Zork posed the idea on the Russia/Syria thread and it makes sense to begin a new topic as changes on the ground accelerate in the Middle East. To recap recent events: 1. Kurds inhabit regions of Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. They would like their independence and a state of their own. 2. Kurds, particularly in Iraq, produce oil, but do not like the terms the Iraq government agreement provides for sharing revenue. 3. There are multiple factions of Kurds. Turkey does not get along with most of these factions, however the Kurds are illegally selling much of the oil to Turkey where the Turkish President's family operates a large transport/shipping industry. ISIS also is producing oil and laundering the oil through Turkey as well. Turkey denies this but Russia has provided indisputable evidence. 4. Turkey has sent troops and hardware into Iraq near Mosul, an area now occupied by ISIS. Most likely, Ergodan wants to protect his interests as the regional battles intensifies. 5. Iraq has demanded Turkey leave as they have violated Iraq's sovereignty. And now, Iraq is withdrawing the security agreement with the US and wants the US out. 6. Iraq will call on Russia to remove Turkey and fight ISIS. Question: Should the US intervene and reshape the boundaries defined by the British decades ago? Discussion: 1. What rights to their own country do the Kurds have? 2. Does the sovereignty of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria supercede the wishes of the Kurdish people? 3. Is it OK for the US to provide security for the Kurds to determine their own destiny and secede? If it is OK, then why was it not OK for Russia to the same for Crimea? No matter what, the situation is a mess and rapidly becoming worse. Your thoughts?
if it is good enough for the Palestinians then it is good enough for the Kurds. I don't know enough about it but given the tribal-ness of the region and the lack of success of Democracy then the place should be drawn up with separation of the people by religious faction and tribe as much as possible. Preferrably, just kidding I think, with huge walls in between the areas.(lots of "Escape from NYC" type regions) But seriously, Syria and Iraq should be able to give land to the Kurds(perhaps Turkey and Iran as well). They deserve it as much or more than any people due to the efforts of the Peshmerga. Maybe more from Iraq and less from Turkey as shown below with maybe even only about 1/3 of the total area, however for sure including the Erbil and Kirkuk areas to give them oil as a basic resources.
yes they probably should have their own country, however I'm not sure that Syria, Turkey, Iraq and even Iran are willing to give up any of that land. Isn't a lot of that land heavy into the oil thus you are taking away their revenue producing land. Thus I think in order to do so would probably be an act of war in which most of the middle east will all fight themselves.
with oil as low as it is and getting lower now might be the time. The Kurdish part of Iraq should have been set aside back when we had the chance. (should have been three provinces of greater Iraq) I realize it isn't going to happen. Nor do I have a say or a dog in the fight. It does seem as if the Kurds were good ally to the US even if we were not always good, or as good, back.(see lack of help from Saddam using Chem weapons on them in '92ish)
Ok, let's go with the premise that the Kurds should have their own state. Who decides the boundaries? 1. None of the 3 countries are going to give up part of their territory (and its resources) voluntarily. Negotiations will not be possible without force. 2. Russia is apparently going to side with Iraq and Syria. The US would be an advocate for the Kurds. 3. ISIS is in the middle. Everyone wants them completely out of the picture. 4. The Gulf States (Qatar, Kuwait, and the Saudis) want access to the European gas market. In order to take market share from Russia, they need regime change in Syria and a government willing to allow a pipeline through Syria into Turkey. This is why they continue to send jihadists to fight Assad. They also want Assad out to break up the current bridge between Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah. So with or without an agreement with the Kurds, they will continue to export instability into Syria until they get the regime change. So either we: A. get deeper involved and the risk of confrontation with Russia increases B. we stay out and Russia gains influences in the area and allies with Both Iran and Iraq C. Totally reverse policy, dump the Saudis, and ally with the Iranians and work out a mutual pact with Russia. The latter would be a win for Russia and a partial loss for the US but the first two could be disastrous beyond comprehension.
The big problem with dropping the Saudis (I forgot about this) is the petro dollar. If the Saudis decide to trade oil in other currencies, it would further hurt the dollars preeminence in the world. Hence we are politically tied to the hip of the most vial ideological strain of Islam in the world.
I believe the reports I have read , it was weeks ago, were to the effect that the Kurds were held back from attempting to free the Alleppo(sp?) area because it would have solidified the Kurdish territory if they gained a greater influence there. The US apparently backed that cessation of support for the Kurds in that area for something I can't recall. Meaning the current US Administration is not supporting the Kurds with respect to a Kurdistan, likely due to intense pressure from Turkey mostly, Syria and Iraq secondarily.
The US has been working with the Kurds. When the US military pulls out that doesn't mean we leave the Kurds exposed necessarily.
Tell that to the US military aids that are working with the Kurds. It isn't like the US government can be doing 2 things at once, right?
Of course, its not really about the Kurds. But by putting a human face on the Kurds, how they will be wiped out by the Turks, etc., the establishment pro-empire people, hope to gain support for our continual illegal occupation. What's really at stake? Its a long game. 1. Although China isn't a player in the war, their long-term plan is to unite Asia to Europe via the Middle East through a land-based trade corridor called the new silk road or OBOR (One belt one road). Iran is on board with this project as is Russia. The US never wants this to happen. Syria is one of the nodes the US would hope to control, and as such, would be disruptive to the project. 2. US allies (the corrupt Saudis and Emirates) wish to control the region and don't won't the Iranians to be the key player. 3. Syria has a working relationship with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Israelis want to defeat Hezbollah and annex southern Lebanon. The Kurds are just a pawn in all of this. For now, they serve as a proxy army for the US until their services are no longer needed.
I agree that countries in Europe and Asia should be left alone to build whatever trade routes and relationships they want. Any activity by the US gov to prevent that is a violation of the sovereignty of those nations. I also would not be surprised to hear that the US gov is using the Kurds for its own interests. However, the Us already has allies in Syria: Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Sorry, not sorry Kurds. - Trump On a call with Erdogan setup by Pompeo with the explicit purpose of telling Turkey to backoff their claim to put the Kurds "in ditches" (putting US soldiers at risk) Trump went off script. He agreed with Erdogan and committed to complete US withdrawal. Mattis knows the Kurds are about to be slaughtered.
I like how the Dems are all war mongers now. You don't care about the Kurds and never did. The Kurds have been fighting with Turkey, Iraq, and Syria forever. They will be fine. All these Deep State War Pigs aren't concerned with the Kurds. They are just mad they don't get to fight Assad along side Al Qaeda and ISIS anymore. By the way, there are multiple Kurdish groups. The media can talk out of both sides of their mouths because the US military supported one of them within a very narrow scope and was neutral to against the other. This is just career military men pissed off they don't get to wage war for now.
Leveraged the Kurds as the main fighting force to remove ISIS from Syria now leaving them for the Turks to slaughter? Is this seriously who we are as a nation? Jim Mattis left the Trump Admin over this.
What was our agreement with the Kurds? I thought it was to help the Kurds defeat ISIS with some of our troops and lots of equipment weaponry and training. I also thought Trump included a deadline, not open ended. Sad that so many former doves who have said over and over we can't be the world's police ( I bet I can find posts from the Haters saying just that ) now want our young men and women in harm's way simply because Trump wants to being them home. When should other countries in the area step up?
I have no idea but I doubt there was any agreement by them to become Turkish cannon fodder. The moment we put troops side by side on the ground with these troops, directed them to fight our ISIS battles, armed them, we became responsible for their fate. Walking away now under the guise of our own troop safety is BS. When was the last military casualty in Syria? You don't use then throw away your allies. As long as the US has troops amongst the Kurds there was no risk of a significant Turk attack.
We have given massive amounts of money weaponry and training, We have only 1,000 troops there. The mission was to stop ISIS, not because it was OUR battle .ISIS s not just an enemy of the USA
I do not know as much about this issue as perhaps I should. But what is being reported is that Turkey wants a safe zone along the border and a place to return Syrian refugees, There is also this. " ISLAMIC STATE CAPTIVES The White House statement appeared to hand over to Turkey responsibility for captured Islamic State fighters who are currently held in SDF facilities to the south of Turkey's initially proposed safe zone. "Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years," it said. The statement made pointed reference to Washington's European allies, saying many captured IS fighters came from those countries, which had resisted U.S. calls to take them back. "The United States will not hold them for what could be many years and great cost to the United States taxpayer," the White House said. In the first Turkish comment following the statement, Erdogan's spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said Turkey's "safe zone" plan was within the framework of Syria's territorial integrity. "The safe zone has two aims: to secure our borders by clearing away terrorist elements and to achieve the return of refugees in a safe way," Kalin wrote on Twitter." U.S. Pulls Troops From Northeast Syria Ahead of Turkish Attack
Notice "one or more" in the definition. You're trying to hard too find something to rage about. Get upset that we abandon allies to be slaughtered.
Wow no words But then I remember how you tried to defend yourself on cities having more murders than Guatemala. I am through trying to have a conversation.
The Kurds will work a deal with Assad. The Kurds in question live in Syria. Assad doesn't want incursions from the Turkish military in his country. This is a made up problem which is basically whining about having to leave a war zone. The people whining were involved starting the war in the first place. Trump is right on this one. Probably the most right he is on anything.
