|
Why American troops belong in Kurdistan
21.11.2007
By Lionel Beehner
|
|
|
|
November
21, 2007
ZAKHO, Kurdistan region 'Iraq', -- To shuttle
between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan as an American is
to feel both liked and loathed: Liked because you
are crossing a border separating the two most
pro-American people in the Muslim world, and loathed
because the United States hasn't done enough to
defuse the tension between the two sides. Should war
erupt, Washington could come to regret its hands-off
approach.
Let us be clear: A conflict on Iraq's northern front
would be disastrous for the United States, as it
could destabilize the one region in the country with
any modicum of stability. Moreover, Turkey would
become the first outside power to pick apart at the
carcass Iraq has become. Good chances Iran would be
next.
The cross-border tension stems from the presence on
Iraqi Kurdish soil of Turkey's Kurdistan Workers
Party (PKK) forces, who have killed dozens of
Turkish soldiers in recent weeks, and the
unwillingness of the regional government to uproot
them.
The PKK is a fringe group of Kurdish guerrillas who
have waged a decades-long campaign for greater
independence. It is hunkered down along the border
between Turkey and Iraq. Most of the region's Kurds
condemn the group's violent tactics.
The U.S. position
President Bush might be confused by the unusual
predicament of being caught between two U.S. allies.
Fearful of angering either side, he prefers to
simply call the PKK terrorists, share more
intelligence with Turkey and hope the problem will
go away. Trouble is, it won't, not without outside
(read: American) support. To paraphrase what Qubad
Talabani, Kurdistan's representative to the United
States, recently told the Chicago Tribune: It takes
three to tango. www.ekurd.net
Yet the president is reluctant to shift troops from
the rest of Iraq. My question is: Why not? Kurdistan
is the one place in Iraq where U.S. troops would be
greeted with flowers and sweets. When I told a
Kurdish barber in the border town of Zakho that I
was from New York, he practically hugged me. Plus,
there is talk of "redeploying" an over-the-horizon
U.S. force in Kurdistan anyway, once things in
Baghdad settle down. Why not move troops in sooner,
as some prominent foreign policy thinkers, including
Richard Holbrooke, have advocated? The dual presence
of U.S. and Kurdish peshmerga forces might ward off
an invasion by Turkey and help the Kurdish
government uproot the PKK.
Sure, it would be a stalemate solution, but that
appears to be what both sides want. PKK leaders have
hinted they are interested in a truce. They even
released eight Turkish soldiers taken hostage as a
goodwill gesture. And the Turks appear gun-shy, not
only for fear of jeopardizing U.S.-Turkish relations
(which aren't that good anyway) or scotching their
chances of European Union accession (ditto), but
also of failing to knock out the PKK. The jagged
peaks of the Qandil Mountains are not exactly the
beaches of Normandy. Previous attempts by Turkey to
root out the PKK rebels there have failed.
The Kirkuk challenge
Contrary to the wishes of Washington, cross-border
tensions are not likely to de-escalate anytime soon,
especially with a referendum approaching on the
future status of Kirkuk, an oil-rich city many Kurds
affectionately call "their Jerusalem." Turks fear a
Kurdish-controlled Kirkuk could be the spark that
sets in motion an irreversible course toward greater
independence. If Kirkuk fell to the Kurds, U.S.
troops up north could help keep the peace.
Of course, the argument against moving U.S. soldiers
to Kurdistan is that they're needed elsewhere — not
to mention political pressure at home for a drawdown
of some sort. But U.S. troops based here would
literally be on safer ground, not engaged in combat
missions. The move would also signal a U.S.
commitment to solidifying Kurdish democratic
achievements, yet short of offering nationhood.
But why should Americans care about Kurdistan?
Because without peace there, our experiment with
democracy-promotion in the Middle East is a bust.
Likewise, without U.S. support, whether moral or
military, Iraqi Kurdistan is lost. It is surrounded
by nations hostile to the idea of greater
independence and fearful that their own Kurdish
minorities will rise up. www.ekurd.net
Kurdistan is a safe, moderate and
investment-friendly place with democratic
aspirations in the heart of the Middle East: Wasn't
that the aim of the Iraq war in the first place? If
so, then it's worth putting U.S. troops there. With
Turkey breathing down the Kurds' necks, better
sooner rather than later.
Lionel Beehner is a freelance writer based in New
York and former staff writer for the Council on
Foreign Relations.
blogs.usatoday com
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 