The coalition forces announced that Kurds are free to fly the Kurdistan flag in Kirkuk, wherever they want and no one has the right to remove the Kurdistan flag or object this Kurdish right. The Kurds have told the coalition forces that the Iraqi flag does not represent Kurds and Kurdistan and it has caused many atrocities to Kurds.
Is the CPA nuts? When the Kurds liberated Kirkuk, the Kurdish police who immediately set up shop in the city wore the old Iraqi police uniforms so they wouldn't give Turkey the wrong idea that the Kurds were about to bolt from Iraq and form an independent country. This was a wise move. But this flag flying could be trouble. It's an expression of Kurdish nationalism and seems to indicate a frustration with the slow pace of the federalization plan the Kurds came up with last year. A friend of mine thinks the Kurds should have their own country, the Arabs should get the rest of Iraq and, for good measure, Turkey should be dismantled (!) and the southeast ceded to the newly independent Kurdistan. While I think the Kurds certainly _deserve_ their own state -- God knows they've suffered through the decades -- it's unclear whether they can they have it? I'd guess probably not. A Kurdish state would be too destabilizing to the region. Turkey is absolutely opposed to an independent Kurdistan, and worries that if Kurds controlled the oil revenue of the Kirkuk fields, they would have the means to make an independent state viable. Thus, a declaration of independence -- possibly brought on by nationalism stoked by such symbolism as the flying the Kurdish flag over Kirkuk -- could result in a massive and immediate invasion from both Turkey and Iran in order to keep order, and to secure the Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields. How many Kurds would die for such a future? How many Turks? No doubt, many on both sides are willing to die for either Kurdistan or Turkey, but the Kurds should ask themselves whether an independent state would be worth death and destruction. THe flag over Kirkuk could enrage the Turkoman, who claim Kirkuk as their city in the same way that Kurds say it is theirs. The will likely say they need protection, prompting Turkey to growl about the need for intervention. (The Turks are using the presence of the Turkoman in Kirkuk as an excuse to maintain their leverage with the Americans on the Kurdish issue.) Support the Kurds too much in their independence dream, the Turks are saying, and we'll use the plight of the Turkoman as a pretext to invade. Does the United States want to be caught in between the Turks and the Kurds? A NATO ally and a coalition member? When America is trying to convince Turkey to supply up to 10,000 troops to help pacify Baghdad? Is this some kind of brinkmanship the U.S. is playing with Turkey? Could the U.S. be using the Kurds to provoke the Turks, only to promise to reign them in if the Turks finally offer troops, betting Ankara won't _really_ invade? If so, it's a dangerous bluff. The status of Kirkuk is, to put it mildly, delicate. Letting the Kurds fly their flag, while seemingly a small gesture, could have large consequences.
Scary story you’ve posted there Chris, makes me feel like dumb just got dumberer!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/webchat/webchat_iraq.shtml
My post is totally off topic I’m afraid, but I thought it would be of interest, Salam Pax was on Radio 4 (UK wide popular BBC run “Intelectual/Talk” radio station).
You should find a real audio feed at the above address, hit the “Listen” icon top right.
The programme has brought him to the attention of many UK residents who otherwise may not have heard of him.
I found it very interesting and great to hear the voice of the man at “the end of the keyboard”
Thanks again for your work & your site.
Juan Cole cites an AFP wire service story saying that “American troops in Kirkuk on Sunday night were pelted with stones by Kurdish protesters when they took back down flags of the Kurdish autonomy movement at the demand of local Arabs and Turkmen.”
Now that I follow the link in your post, I see that this was apparently the incident that led to the announcement today. (The CPA sure does flip-flop a lot, don’t they?)
And now there’s been a car bombing today against a U.S.-Kurdish target. Yikes.
I think most Kurds probably just want to live in peace. They’re less concerned with technically having their ‘own state’ than with making a living and having a healthy happy family.
