Slate's Bizbox
chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.

Kurd Sellout Watch, Day 39They went and took Kirkuk. Now what?

By Timothy Noah
Posted Thursday, April 10, 2003, at 8:28 PM ET

"The United States could still sell the Kurds out—indeed, it will likely have to sell the Kurds out—if the Kurds seize Kirkuk unilaterally….To keep the Turks out, American troops must move quickly to seize Kirkuk. If the Kurds beat them to it, war could still break out between Turkey and the Kurds. Under those circumstances, it would not be a sellout for the United States to tell the Kurds, 'Sorry, fellas, we aren't taking sides.'"

—"Kurd Sellout Watch, Day 32," April 3, 2003

The Kurds have seized Kirkuk, the oil-rich city they claim as the Kurdish Jerusalem. Chatterbox told them to stay out, lest Turkey make good on its promise to invade Iraqi Kurdistan under these very circumstances. But did they listen?

It isn't yet clear how hard the Pentagon, which has been using the Kurds as its proxy army in northern Iraq, tried to keep the Kurds out. (A press release issued today by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of Iraqi Kurdistan's two ruling factions, describes the seizing of Kirkuk as a "US-PUK operation" that was "dictated by military necessity.") But it's clear that the rest of the U.S. government wants the Kurds out. In today's White House press briefing, Ari Fleischer said flatly, "Kirkuk … will be under American control. At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said, "It's the firm U.S. position that no group should control Iraqi cities and oil fields," which probably states things too broadly. (We've left control of the cities in Iraqi Kurdistan to the Kurds for many years.)

The good news is that Turkey has not gone to war with the Kurds. For now, the Turks seem satisfied merely to send military observers to Kirkuk. Also, Jalal Talabani, leader of the PUK, said today, "I have ordered all the peshmerga to leave the city by tomorrow morning." According to Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, Secretary of State Colin Powell assured Turkey that if the Kurds don't leave Kirkuk of their own accord, "the 173rd paratroopers brigade will go to Kirkuk … and force out those who have entered."

The bad news is that the Kurds "have already appointed their own governor, and it appears clear they intend to remain in administrative control of the city," according to Patrick Cockburn in the April 11 Independent. (As Chatterbox writes this, it's April 11 in London.) The further bad news is an editorial on KurdishMedia.com headlined, "Kurds Must Not Move Out of Kirkuk, The Capital of Kurdistan." It says, "The question [to] the US is this: Why Turkey, one country that refused to help the US in the war against Iraq, should have any say in the future of Iraq?" That's a disturbingly good question.

What if Kurdish troops don't leave Kirkuk or, more likely, the Kurdish civilians now streaming into Kirkuk don't leave, and the Kurds maintain civil control? Chatterbox hadn't really thought this one through. He sees two options:

  1. We let the Kurds stay, tell the Turks we're reneging on our deal to keep the Kurds out of Kirkuk, and let them know that this is their punishment for keeping U.S. troops out of Turkey during the past month. (They can keep the $1 billion grant we just promised them.)
  2. We make the Kurds leave, reminding them that they no longer need worry about Saddam Hussein, that they'll finally enjoy some autonomy within the larger state of Iraq and that Kirkuk's oil wealth belongs to all of Iraq. (This last would be true even if we let the Kurds stay.)

The first option has strong emotional appeal, both because the Turks have behaved badly and because it would be nice, for once, to see someone besides the Kurds get screwed. Strategically, though, it's a pretty bad idea. Turkey is an important, if momentarily annoying, ally in the region and a secular democracy, which is hard to come by in that neighborhood. Also, it's bad policy to double-cross a NATO ally.

The second option makes good strategic sense. If the Kurds leave, the Turks will calm down, and we can focus on finishing the war and reconstructing Iraq. But it feels bad. The Kurds provided the only indigenous support to this war, and it doesn't seem very nice to make their reward the sacrifice of territory, especially since that sacrifice is being demanded by a third party whose conviction that its security is at risk may be unfounded.

Chatterbox can't decide which to choose.

Kurd Sellout Archive:
April 3, 2003: Day 32
March 26, 2003: Day 24
March 25, 2003: Day 23
March 23, 2003: Day 21
March 21, 2003: Day 19
March 20, 2003: Day 18
March 17, 2003: Day 15
March 14, 2003: Day 12
March 11, 2003: Day 9
March 6, 2003: Day 4
March 4, 2003: Day 2
March 3, 2003: "How Screwed Are the Kurds?"

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.
E-mail Timothy Noah at .
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

And I most definitely do not want us screwing the Kurds yet again. But I don't think a country's democratic process working against us (Turkey's of course) should call for some childish display of petulant punishment. Still, it isn't Turkey's "land" in the first place so why are we being so tippy toe? Ah, yes, it's the concept of an independent Kurdistan which so terrifies the Turks and one with a lot of oil money with which to further torment Turkey. Mainly by agitating the Kurds in Turkey. But this isn't that tough of an issue if we'd stop making stupid promises. Promise the Turks that there will be no independent Kurdistan as a result of this regime change and remind them that they've had no control over the land or the oil for a long time. As long as the oil money is going to Iraq and not Kurdistan, and as long as no independent Kurdish state exists, the Turks should just deal with it. And we should remind both our Turkish and Kurdish allies that in our new approach to problems between countries, we support the underdog. So if either of them attacks the other, they can expect us to join in opposing them. Oh and let the Turks keep the $1B in blood money we foolishly promised them.

--mikkyld

(To reply, click here)


Turkey has made clear all along its concern that Kurdish access to oil revenues would give the Kurds the wherewithal to form their own state. Kurdish occupation of Kirkuk they regarded as key to such access. Now, as long as US Special Forces are on the ground with the pesh merga the Kurds in Kirkuk can be said to be under American command. This saves face for the Turks, and as long as the Kurds do not do what the Turks are afraid of (use oil revenues to back the formation of an independent Kurdish state) the Kurdish presence in Kirkuk may cause irritation but needn't cause anything more. In any event, provided the Kurds do not do anything radical this is not an issue that needs to be finally settled this week, or maybe even this year.

--Zathras

(To reply, click here)


The Turks refused to help the coalition because the Bush Administration took a Kippling-esque tone and treated their government like naughty savage children. The Turks asserted their sovereignty, so Noah is just being patronizing here. If the US doesn't do something about the Kurdish occupation of Kirkuk, the Turks will have to, otherwise the world ends up with a situation that makes the Palestinian conflict look like a cakewalk. The Kurdish occupation of Kirkuk is the first step toward the creation of Kurdistan, which affects large chunks of territory in Turkey, Iraq and Iran. If Saddam had chemical weapons, you can be sure the Kurds will now. Turkey will be forced into military action to curb Kurdish nationalism. The US may be forced to act anyway, because Turkey is a NATO member. Turkey is also a second tier applicant to join the EU. Europe may become involved out of concern for its own security. This is what some of us were worried about and why we didn't want this war. The middle east is destabilizing and will spill out into Europe and Asia. Thanks a whole lot Uncle Sam.

--Populuxe

(To reply, click here)


Why wouldn't we take sides? What exactly have the Kurds done wrong? The Kurds deserve to get their lands back. The only reason that Kirkuk is not already full of Kurds is that Saddam pushed them out or killed them. If it results in an independent kurdistan-- well, is that so bad? The Turks wouldn't have anything to fear from an independent kurdistan in northern iraq if they hadn't been systemtically repressing their own kurds for so long. For once we should do the right thing if for no other reason then it is the right thing to do.

--sjpitts

(To reply, click here)

(4/11)

Washington Post