View Single Post
Old 10-21-2017   #11
Bill Moore
Council Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,989

First off we need to stop closing these threads, the history of these issues as they evolve are important. Kirkuk was a flash point in 2003 when we first went in, and has remained a flashpoint. The Kurds waited until they thought they had a position of advantage to claim it as sovereign ground. I have mixed feelings on the issue, I know Turkey (a NATO ally sort of), Iran, Syria, and Iraq are all opposed to an independent Kurdistan, and Kirkuk is essential to an independent Kurdistan's economic viability. However, with opposition on all sides to a landlocked country, how can they hope to survive if over flight into and out of is denied, and land lines of communication are closely monitored and controlled?

US strategy sees Raqa fall but leaves Kurds in lurch

The power shift shows that, while US leadership has kept a coalition together long enough to defeat the militants, the region's political future is far from secure.

And experts warn that Washington's bitter foe Iran is poised to take advantage while US friends like the Iraqi Kurds retreat under pressure from Baghdad and Ankara.
Much like the other results of our war with Iraq, there is nothing unfolding now that was not predicted by regional experts. The only surprise is it took this long to happen. While many of us wish the Kurds the best, those who know the Kurds also know they're divided, and a number of outside actors, Iran being one of them, will leverage these tensions to pursue their ends.
Bill Moore is offline   Reply With Quote