Kurds Want US Protection - But Who From?

There's a report out today which is gathering some interest from the usual rightwing suspects. In it, the Kurdish representative to the US is reported to have said “we Kurds want guarantees we will be protected,” if the US decides to pull out of Iraq.

The Kurds in Iraq are afraid they will again be left in a lurch if American troops are forced to leave next year, the Kurdistan representative to the United States said Thursday.

If the U.S. leaves early and does not protect the Kurds, it will be the third time in a little more than three decades the ethnic group will have been betrayed by the United States, Qubad Jalal Talabany said during an afternoon sit-down interview with the Herald/Review.
...After the first Gulf War against Iraq in the early 1990s, “we believed (President George) Bush senior,” Talabany said. When the current President George H.W. Bush’s father called for Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein and promised support, the Kurds and Shiites in southern Iraq did, only to see the United States turn its back.

...“We didn’t trust the United States after that,” Talabany said.

But with the full commitment of American forces finally toppling Hussein in 2003, Kurds once again were willing to take a chance on America.

If the United States decides to pull out before the job is done, “we Kurds want guarantees we will be protected,” he said.

All of Iraq is watching the current debate in the U.S. Congress over supplemental bills to pay for America’s work in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that would include a pullout next year. If such a bill is finalized, President George H. Bush has said he will veto it.

Now first of all, it was dumb of the Kurds to trust Bush Senior. He never did give a flying fig about their freedom, he was only interested in giving Saddam some internal problems to pursue post-Gulf War.

However, what the usual suspects are using this article to bolster is the idea that the Democrats' plan to put an end-date on the ocuupation of Iraq will be a further betrayal of the Kurds, leaving them to the dubious mercies of Al Qaeda and an Iraqi army which is infested by Shiite militamen.

Rubbish. Kurdistan is the quietest of all the Iraqi regions despite the lowest occupation force ratio. The local Kurdish militia are quite capable of throwing out Al Qaeda and even an Iraqi army which has been purposefully kept denuded of heavy equipment by the US. Indeed, the situation for the Kurds just got even more stable, as the Iraqi government have agreed to relocate Arab incomers settled by Saddam in their one real trouble spot, Kirkuk.

So what could the Kurds want the US to guarantee protection from? According to the Washington Times on Friday, the answer is NATO ally Turkey.

The PKK is a Kurdish terrorist group that has killed some 30,000 Turks (including more than 50 diplomats) since 1990. The PKK wants to carve a Kurdish state out of the dry reaches of eastern Turkey.

Their private war has nothing to do with the Iraq war, but the Turkish response could fatally undermine American efforts there. The Turks invaded northern Iraq in Saddam's time, driving some 50 kilometers into Iraq to overrun safe havens and kill terrorists, Egemen Bagis, an adviser to the Turkish prime minister told me.

They could do it again. Turkish troop movements to the border region have been increasing in the past few weeks.

...If the Turks do cross into democratic Iraq, U.S. relations with Ankara could hit a new low. And Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, is a Kurd. His son Qubad represents the northern Kurdish region in Washington. So, Iraq would feel compelled to respond. In the worst-case scenario, that could send Iraq to war with the second-largest army in NATO. By treaty and presence, America would be on both sides.

The PKK has a membership in the tens of thousands and the sympathy if not outright loyalty of much of the Kurdish political leadership. They are all very aware that if Turkey launches a full-scale combined arms attack across the border they will do so in a style and with tactics reminiscent of the Israeli attack into Lebanon last Summer which the Bush administration stood by and encouraged.

This is what the Kurds really want protection from - protection from a strike against well organized and numerous terrorists protected and supported by a large segment of the population and the local political leadership. The usual rightwing suspects seem perfectly happy about the US extending that protection and unmindful of the double standard it represents.

Of course, I don't think Turkey should invade Kurdistan, even on this basis. The destabilizing drawbacks outweigh the benefits. I didn't think Israel was justified in invading Lebanon either, for the same reasons. The best protection the Kurds could have, and one in which the US should provide a hefty push and heartily co-operate, is ending the PKK's influence and campaign of terror. Then they would have a secure border with a friendly US allied nation. But the US should stay in Iraq to protect terrorists? Come on!