Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

If a good thing happens for a bad reason, it’s still a good thing.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

The republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

Baby steps, because the Republican Party is full of angry babies.

“The defense has a certain level of trust in defendant that the government does not.”

Can we lighten up on the doomsday scenarios?

You know it’s bad when the Project 2025 people have to create training videos on “How To Be Normal”.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

Fight them, without becoming them!

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

I am pretty sure Katy Tur wasn’t always such a bootlicking sycophant.

Their boy Ron is an empty plastic cup that will never know pudding.

Innocent people don’t delay justice.

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

The words do not have to be perfect.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the gop

They think we are photo bombing their nice little lives.

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / When Is An Iraqi Army Not An Iraqi Army?

When Is An Iraqi Army Not An Iraqi Army?

by | 19 Comments

This post is in: 

Answer: when it’s an unalloyed mixing of distinct tribes with parochial loyalties.

KIRKUK, Iraq – Kurdish leaders have inserted more than 10,000 of their militia members into Iraqi army divisions in northern Iraq to lay the groundwork to swarm south, seize the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and possibly half of Mosul, Iraq’s third-largest city, and secure the borders of an independent Kurdistan.

…The soldiers said that while they wore Iraqi army uniforms they still considered themselves members of the Peshmerga — the Kurdish militia — and were awaiting orders from Kurdish leaders to break ranks. Many said they wouldn’t hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades, especially Arabs, if a fight for an independent Kurdistan erupted.

The Kurds stand to cause considerable trouble, but for now they have more to lose by instigating chaos than they stand to gain. One simple reason is Turkey; if Iraq crumbles entirely and the Kurds even look like they’re going to declare a state, Turkey will annex the land militarily to prevent domestic Kurds from trying to secede and join it.

Does anybody believe that no other Iraqi factions have done the same thing? I don’t.

This comes via Georgia10, whose posting makes me think that she will be regarded as one of the better additions to the Kos front page. Beside Darksyde of course, whose work is simply sublime.

Reader Interactions

19Comments

  1. 1.

    p.lukasiak

    The Kurds stand to cause considerable trouble, but for now they have more to lose by instigating chaos than they stand to gain. One simple reason is Turkey; if Iraq crumbles entirely and the Kurds even look like they’re going to declare a state, Turkey will annex the land militarily to prevent domestic Kurds from trying to secede and join it.

    personally, I think that what we are seeing is the improvised neo-con game plan in action. The cabal wants large permanent US bases in the region, and right now the Kurds are looking like the only game in town. The neo-cons think that they can control the Kurd’s aspirations for a Kurdish state that includes the Kurdish areas of Turkey, Iran, and Syria — and will provide Turkey with “assurances” that the Iraqi Kurds will not be exporting Kurdish agitators (terrorists, actually) to Turkey. The US gets its bases in Iraq, and Turkey is presented with a fait accompli because the US will protect the Kurds. So what if the Sunni muslims and Armenian Turks are various other non-Kurdish people in Kirkuk and elsewhere are slaughtered by the Kurdish militias as they consolidate their control — we can always pretend that the mass graves that will eventually be dug up were victims of Saddam, and not mass murder not by the Kurds while the US looks the other way…

    Of course, only a moron would think that Kurdish aspirations can be controlled….

  2. 2.

    ppGaz

    Of course, only a moron would think that Kurdish aspirations can be controlled

    Luckily, we have no shortage of morons in charge of our policies and strategies these days.

  3. 3.

    searp

    It isn’t only Kurdish aspirations. There will be a de facto partition.

    There has already been a political partition – the secularists lost big, with the result that Iraqi politics can be summed up in three words: Sunni-Shia-Kurd.

    Now try this: Muslim-Croat-Serb. The difference here is that we have made an open-ended, essentially unlimited commitment based on the fantasies of our commander in chief.

    Freedom is on the march, just not in this country where we need a president with “plenary” powers to prosecute the stupidest war since the Franco-Prussian war.

  4. 4.

    Joel

    It seems to be article of faith amongst many that if Iraqi Kurdistan declared independance that Turkey would invade. I’m not so sure that is the case. From the latest Atlantic Monthly:

    What about the Kurds? Won’t they secede if the United States leaves?

    Yes, but that’s going to happen anyway. All Iraqi Kurds want an independent Kurdistan. They do not feel Iraqi. They’ve effectively had more than a decade of autonomy, thanks to the UN-imposed no-fly zone; they want nothing to do with the chaos that is Iraq. Kurdish independence is inevitable—and positive. (Few peoples on earth deserve a state more than the Kurds.) For the moment the Kurdish government in the north is officially participating in the federalist plan—but the Kurds are preparing for secession. They have their own troops, the peshmerga, thought to contain 50,000 to 100,000 fighters. They essentially control the oil city of Kirkuk. They also happen to be the most America-loving people I have ever met; their leaders openly seek to become, like Israel, a proxy for American interests. If what the United States wants is long-term bases in the region, the Kurds are its partners.

    Would Turkey invade in response to a Kurdish secession?

    For the moment Turkey is more concerned with EU membership than with Iraq’s Kurds—who in any event have expressed no ambitions to expand into Turkey. Iraq’s Kurds speak a dialect different from Turkey’s, and, in fact, have a history of animosity toward Turkish Kurds. Besides, Turkey, as a member of NATO, would be reluctant to attack in defiance of the United States. Turkey would be satisfied with guarantees that it would have continued access to Kurdish oil and trade and that Iraqi Kurds would not incite rebellion in Turkey.

    This is of course highly speculative, but it shouldn’t be taken as a given that Turkey would invade. EU membership is fervantly desired by Turkey. An invasion of Kurdistan would end that hope for decades.

