should direct your questions/comments to notorious liberal dove General Barry McCaffrey. He's the one predicting a "meltdown."

McCaffrey, Barry, “Trip Report – Kuwait and Iraq,” Memorandum for Senate Foreign Relations Committee, July 18, 2005.

Posted by Eric Martin | July 12, 2007 5:14 PM

novakant,

Gotcha. Irate is understandable. I would note, though, that most people won't likely come up with detailed policy prescriptions, but rather back a general trend - leaving it to the experts to hammer out the details.

In that regard, I think Steven Simon's work is seminal and could not recommend it enough.

Still, it would be nice to see more discussion of alternatives. Which I think Hilzoy did a pretty good job with yesterday - sticking with ObWi.

(btw: Tapped had a good follow up to Leverett's piece that brought in Korb, Galbraith, Nossell and others to discuss his suggestions - but every time I try to link to it, my comment gets held up by Matt's Commentofascist software. If you're interested, I link to it at AmFoot today...)

Posted by Eric Martin | July 12, 2007 5:22 PM

Re: What I'm saying is, if we leave completely, Turkey will almost certainly intervene.

Would they? How popular would that be among the Turkish people? For that mater how would it be received in the Arab world to have the old imperial power (which was none too well loved back in the day) marching an army into its old stamping grounds? I don't doubt the Turks might mount a raid or two to punish border incursions (real or otherwise), but I don't see them risking the perception of Ottoman Empire Part II by occupying Kurdistan in toto. If they've been paying any attention to our own travails they would surely think twice about stepping into the Mesopotamian muck and mire.

Posted by JonF | July 12, 2007 9:35 PM

Turkey isn't some rogue state; it's a reasonably successful democracy and a candidate to join the EU. I'm pretty sure the US and its allies have enough diplomatic cachet to keep Turkey from invading northern Iraq willy-nilly. Wouldn't a full-blown invasion be pretty fatal to their hopes of joining the EU?

Posted by Steve | July 12, 2007 9:56 PM

The new French government has zero interest in letting Turkey into the EU, so it's not like they'd have a lot to lose if they went into Iraqi Kurdistan to bust heads.

Posted by daveNYC | July 12, 2007 11:27 PM

What Dave said.

The whole EU process has been sputtering out. Turks are losing their interest, and much of Europe seems content to let it die on the vine.

Against that backdrop, I don't see the EU admission card as a serious deterrent. As for the non-rogue state angle, I'm not exactly sure what that means.

The US, presumably, is not a rogue state yet we invaded Iraq on a hell of a lot less justification than would exist for the Turks should they move against Kurdistan.

Also, not "willy-nilly." Te PKK has been waging a campaign of terrorist violence and guerrilla type hit and run attacks in Turkey for years. Kurdistan has been a favorite retreat (and source of funds and other backing). Hot pursuit of such elements across the Turkish border by Turkish troops - even a partial occupation to halt incursions by the PKK - could hardly be seen as willy-nilly.

Especially, again, after the US invasion of Iraq with absolutely zero provocation.

Posted by Eric Martin | July 13, 2007 9:49 AM

Hello.
Quite an interesting blog, and an equally interesting discussion thread.
Got only a few points to reinforce:
The Republic of Turkey is quite certainly NOT a rogue state. In fact, it is an ancient and sophisticated realm with deep, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic roots. It is a quite Westernized land ruled by a parliamentary democracy since 1923, thanks to the vision of an extraordinary leader called Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. And of course, the hordes of like-minded progressive inhabitants of said country who were part of that vision.
Kurds and Turks existed side by side, virtually sitting on each other's lap, for a thousand years. They shared a great deal of cultural attributes. Hospitality, love for music and literature, and so much more. I find it tragic that certain special interests, certain leaders, created and exploited a rift. Divide and Conquer. They've managed to divide, but will they manage to conquer as well?

The question of whether the Turks or the Kurds are the most ancient inhabitants of the region, is actually unclear. And of course there are the Armenians, and the Greeks, and the Romans, the Byzantines, Macedonians, and hordes of Celts who came to march through but left their progeny as part of this great colorful fabric that is today's Anatolia, and the Tatars, and the Uzbek, and the Turcomans, and ... and yes, Turcomans do claim a deep, long history in Kerkuk and Erbil.
Evidence exists that the Hittites, an ancient people who were remarkably sophisticated, had Turkish roots.
Though I would not nit-pick about all this now. Fact is, even if you accept the Turkish presence as starting only with the Battle of Malazgirt in 1071 A.D. (how many hundreds more years than the Brits, Irish, Italian, Spanish, Chinese and Africans, here in these United States of America?) the Turks thrived by blending with the natives of Anatolia, and the natives of Anatolia have Chatalhoyuk, an ancient Stone Age settlement, ca. 8,000-6,000 B.C., that is so well built, so far advanced, that boggles the mind, to their credit.
Yes, neither the Turks nor the Kurds are Arabs.
By the way, though, check out the 1925 Sheik Said Rebellion.
Religious reactionaries vs. Ataturk's Westernization efforts, including his push for educating the poor --- which could liberate the lower classes from under the yoke of their feudal lords and be their own person ......... I am not saying that Sheik Said's Rebellion did not have a nationalistic side to it, nevertheless, it was rooted in feudalism, and keeping feudal power.

Sectarian fights are mostly for power, for dominance over souls, bodies, and their LABOR. So, the root cause of all this fermentation in the region is that the leaders of different tribal factions are jockeying for power. Nothing new, nor mysterious about that, yes?

Oh well, the discussion shall continue.
Yes, the USA entered the war in Iraq without a clear-cut exit strategy. And yes, pulling out in haste will let the region explode. Alas, though, every day we remain there, more American boys and girls will die. Indeed it was presumptuous of America to believe that we could bring democracy to the region. Democracy has to come up from the grass roots, since most certainly their upper echelon would not condone democracy, unless it helps bring enough votes to establish their own agenda, which might or might not blend with the people's.
Oh, friends .... once again the West has stepped into a hornet's nest and doesn't know how to get out of it. The Brits forgot to tell the Americans that after they had helped the Arab sheiks bring down the Ottoman Empire, and carved out the region to reward the various "tribes with flags", that the said tribes kicked them out ... Britain helped the sheiks against the Ottomans, and lost out, and now America encounters the same fate.

Posted by Kristina O'Donnelly | July 24, 2007 12:38 AM