Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41419633

The "former" President of Iraqi Kurdistan Masoud Barzani called a non-binding referendum for Kurdish independence from Iraq scheduled on the 25th; despite the objections of several regional powers namely Iran and Turkey and the pleas of the United States and EU. They have since announced an overwhelming yes (92%) to the vote. Barzani is using this vote as a mandate to start negotiations with Baghdad over full independence. The outcome of the referendum ratchets tensions up with Abadi's government significantly since the Iraqi government outright rejects the secession of the Iraqi Kurds from Iraq and any sort of negotiation based on the vote. The Iraqi army is now moving to secure the strategically important city of Kirkuk and the surrounding regions.

A unilateral declaration of independence would almost certainly re-ignite conflict in the region and the nascent Kurdistan nation would likely not be recognized by the international community with the possible exception of Israel. The outcome would likely lead to the crushing of the new nation by its hostile neighbors surrounding it on four sides.

Say it with me guys.

Political. Quagmire.

Well they can make a nation out of the Kurdish portions of Iraq and Syria. maybe play off Turkey and Iran, or just go Swiss.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well they can make a nation out of the Kurdish portions of Iraq and Syria. maybe play off Turkey and Iran, or just go Swiss.

Like hell this will happen, from what will they live ? The little oil there ? Being besieged by multiple nations ? Terror attacks ? I am not the biggest economical expert here but what do they have to survive ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Say it with me guys.

Political. Quagmire.

More like a terrorist group killing every loyal Kurd, using bribery, theft, kidnapping, assassination to insure loyalty to some irani kurds. Inb4 Ismet was a kurd fighting for Turkey.

I hope to see a Kurdistan that encompasses a MAJOR part of what used to be Turkey.

I believe the Israelis said recently re-iterated their backing of a Kurdish state recently. Though with the caveat that the PKK (and PKJ) were still a terrorist organisation (because they didn't want to start a war with Turkey, who they did note backed Hamas...).

In a perfect world the Kurds would form their own state. That's not been a reality however. They're usually given a bad hand in the region in favour of the arabs, and marginalised by governments. Even with the recent spat of civil wars and all the gains the Kurds have made, there's every chance one of the powers in the region will just march in and put the boot on them again. The West's not giving them sufficient backing, but hell they've managed a lot with what little they have. ISIS was much better (*much*) equipped than the PKJ and PKK in Syria, but superior tactics led to major Kurdish gains. Conversely when they Kurds needed evacuation and supplies they were left out to dry by their Allies.

And well, I'm a bit biased. The formation of a Kurdish state could be a good ally in the region, especially with the overt anti-Western stance some of the states have taken there (we'll be nice to you in the UN, but back terrorists). They're a much more progressive people than many of the governments out there (democracy and equal rights for one). Though unfortunately they're in a similar boat to Israel when it comes to Western backing. States don't want to piss off the other countries there (who don't always have our best interests at heart, but plenty of money, and considered "stable), and instead give limited support. It wouldn't surprise me if the Turks move in one day and nobody did anything about it. Better to keep Turkey as an "ally" than start a war.

I'll need to look into what the Israelis have been recently up to with the Kurds recently. Unofficially they've had boots on the ground for years there, though mostly providing training. Their involvement early on was air strikes (as with most of the conflicts in the area - blow up enough stuff not to threaten Israel, then back off before it escalates), till the West took over that role. The Kurdish parliament's fairly pro-Judaism (I remember reading they created a department based around strengthening ties), which can't be said of much of the neighbourhood. If the Kurds can have their own state out of this they'll get the Israeli backing, though I wonder if the Knesset would go so far as defending that state when the Turks inevitably come knocking.

Good for them, I hope they make it work.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
IThey're a much more progressive people than many of the governments out there (democracy and equal rights for one). The Kurdish parliament's fairly pro-Judaism, which can't be said of much of the neighbourhood. If the Kurds can have their own state out of this they'll get the Israeli backing, though I wonder if the Knesset would go so far as defending that state when the Turks inevitably come knocking.

A good selling point for a Kurdish state is their relatively lax religious standards (for the area) - they are Kurds first, the religion is an afterthought be that christianity, islam or whatever. But openly supporting Israel would be bad unless Israel openly supported them, which would carry the weight of nuclear power.

And ofc, even discounting religion and Israel none of the states with a Kurdish population wants to give them territory. Saddam gassed them and Turkey didn't even admit there was such a people living there until the 1980s or so. Syria wasn't too bad I guess, and no idea about Iran. But giving them land is out of the question for all, and if the Iraqi central government is too weak to prevent it Turkey or Iran will probably try to do it as an "anti-terrorist" operation.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
IThey're a much more progressive people than many of the governments out there (democracy and equal rights for one). The Kurdish parliament's fairly pro-Judaism, which can't be said of much of the neighbourhood. If the Kurds can have their own state out of this they'll get the Israeli backing, though I wonder if the Knesset would go so far as defending that state when the Turks inevitably come knocking.

A good selling point for a Kurdish state is their relatively lax religious standards (for the area) - they are Kurds first, the religion is an afterthought be that christianity, islam or whatever. But openly supporting Israel would be bad unless Israel openly supported them, which would carry the weight of nuclear power.

And ofc, even discounting religion and Israel none of the states with a Kurdish population wants to give them territory. Saddam gassed them and Turkey didn't even admit there was such a people living there until the 1980s or so. Syria wasn't too bad I guess, and no idea about Iran. But giving them land is out of the question for all, and if the Iraqi central government is too weak to prevent it Turkey or Iran will probably try to do it as an "anti-terrorist" operation.

aren't those the reasons the UN drew a isreal on the map? let the kurds have their lands, recognize them, and I'm sure if they have oil the US will support them.

The US is officially against an independent Kurdistan. In addition, Iraq, Iran and Turkey are also against it. If they were to close their borders, Kurdistan would starve.

Out of all of the mess of the civil wars in the region over the past decade the Kurds becoming independent would be a positive thing. It'd be a gakstorm of course. I can imagine they'd either pre-emptively invade (if they had the military power to do so) or do so afterwards. For some reason people are opposed to a people who they've crapped on for centuries gaining power...

An Israel Mk.2 is maybe how some are looking at Kurdistan right now, even worse so with the oil fields. Israel was maybe in a better state back then though. If the Kurds can knock up some tank depots maybe they'd have a chance against one of the weakened states, but without foreign aid they'd get steamrolled into fighting a guerrilla war (as if it does come to war I don't see a formal Kurdish government being allowed to re-form with any degree of power).

It'd be nice to live in a world where we could properly back these guys. Instead governments prefer the status quo. With the limited backing realistically available (i.e. not boots on the ground, or attacks against our "allies") there's not much the West could do. Despite being the comparative good guys, if one of their neighbours invaded them we'd have to just accept it. The West fighting against the Iraqi government would be extremely bad press. Meanwhile the Syrians and Turks could go feth themselves, but we're not "supposed" to be fighting them. Knocking down one of the "stable" powers for one which could be favourable in future is maybe too long term a plan than most could swallow.

Or who knows, the Israelis could turn around and just glass the whole region. Not sure how well that'd play into the Sampson Option.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Say it with me guys.

Political. Quagmire.

It is an inevitable outcome of short term thinking at the expense of long term consequence now. ISIS at least is someone everyone can say they don't like and no one sane is really going to argue, and look at the giant gak storm that mess is? The entire Middle East is now a giant band of frienemies, and the western world has turned the whole response into a joke of "stop bombing our preferred regional alternative." We can't even get this right, and its only a matter of time before the Kurd issue reaches a head and I can't fathom that'll fair any better. Sure the US can say its against an independent Kurdistan, but lets be real. We don't really care one way or the other internationally. We say we're against it because we've spent decades keeping the peace between Turkey and Europe, Turkey and Greece, Turkey and NATO, Turkey and the Middle East. Turkey isn't exactly going a great place these days. Matters between Sunni Arabs and Shi'ite Persians are coming to a head too, and Turkey and the Kurds will get all mixed up in that jam.

Sure the Kurds are an oppressed minority, they should have their own state, and that state would likely be a better regional ally than the current ones we deal with, but if wishes were unicorns...

Kurds definitely should have their own country. Ultimately the Middle East would be better off divided by cultural boundaries instead of what exists now.

Really the one big reason to remain tied to Iraq was mutually assured protection, but the Iraqi performance against ISIS killed that argument stone dead.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Kurds definitely should have their own country. Ultimately the Middle East would be better off divided by cultural boundaries instead of what exists nowlines arbitrarily drawn by British Imperialists.

FTFY

Unsurprised the referendum passed. Bit surprised it passed with that high a margin. It's much more mixed amongst the Kurds I work with around Kalar and Sulemanieyah. I'll be curious to see how it effects relations between our Kurdish and Arab colleagues.

There's no chance they're getting their own state anytime soon. Iraqi Kurdistan is already essentially blockaded, having to pay a fortune for all their imports (largely from Iran rather than the South) and with all their state employees on half pay - it's about as expensive as the UK for meat and fruit. The only bargaining power they really have is the fact the Peshmerga have been holding the North against ISIS, and ISIS aren't going to last long. Whoever replaces them might, but nobody making decisions for the region, local or western, has been king of long term thinking

I'm torn. On the one hand, the Kurds really deserve a bone thrown to them after the heavy lifting they've done against ISIS. On the other hand, what happens to everyone who isn't Kurdish living in what would become our hypothetical Kurdistan? Are they going to get displaced in the interest of the Kurds, and if so how is that fair?

