In the region of Kirkuk in Iraq this morning, the Iraqi army and a great many Iranian backed Shiite militias moved into the territory controlled by the Kurdish forces, the peshmerga. This is a very bad development for those who hope for peace in the Middle East.
The Kurds are long term allies of the USA, and we owe them our support. The Iraqis are also our allies now, especially in the fight against ISIS. At the moment, the USA is not taking sides, since both sides are supposed to be our friends. Just as ISIS is crumbling to nothing, our two main allies in the fight are now fighting each other.
So is this neutral approach correct? I don't think so. The Kurds fought with American forces during the Iraq War. They were the only ground force that stood up to ISIS. The Iraqi army fled once ISIS attacked. President Obama gave essentially no help to the Kurds, but still they continued fighting ISIS with us. The Iraqis, however, have gotten into bed with Iran to the point that the Iranians pretty much control what Baghdad does. Some people even think that today's attack is Iranian payback to the USA for declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization. Even if Iraq is looked at as an independent regime, the Shiite militias are totally under the control of Iran. From the standpoint of the USA, it is much better for a free Kurdish state to exist rather than a region under military control by the Iranians.
In addition, there are about 30 million Kurds in the region. They stretch across Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Aren't they entitled to have their own state like all the other ethnic groups around the world? Nothing ties the Kurds to Iraq aside from some colonial decisions made by Britain and France 100 years ago. Even if a Kurdish state takes parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey as part of its formation, it will be a fair outcome that will empower this group.
An independent Kurdish state would likely side with the USA in any confrontation with Iran. I doubt we could say the same of Iraq.
The Kurds are long term allies of the USA, and we owe them our support. The Iraqis are also our allies now, especially in the fight against ISIS. At the moment, the USA is not taking sides, since both sides are supposed to be our friends. Just as ISIS is crumbling to nothing, our two main allies in the fight are now fighting each other.
So is this neutral approach correct? I don't think so. The Kurds fought with American forces during the Iraq War. They were the only ground force that stood up to ISIS. The Iraqi army fled once ISIS attacked. President Obama gave essentially no help to the Kurds, but still they continued fighting ISIS with us. The Iraqis, however, have gotten into bed with Iran to the point that the Iranians pretty much control what Baghdad does. Some people even think that today's attack is Iranian payback to the USA for declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization. Even if Iraq is looked at as an independent regime, the Shiite militias are totally under the control of Iran. From the standpoint of the USA, it is much better for a free Kurdish state to exist rather than a region under military control by the Iranians.
In addition, there are about 30 million Kurds in the region. They stretch across Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Aren't they entitled to have their own state like all the other ethnic groups around the world? Nothing ties the Kurds to Iraq aside from some colonial decisions made by Britain and France 100 years ago. Even if a Kurdish state takes parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey as part of its formation, it will be a fair outcome that will empower this group.
An independent Kurdish state would likely side with the USA in any confrontation with Iran. I doubt we could say the same of Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment