We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The inevitable fate of Iraq? There is an excellent article by Michael Totten, who is currently blogging from Iraq, about what quite a few people think is the inevitable end result: partition into three (or at least two) separate entities. It is interesting to see the facts on the ground seem to back up the view that we already have a de facto independent Kurdistan.
An Islamo-fascist Southern Iraq is not such a great outcome but an independent Kurdistan would seem to have much to commend it.
I really have no problem with that and wrote something on the subject myself called: to hell with nation building, lets see some nation wrecking!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Or, it could become a genuinely federal system (that is, unlike the US style strong central state).
The Kurds might like an independent homeland, but would they like to have to defend it solo against Turkey? I suspect they’ll stay in for the military backup if nothing else.
Of course, they could always invite the US to build a base or two. That would scare the Turks more than an integrated “Iraq,” and since the purpose of the war was most likely to set up such bases anyway…
Hold on a sec! That sounds pretty good, but before we went into Iraq wasn’t one of the big concerns that just such a move would destabilize the enitire region when Kurds from all the surrounding countries start agitating for independence so they could join their brethren in a united and independent Kurdistan?
Unfortunately an independent Kurdistan is out of the question, because it would immediately be conquered by Turkey. The best outcome for the Kurds is pretty much what they have already. As long as they are clearly a possession of the Evil Empire the Turks will leave them alone, and at least Clinton and Bush have given them a fair amount of autonomy.
Ha! Seem the left isn’t always wrong!
It would seem to me that the surest way to get the various Iraqi groups to agree on a united Iraq is for the West to call for a three state solution.
Ha! Seem the left isn’t always wrong!
Of course they’re not ALWAYS wrong, just usually. ;~)
Far from it… maybe 10 years ago that might have been true but now? Not a chance.
Putting down Kurdish resistance inside Kurdish Turkey is one thing but facing the Peshmerga inside wholely un-Turkish Iraq is quite another. Not only would they be a formidable foe (think Mujads vs. Soviets only in a part of the world people actually notice), the Kurds in Iraq have played the political game so well that they have utterly trumped the Turks… the US, not to mention just about everyone other that Iran (who cares) and Syria (who cares), will not just shrug their shoulders if the Turks started a war there (only the US gets to do that).
No, Turkey has lost game to the Iraqi Kurds game, set and match politically after they burned their bridges in Washington when they unexpectedly did not allow the US to invade Northern Iraq from Turkey. The Kurds on the other hand bent over backwards to be accommodating to Washington’s move against Saddam (the Peshmerga even rescued several downed US airmen during the war). Moreover by their actions the Turks thereby ensuring that it was Kurdish Peshmerga rather than US forces who actually moved into the post-Saddam power vacuum in Northern Iraq… how do you spell DOH! in Turkish?
And just to make it a perfect no-win for Turkey, Iraqi Kurdistan quite formidable militarily and it would be a nightmare to try and control a 100% hostile Iraqi Kurdistan (even the Arabs would go ape shit at the prospect on a militarily resurgent Turkey… which is not on the cards in any case).
No, Turkey is in fact totally sidelined due to some vary poor thinking on their part and some sublime political savvy on the part of the Kurds.
I’m not absolutely sure, Perry. I think if the Turks truly had the stomach for war against the Kurds (you’re right that they very likely may not; it would be no cakewalk), the Americans would probably clatter loudly against the Turks but not intervene in any meaningful way. Upon balance, I think the US would realise that dissolving the relationship with their most important ally in the region is a price too high to pay for Kurdistan.
I’m also sure that the Turks would bend over backwards to ensure that an invasion of Kurdistan gels with American interests.
The future relationship between an independent (Iraqi) Kurdistan and Turkey could be similar to that between Israel and Egypt. Both would be US allies and somewhat dependent on the US economically but neither would dare make a decisive move against the other for fear of angering the US.
Well, James, considering that the biggest blockbuster in Turkish film history was based on the premise that US Soldiers murder Turks in wedding parties and drag people off for organ removal by Jewish doctors, I am not sure that the Turkish populace would support waiting for an invasion to “gel with American interests” before responding to an independant Kurdistan.
As for the US risking out most important ally in the region: what good are they for the US today? They do not help against our current foes, and we do not need them as a staging ground for intermediate range missiles targeted at the USSR anymore.
As nice as Kurdistan might be, I would tell the Kurds not to count on our support. I prefer them to the Turks, but the Montagnards(Link) proove that the US will abandon trustworthy and brave allies if its politically expedient, much to our shame.
I disagree.
First of all, it isn’t just the US Turkey has to worry about, as has already been pointed out.
Secondly, becuase of this first reason, it’s about a bit more than just Turkey and Kurdistan for the US. A Turkish invasion could potentially destabilize the region in general – so the US has more of a stake in it than you think.
Finally, Iraq is now the US’s back yard in a sense. I don’t think Washington would take too kindly to anyone trampling all over the nation-building project they’ve set up – especially not someone who wouldn’t play ball the first time.
OK, but as has been pointed out, recent Turkish policy hasn’t been all that astute. But hypothetically – let’s say there’s a new, less emotional/religious government in Turkey and their steps are more measured. I’m still not really seeing what they could do to “bend over backward” that would make a Turkish invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan attractive for the US? I’m not saying they couldn’t necessarily – just that I don’t see it and am therefore skeptical (invitation to elaborate extended…).
I think Perry de Haviland and others are right in that it’s pointless to consider the fate of an independent Kurdistan because Kurdistan is not independent, and there’s basically no chance that it’s going to be.
Iraq isn’t really a country is it? Better devolve to entities that make sense to those who live there. Federations, confederations and cantonal systems are magic to the academic mind, those folk who never seem too savy or to take much account of reality.
Perhaps the nations have to be made of more of the same folk rather than synthetic diversity. Academe gets it wrong again, diversity may only lead to chaos.
The “let em all in” immigration fanatics want to deconstruct nations in Europe seeming never to learn the need for some cultural conectivity. Without a nation, you may just set your culture up for collapse into something far worse. The demise of the nation state is perhaps a little premature?
Nation building just may be best where there is a nation to build. So whats new about that? Meaningless federations and democracys are perhaps doomed ab initio.
Spontaneous orders are perhaps a little difficult to give space for in Iraq, but perhaps there is a need to try sensible partitions and just let go with a minimalist approach to nationeering.
Ho hum! The social engineers are just about to screw the pooch one more time and learn very little in the process.
Cultural connections are probably far more important than some idiotic notions of diversity if the intent is to make a living space that won’t tollerate terrorism.
Terrorists are against what ever it is they are against, but put them in charge after a successful insurgency and you find they really are incompetent, which might explain why they took to terror in the first place. The stupid really are, guess what, stupid. So don’t expect any of them to be able to run anything. Suicide bombers aren’t too good at life affirmation tasks such as pluralist governance.
The lack of tollerance and sensitivity to cartoons is symptomatic of dim minds. Perhaps, by the same token, mindless nationeering is just as misguided and equally lethal. Someone needs a dose of shrewdness and sheer chutzpa in guiding this mess in Iraq into somehting that might create an ordered outcome.
Nuff said. It won’t be easy.
As I have opined before, the likely result of the removal of the Ba’athist regime is the breakup of Iraq into three regions likely to be dominated by or absorbed into Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran – and behold, it is coming to pass.
Iraq is indeed not a natural country, since it was cobbled together for administrative expediency from three provinces of the defunct Ottoman Empire after WW1 – and it is these three provinces that make up the Kurdish, Shia and Sunni regions. Only a very strong Iraqi government – either foreign imposed or a domestic thugocracy – can hold the place together.
Partition of Iraq between SA, Turkey and Iran would not necessarily destabilise the Middle East. These three countries are in reality the dominant regional powers in any case. It is quite possible that the three way tension between Turkey, Iran and SA, even with the absorption of Iraq’s regions, would result in a balance of power and hence in a stable settlement in the region.
EG
Iraq was formed out of three provinces of the Ottoman empire. These provinces were about the same as the three parts Iraq is breaking up into now. We are still seeing the fall out from the first world war, where a large number of artificial states were formed out of the wreackage of the various empires.
Eric Sevula :
I am not sure the Turkish populace are always consulted or even considered regarding such matters. However, I am quite sure that the Turkish generals – the “power behind the throne” in Turkish politics – would go to great pains to maintain the alliance. Your short-termist outlook – “they aren’t much use to us right now” – is thankfully not shared by most strategic planners on both sides of the fence. Turkey is the largest, most stable and most pro-Western secular nation in the region. It is of great importance for both sides that a good relationship is maintained.
Joshua:
Obviously, Turkey ain’t gonna invade whilst America’s still occupying Iraq. Don’t you think that, for an independent Kurdistan to become a reality, a retreating (and most likely humbled) USA is a prerequisite? In such a climate, I’m certain that any move on Kurdistan by Turkey will be prefaced with a whisper in Uncle Sam’s ear – “don’t oppose us and you can still walk out of this with something”. What can Turkey offer? Preferential access to Kirkuk fields for American oil companies and a powerful pro-American influence within the EU are two boons for the USA that spring to mind.
Some misc points:
IIRC Turkey wanted to aid the US but some US politician said something stupid about the US ‘having their way with’ Turkey which made it impossible (in practical terms) for the Turkish government to be seen openly cooperating with Washington. Words count for a lot in that particular region and those words created a barrier that was impossible to surmount. Imagine Bush referring to Blair as ‘my bitch’ in a press conference, now multiply that by a hundred and you have some idea of how that was received.
But it’s important to remember that Kurds are a disparate amalgamation of different peoples (I think from a linguistic point of view Kurdish is a group of languages rather than a single language) and Kurdish national feeling is strong in the abstract but exceedingly hard to actualize. Kurds in Iraq have historically found it hard to get along with each other but have begun to really gel as a national group. (Largely due to the shared oppression under Saddam and by a kind of refugee melting pot effect that has dramatically increased the degree of mutual comprehension among Iraqi dialects of Kurdish for example).
Kurds in Turkey will most likely not want to ‘join’ Iraqi Kurdistan for lots of reasons. The appearance of a de facto Kurdish state may however embolden them in their struggle against the Turkish state (and that’s why Turkey would oppose the idea)
A couple of years ago, a conference was held at the university I teach at on the subject of Iraqi Kuridstan after Saddam (I had helped edit the English version of the conference materials). A government official or two even made the journey from Kurdistan to attend. There was a large Iraqi Kurdistan flag (and the first day the “Kurdish national anthem” was played and lots of talk about Kurdistan (meaning Iraqi Kurdistan Kurds outside of Iraq were mentioned only in passing and without much interest). There was no Iraqi flag or Iraqi national anthem. Reading/Listening to the papers, it was plainly obvious that the current plan for Iraqi Kurds is to continue to develop local autonomy and pretend to support the idea of a united Iraq until they don’t have to anymore and can get away with declaring independence. I asked some of the speakers privately if that was the case. The answers boiled down to ‘we can’t declare independence yet’ (the ‘yet’ was always there).
Well, OK, but that was sort of my point. Even though the US would probably like to give up the “occupier” role ASAP, there will be US bases in Iraq for many years to come. (It seems pretty obvious to me that that was the real point of the invasion all along – gaining a reliable – i.e. non-Saudi – foothold.) One could argue that some sort of massive distraction elsewhere would cause the US to pick up and 100% leave Iraq, but then we’re into serious fantasy (on the order of, say, North Korea all-out invading Japan or something equally nutty).
In response to the other question (of whether an independent Kurdish region is even possible as long as there are US troops in Iraq) – I don’t really know. It doesn’t seem so implausible to me, but I admit I can’t really spell out a scenario that would make it sound plausible to anyone else.
If Johnny Turk attacks a Fed of Kurdistan, would the Greeks attack from the West?
Kalimera.
I would suggest that if an independent Kurdistan were ever to be as good as a certainty, the situation in Iraq will have deteriorated to a point where US bases are neither feasible nor useful.
I’m with James Waterton on this. The Turkish military is the most important power in the country. They would not risk their relations with the US over the Kurds. The Turks are too frightened of the Russians to drop out of NATO and acting explicitly against US interests is dropping out of Nato de facto.
And yes, the Arabs would go mentalist at any hint that the Ottoman Empire was on the march again.
Certain elements within Turkey might want to intervene in the Middle East, but as ever (since Ataturk anyway) the Army will slap them down and keep Turkey on the straight and narrow.
As a matter of inconvenient fact, Iraq is not dissolving into three countries and there’s no real chance it will. A loose federation, sure, but not independent entities. The interesting thing about Kurdistan is how they’ve been able to reconcile Islam with civil government.
Some kind of rationale and evidence to back up your assertion would be appreciated, Robert.
Apologies – that wasn’t meant to sound condescending, but somehow it did. I’d still like to hear your reasoning, Robert.
Maybe. As I said, my instinct is that it could happen even with the US stationed there (though not, I guess, without tacit US approval) – but of course, my instinct does not an argument make.
What I have more trouble imagining is a situation where things in Iraq “will have deteriorated to a point where US bases are neither feasible nor useful.” That’s what I was asking for elaboration on. Sure – there are all kinds of highly unlikely doomsday scenarios where that would be true – but I don’t see it happening as part of the normal course of development of the Iraq situation. It wasn’t the conclusion of your counterfactual that I was taking issue with, it was rather the plausibility of the counterfactual itself.
It does not matter if there is officially an independent Kurdistan, but there already is one in reality. Turkey is not going to attack the Kurds in Iraq because contrary to what some seem to think, the Turkish military is not the all powerful institution in Turkey it once was and moreover thr Iraqi Kurds are far too savvy to openly provoke the Turks for quite some time yet.
It is neither within the power of the Turks nor the USA for that matter to stop a de facto independent Kurdistan, whatever fig leaf is used to manitain the fiction it does not exist. The Kurdish leadership has made it clear what it non-negotiable requirements are, it has a flag, a language, an army and borders that it controls: kid yourself all you like and point at the Terrible Turk but I think the facts suggest otherwise. Iraq is already a ‘canton confederation’ and Kurdistan is already a political, economic and military fact on the ground.
There is reference here to the moderating influence of the Turkish army.
Over the Christmas holidays I had an opportunity to pick the brain of a distant relative who grew up in Turkey and still visits.
After a couple hours of if/thens and some reading of other blogs and news reports, this is the picture that I have of Turkey’s future.
Turkey, both civil and military, is being on their best behavior while attempting to be granted admission to the EU.
The elected government, while superficially moderate, is quietly rather more hard line fundamentalist.
Since in 1517, the Ottoman Empire has been an Islamic state, the sultan was also the ‘Caliph of Islam’. From that time on, one of the many titles the sultan held was ‘Commander of the Faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe’. This is their ingrained heritage, the status quo.
The military so carefully engineered by Atatürk to remain secular has, of late, been quietly getting seeded with Islamic officers and is in the process of becoming an Islamic army.
The likelihood of a huge increasingly fundamentalist Islamic population being admitted to the EU is much slimmer after the cartoon jihad. Not entirely impossible, but obviously dangerous and less likely.
The Turks, like most (all?) of the Mideast, are very proud and will not let an insult (by their own definition) go unchallenged. Outright rejection by the EU would almost certainly provoke a completely open swing toward hard line fundamentalism.
The EU politicians and the Turkish government will continue to delay resolving the EU admission question. The EU will delay it because they can’t sell at home, and Turkey because they think that situation may yet change.
The U.S. alliance with Turkey has become superficial and is a matter of convenience that neither country will continue to count on in any serious way. If the EU deal collapses, it may well become untenable for Turkey to continue even this superficial alliance.
In summary, I think the legacy and legend of Atatürk is unraveling. I very much hope I am wrong and would like to be thoughtfully convinced of my mistake.
What this means regionally is, I’m afraid the greatest likelihood of success will be with Perry’s closing statement in the original post. “to hell with nation building, lets see some nation wrecking!”
If Turkey comes out of the closet as a hostile Islamic state, and Syria continues to provoke, and Iran attempts or succeeds in getting the bomb; then all bets are off. In the event of regional conflict, the easiest (if messiest) thing to do is let the borders find their natural locations, then lock them in with threats of assisting the defenders against aggressions.
A popular film in Turkey at the moment (in which one of Hollywood’s “big names” stars) is all about how the Americans raid a wedding in Iraq and kill lots of people.
The evil Americans burn the Turkish flag and an evil American Jewish doctor complains that the Americans have not taken enough prisoners (he wants live people so that their organs are fresher).
A noble Turk aided by a Kurd hunts down evil Americans……
It is all there – evil Americans, evil Jewish Doctor who wants his pound of flesh, even Kurds loving Turks.
Sadly the Turks (for all their great artistic works and courage as fighters) are not our friends. They were allies against Russia and communism generally – but they have not been friends of the West since they arrived in Christian Asia Minor (then a land of oak woods and black pork) in the 11th century A.D.
I may be wrong – perhaps most Turks have denouced the vile film I mention above.
But I think that is about as likely as Hollywood denoucing it.