I like how all Western nations favour civil rights and democracy right up until it becomes inconvenient. All our foreign departments have been saying things like 'Wait until ISIS is beaten first', knowing full well that the fact ISIS exists is what make this opportunity possible for the Kurds in the first place. Once the Iraqi Army is fully reformed and the country at peace again, any chance of independence would immediately vanish. Doing it now, when ISIS is weak but not entirely beaten, is the likely to be the best moment.

 Ketara wrote:
I like how all Western nations favour civil rights and democracy right up until it becomes inconvenient.

Real Politiks 101

 Ketara wrote:
I like how all Western nations favour civil rights and democracy right up until it becomes inconvenient. All our foreign departments have been saying things like 'Wait until ISIS is beaten first', knowing full well that the fact ISIS exists is what make this opportunity possible for the Kurds in the first place. Once the Iraqi Army is fully reformed and the country at peace again, any chance of independence would immediately vanish. Doing it now, when ISIS is weak but not entirely beaten, is the likely to be the best moment.

Yeah, this is also kinda why much of the rest of the world hates the West. Biggest hypocrites in world history. "Human rights" and "democracy" are only tools for Western nations to use against nations that they get in conflict with. Only countries like Iran, China or Russia need to adhere to those high standards. The West itself and nations that it likes (such as Saudi Arabia or basically any of the Gulf states) are free to violate them as much as they like.

I support Kurdish independence. Every people has a right to self-determination in the area in which it forms a majority of the population. Besides, it is high time the borders of the Middle East get re-drawn to actually respect ethnic and tribal boundaries rather than the mess that Westerners made of it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yeah, this is also kinda why much of the rest of the world hates the West. Biggest hypocrites in world history. "Human rights" and "democracy" are only tools for Western nations to use against nations that they get in conflict with. Only countries like Iran, China or Russia need to adhere to those high standards. The West itself and nations that it likes (such as Saudi Arabia or basically any of the Gulf states) are free to violate them as much as they like.

I think saying the rest of the world 'hates' the West is a bit of an extreme generalisation. I've never heard of Argentina having beef with Canada or of a fierce rivalry between Indonesia and Belgium.

I also think that you're confusing not caring for human rights with realpolitik. I think it's pretty obvious we do care for human rights as something more than a club to beat people we don't like with, as we champion them quite extensively within our own countries. What I'm complaining about is how vague strategical realpolitik is put ahead of actually doing some good more generally, when I don't think it always should be.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I like how all Western nations favour civil rights and democracy right up until it becomes inconvenient. All our foreign departments have been saying things like 'Wait until ISIS is beaten first', knowing full well that the fact ISIS exists is what make this opportunity possible for the Kurds in the first place. Once the Iraqi Army is fully reformed and the country at peace again, any chance of independence would immediately vanish. Doing it now, when ISIS is weak but not entirely beaten, is the likely to be the best moment.

Yeah, this is also kinda why much of the rest of the world hates the West. Biggest hypocrites in world history. "Human rights" and "democracy" are only tools for Western nations to use against nations that they get in conflict with. Only countries like Iran, China or Russia need to adhere to those high standards. The West itself and nations that it likes (such as Saudi Arabia or basically any of the Gulf states) are free to violate them as much as they like.

I support Kurdish independence. Every people has a right to self-determination in the area in which it forms a majority of the population. Besides, it is high time the borders of the Middle East get re-drawn to actually respect ethnic and tribal boundaries rather than the mess that Westerners made of it.

Wait, now you're blaming us for something the West has no part of? Get real.

Maybe Argentina don't hates Canada but they surely hate United Kingdom

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yeah, this is also kinda why much of the rest of the world hates the West. Biggest hypocrites in world history. "Human rights" and "democracy" are only tools for Western nations to use against nations that they get in conflict with. Only countries like Iran, China or Russia need to adhere to those high standards. The West itself and nations that it likes (such as Saudi Arabia or basically any of the Gulf states) are free to violate them as much as they like.

I think saying the rest of the world 'hates' the West is a bit of an extreme generalisation. I've never heard of Argentina having beef with Canada or of a fierce rivalry between Indonesia and Belgium.

I also think that you're confusing not caring for human rights with realpolitik. I think it's pretty obvious we do care for human rights as something more than a club to beat people we don't like with, as we champion them quite extensively within our own countries. What I'm complaining about is how vague strategical realpolitik is put ahead of actually doing some good more generally, when I don't think it always should be.

I said much, not all. And 'hate' merely implies a strong dislike, not an outright conflict or rivalry. But yes, it is a generalisation. Thing is, a large part of the world population does not view 'the West' (a concept which itself is a generalisation) very positively.
Also, I would argue that if you are willing to put aside the values you claim to believe in for the sake of realpolitik, then you do not actually really care about those values. It is crystal clear that Western nations care more about their self-interest than about the values they are so keen on spreading to the "less enlightened people" of the second and third worlds. It is good to see that there are plenty of people in the West that disagree with this, but unfortunately that does not seem to filter through to government level.

Your flag is the Netherlands, what's that "you" crap?

He is from russia, but don't let living in our countries and enjoying our civil liberties be in the way to call the west hypocrites!

And theres obviously a valid point about how theres double standards about human rights when realpolitiks enter in the game. But to be honest I prefer my goverment to be an hypocrite than to be an donkey-cave that doesnt care about the human rights of his citizens or anybody in general.

Russia, thats even more choice.

The obvious solution to this issue is to flood the region with US troops and maybe fund some Freedom Fighters.

So Baghdad has demanded the Kurds surrender control of their airports.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
And well, I'm a bit biased. The formation of a Kurdish state could be a good ally in the region, especially with the overt anti-Western stance some of the states have taken there (we'll be nice to you in the UN, but back terrorists). They're a much more progressive people than many of the governments out there (democracy and equal rights for one).

To make this very clear, we're discussing the Iraqi Kurds, not the Syrian Kurds. Two distinct groups that speak three separate Kurdish languages mutually intelligible from each other. The latter are the 'progressive' ones that get so much press in the West with their tens of thousands strong YPJ (Women's Protection Units). Note that the Iraqi KDP (Kurdistan Democratic Party, the ruling party/tribe) Peshmerga units are more conservative, less democratic and less egalitarian hard capping women fighters to a 600 woman strong regiment and only as non-combatants.

Bashar al-Assad's government has already made moves toward acceptance of an autonomous Kurdish region within Syria with some sort of governance by the Rojava.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-kurds/damascus-says-syrian-kurdish-autonomy-negotiable-report-idUSKCN1C10TJ

Regardless if Iraqi Kurdish independence fails, some Kurds will likely be receiving a homeland in some form or another.

 sebster wrote:
Really the one big reason to remain tied to Iraq was mutually assured protection, but the Iraqi performance against ISIS killed that argument stone dead.

There's always the possibility that the Iraqi Kurds turn to Iran to for protection. See the anti-Israeli/Barzani propaganda being pumped out. The mullahs have shown in the past to be ideologically flexible. The Iranians could broker a deal on both sides to make the situation more palatable, mitigate Israeli interference and ultimately shield the Iraqi Kurds against Turkish aggression. The main issue is Barzani, they tried to kill his father. Perhaps driving a wedge between him and Talabani (not unreasonable since they hate each other but are both pro-independence) is the way forward toward some sort of Iraqi Kurd autonomy. Rub is Talabani's health is not good.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I support Kurdish independence. Every people has a right to self-determination in the area in which it forms a majority of the population. Besides, it is high time the borders of the Middle East get re-drawn to actually respect ethnic and tribal boundaries rather than the mess that Westerners made of it.

The Mormons built Utah with their blood, sweet and tears but I don't think and neither does anyone in the United States for a second they deserve a Nation of Deseret. Partitioning the ME into a bunch of micro nations drawn from ethnic and religious minorities is ridiculous and a recipe for decades of warfare/conquest as Iran, Turkey, the Saudis and Israel squabble for the pieces. The ME is consistently punctuated by waves of pan-arabic/islamic movements. We're literally watching the death throes of one such movement.

nfe wrote:
Unsurprised the referendum passed. Bit surprised it passed with that high a margin. It's much more mixed amongst the Kurds I work with around Kalar and Sulemanieyah. I'll be curious to see how it effects relations between our Kurdish and Arab colleagues.

There's no chance they're getting their own state anytime soon. Iraqi Kurdistan is already essentially blockaded, having to pay a fortune for all their imports (largely from Iran rather than the South) and with all their state employees on half pay - it's about as expensive as the UK for meat and fruit. The only bargaining power they really have is the fact the Peshmerga have been holding the North against ISIS, and ISIS aren't going to last long. Whoever replaces them might, but nobody making decisions for the region, local or western, has been king of long term thinking

Agreed, 92% is on the high end of a vote, while not implausible since polling showed high favorability in the region in the past. Generally 90+% is a warning flag for some sort of rigging. If you had a vote for "Do you love puppies?" I still wouldn't expect a 92% yes.

Also Barzani's past behavior has been greedy and manipulative. I'm not saying he's a dictator in the making but if he talks like a dick and walks like a dick...