I hope you will continue watching closely the Kurdish situation and reporting on it. Right now, my son-in-law is in Zakho, recently going there from Mosul, where he continues working with the U.S. military as an interpreter. My daughter leaves Nashville, TN within the month to visit him with my three grandsons…
That last post was me…I accidently cleared the fields… (oops)
I agree that the Kurds should not have their own state, besides all the drama it would initiate, I don’t think the Kurds are ready for it. They have to many internal problems that they have to deal with. The biggest problem for the Kurds is not learning to get along with other groups in the area, but rather learning to work together.
(I have been married to a Kurd for seven years, live in the most heavily Kurdish populated city in the United States, Nashville, and will be going to visit Kurdistan in a little over two weeks,God willing).
I will be sure to let you all know what is really up over there to the best of my ability.
I plan to journal my experience through photos, on film, and paper.
Eva, where will all this be published? I wish you luck and hope you have a safe trip. I, too, think that, while the Kurds would like to have their own state and that they do deserve it, most of htem are resigned to the fact that it is not going to happen. They just want to make sure they are free to live their lives in peace free of persecution. That is all most people want. I do agree that flying the flag is quite a powerful symbolism of nationalism that Turkey can’t ignore. The CPA has to tread lightly here. We need both the Kurds and Turkey as allies in the postwar period. It is always hard to satisfy two opposing sides with such deepfelt emotions. It is a dilemma, to be sure. Usually when you try, both sides get upset and you’re caught in between. Not a fun place to be. We don’t need this kind of distraction and recipe for unrest among allies. I’ll be watching this situation with anxiety, as I’m sure many more will.
The US doesn’t need Turkey as an ally, the Turks already have proven willing to take action that may result in American deaths. The Kurds are our real allies, and the US should re-examine its policy regarding the racist Republic of Turkey. Look at this analysis:
http://www.kurdmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1629
Kerkūk is Kurdistan.
Right now, the Americans are facing the same dilemma that the British had faced after the World War I, when, together with the French, they artificially divided the spoils of the Ottoman Empire into several states separated by fictitous boundaries (look at the Middle East map, and you’ll see they made good use of a straight ol’ ruler).
The problem with Iraq is that already, the Shiite make up 60-65% of the population, counting the Kurds in the Sunni camp. When you take the Kurds out of Iraq, the rest of the country suddenly becomes as Shiite as Iran.
Although Iraq is the birthplace of the Shiite Islam (remember that until the Safavids in 16th century, Iran was predominantly Sunni), throughout the Islamic history, the country has almost always been under Sunni rule, through the Abbasid, Seljukid, Zangid, Ayyubid, Aq-Qoyunlu, Mamluk, Ottoman, British mandate, Iraqi kingdom and Baath periods.
As far as the Sunni-Shia relations are concerned, we may well be experiencing a historical turning point, with revolutionary repercussions throughout the Muslim world.
I wonder if the strategists inside the Washington DC beltway are able to comprehend the magnitued of the dynamics, set in motion by the American invasion of Iraq, because they are neither reversible, nor stoppable.
I have a suggestion:
Why not make it a state, much like the consept of a state here in America, in the new United States of Iraq? Have seperate Shis, Sunni, and Kurdish states. Maybe even have a couple of them, if some of the factions cannot agree within themselves. Some secular and some religious, if that’s what you want. Draw up a constitution. That sort of thing.
Just my two cents…
Ah, if only it were that simple.
“Have seperate Shis, Sunni, and Kurdish states.”
It is called federalism. That is what the Kurds have been asking for for years. Maybe it would be good in Turkey as well, but the racist Turkish regime could never give up its military occupation of northern Kurdistan and the idea of having its beloved racist slogans scrawled on every building, town square, and beautiful mountain.
What about the indigenous Assyrian Christians of Mesopotamia (ancient day Assyria, present day Iraq)? Do they not deserve to have their very own state or region in their ancestral homeland?
Freedom, democracy and stability will only prevail if all ethnicities in Iraq are treated equally. Suppression of national rights of any ethnicity in Iraq will lead to more blood-shed and turmoil.
I really enjoyed reading this not only because it made me think but it cleared up a lot of ideas I all ready had spinning through in my mind. I share many of the same views and think more people should know the true facts. I think this is a great arguement and I respect your determination and will for wanting to go to back to Iraq, If you go to Iraq stop by Erbil, lots of people would like to here you outlook on things.