  5. 5.

    demimondian

    I doubt that Turkey will have to invade. There’s another country in the region with a significant Kurdish minority, and nobody in NATO wants that country to invade a new Kurdistan. That country is Iran.

    If the Kurds declare independence, NATO is very likely to turn a blind eye to Turkey moving in “to keep Iran out”. NATO will be shocked, simply shocked to learn that Turkey had any other motivation.

  6. 6.

    p.lukasiak

    Turkey would not invade Iraqi Kurdistan immediately upon its declaring its independence — it would wait until the necessary “provocations” had taken place.

    As for NATO, the neo-cons don’t give two shits about it. It was useful when there was still a “red menace”, but now that the geopolitical game is all about oil, NATO has outlived its usefulness….

  7. 7.

    TM Lutas

    France is doing its darnedest to make Turkey feel comfortable invading an independent Kurdistan. The entire EU is, really. There’s a chill wind blowing on Turkey’s membership prospect and the less likely they’ll be getting in, the less likely they’ll stay their hand on Kurdistan invasion if things come to it.

    Remember, you can’t join the EU if your borders are in question. If you’ve got active separatists looking to calve off a third of your country and Kurdistan is recognized by the UN and doesn’t recognize Turkey’s borders, Turkey has no incentive not to invade because it’ll never get in the EU period, full stop as it’ll be embroiled in a border question with Kurdistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Good luck getting that one worked out.

    If you were to do an honest review of the Whiskey Rebellion, you’d find that there was a time that US troops were of questionable loyalty depending on the issue at hand. Things changed over time. They might change in Iraq too. They might not and we need to prepare for that possible disaster but it’s only a possible disaster. It’s not certain.

  8. 8.

    estragon

    Regarding your praise of Georgia10 and Darksyde: Is it just me, or do the new kos front pagers just generally seem to be really awesome this year? They seem much stronger on analysis and not as much into crazy yelling. Granted, their time has barely even begun, so it could still all go downhill. But I think this looks like it will be a particularly good year for that site.

  9. 9.

    Steve S

    One simple reason is Turkey; if Iraq crumbles entirely and the Kurds even look like they’re going to declare a state, Turkey will annex the land militarily to prevent domestic Kurds from trying to secede and join it.

    If this were to happen, I would fully support the President in using US troops to support the Kurds against Turkey.

    But as others noted, I do not think Turkey would invade.

  10. 10.

    RA

    A partitioned Iraq would be a good result for the US. We would have allies in the north and south. The Sunnis in the middle would be weak and poor. With oil revenues from the north and the south, Bagdad would shrivel. Turkey would never invade the Kurds as long as we were their friend. Like South Korea and Tiwan.

    We would be defunding the people who were funding terrorists and seeking WMD. We could also set up Guantanimo like bases in the north and the south for easy jump off bases in case of trouble with Syria and Iran.

    Iraq as Iraq or Iraq as partitioned. We win either way. Its the Sunnis who better watch their P’s and Q’s or they will loose all oil revenue. A fitting end to a brutal people.

  11. 11.

    BlogReeder

    The cabal wants large permanent US bases in the region

    Of course, you nit-wit. You almost have the capacity for abstract thought. Conspiracy theories in place of analysis are the forte of the left.

    we can always pretend that the mass graves that will eventually be dug up were victims of Saddam

    No, I guess I was wrong.

  12. 12.

    Ozymandius

    A partitioned Iraq would be a good result for the US. We would have allies in the north and south. The Sunnis in the middle would be weak and poor. With oil revenues from the north and the south, Bagdad would shrivel. Turkey would never invade the Kurds as long as we were their friend. Like South Korea and Tiwan.

    We would be defunding the people who were funding terrorists and seeking WMD. We could also set up Guantanimo like bases in the north and the south for easy jump off bases in case of trouble with Syria and Iran.

    Iraq as Iraq or Iraq as partitioned. We win either way. Its the Sunnis who better watch their P’s and Q’s or they will loose all oil revenue. A fitting end to a brutal people.

    Excuse my impertinence, but why on Earth would the Shi’ite south be friendly with the US?

    And I think I’ll just ignore the rest of it.

  13. 13.

    Northman

    Two things regarding the Turks and Iraqi Kurdistan.

    One: The Turks already have troops in northern Iraq and sent a few thousand more after the Kurds restarted their terror campaign post-US invasion of Iraq. As a result, it would not be too much of a stretch for them to “pacify” the region if the situation in either country deteriorates.

    Two: The assumes wealth of an independant oil-rich Kurdistan depends on them being able to export the oil, which currently flows north into and through Turkey, which gives the Turks a non-military option to constrain Iraqi Kurds. The Kurds only other option to export the oil would be to go south through the Sunni Arab and Shiite territory, west through Syria, or east and south through Iran. Basically they’ll have to play nice to survive whatever the outcome.

    Turkey is also Israel’s closest military ally in the region, not to mention generally democratic and secular. Going against all of that to support a Kurdish rump state is foolish and short-sighted, which given American foreign policy in recent years, makes it a distinct possibility.

  16. 16.

    Pooh

    p.luk, in case you hadn’t noticed, you are commenting on a “PJM claptrap” site.

    Additionally, my impression was the ITM is a well regarded site (I’ve just started reading it recently).

  17. 17.

    TallDave

    Oh please, there are contingency plans for eveything. Those orders will never come, unless the U.S. pulls a cut and run leaving the Kurds defenseless to the point they feel they have to take measures to protect themselves.

    Kurdistan is experiencing the greatest freedom and prosperity it ever has, and the Kurdish people could not be more pro-American. They’re not on the verge of rebellion, whatever fantasies the Kos Kidz have to entertain to convince themselves it’s all a hopeless quagmire.

Comments are closed.