The Iraqi Kurds, the MEK, PJAK and Iran
Don't the Kurds provide sanctuary and support to the MEK, PKK/Kongra Gel, and Ansar al Sunnah? I believe all three of these groups are on the US FTO list. If we are truly serious about the GWOT, how about we ask the Kurds to hand these folks over? Even better, in an effort to gain increased influence with the Turks and Iranians, how about we turn them over to those nations for prosecution?
BTW - didnt Barazani assist Saddam against Talabani during the 90s?
MEK was a Saddam-supported entity; the KDP/PUK never "provided sanctuary and support" to that organization. What remains of them are in areas under US control. On our own side, there has been a bit of a moral debate over the potential for exploiting them against Iran for our own benefit. I believe there is a discussion somewhere on SWC on this issue....Originally Posted by Strickland
PKK/Kongra Gel et al primarily operate out of the heavily mountainous tri-border (Turkey-Iraq-Iran) area. This is an ideal guerrilla sanctuary and has been used as such by Kurds for centuries. There is much else to occupy the nascent Kurdish governing authorities besides hunting down fellow Kurds at the behest of the Turks - for whom no love is lost by Kurds anywhere. Although elements within the Iraqi Kurdish population may support the Turkish Kurds, they KRG does not - but they also do not make any real attempt to detect, deter or prevent militant Turkish Kurds from using Iraqi territory.
The Kurds actively assisted US forces in rolling up Ansar al-Sunnah elements at the beginning of OIF. There wasn't much of them to begin with, and it is highly unlikely that the Iraqi Kurds will stand for an operational re-emergence of that group in Kurdish areas.
Finally, Barzani didn't "assist" Saddam against Talabani - he requested Saddam's assistance in the middle of the civil war between the two Kurdish parties shortly after the PUK began receiving operational assistance from Iran. That incident was a disaster for the Kurds, resulting in the pullout of all USAID OFDA/DART teams from northern Iraq along with the multi-national MCC - with a comcomitant loss of NGO assistance to the rebuilding of Iraqi Kurdistan. Significant lessons learned on all sides.
Excellent response.
So are we going to give other nations/groups a similar pass on the presence of groups identified as FTOs? Regardless of what the Kurdish priorities may be at the present, there is still a LARGE presence of PKK/Kongra Gel militants in the vicinity of Mout Qandhil. In addition, there continue to be elements of MEK and Ansar al Sunnah in the Kurdish regions as well. Are we going to give the Pakis and Afghanis a similar pass when it comes to locating and capturing groups identified as FTOs? Are we going to give the Colombians a similar pass in tracking down the FARC?
We get all over the Syrians and even the Lebanese for the presence of extremist groups, though in the case of Lebanon, Hizb allah has been democratically elected, yet we say nothing to the Kurds. I think the average American would not want US dollars going to groups that are on the FTO list.
It just seems as if we hold the Kurds up as a bright shining example of the "possible" in Iraq, when in fact, they harbor groups we have identified as FTOs. Are we in a war on terror or not?
Last edited by Strickland; 12-03-2006 at 09:26 PM. Reason: additional info
Didn't I just reply to this?
I would argue that we already do give these countries "a pass", in the context I believe to which you are referring. Pakistan certainly stands out, a review of key figures in Afghanistan both regionally and nationally will illustrate many operating on at least a temporary "pass", and as for Columbia, more so than the FARC, we are giving them a "pass" on the right-wing paramilitaries.
In some aspects, the "passes" are gross errors of policy judgment, in other cases they are viewed as expedient temporary oversights that permit continued application of pol-mil pressures in higher priority areas. Sometimes these oversights are necessary to preserve a precarious balance of stability until effective alternatives and/or countermeasures are in place.
Selective application of moral righteousness is a long-standing aspect of foreign policy.
However, I believe you are going a bit far in your analogies. The last part of your statement would have one believe that US aid dollars to the Kurds are being further funneled to terrorist organizations in a form of policy-directed state-sponsored terrorism. That is utterly and completely false - but it is certainly along the lines of what the government of Turkey is continually disseminating in its long-standing strident propaganda campaign against the KRG.
As I stated in my first post, far more than the Kurds, it is the US that is responsible for what little cohesive bits of the MEK remain in Iraq. I already stated why, and that little moral dilemma is something that has received extremely little coverage by any media source.
Despite the weaknesses and faults of the KRG, in contrast to the rest of the country they certainly are a "bright shining example of the possible". Hell, go spend a week each in Baghdad and Basra, then do the same in Suleymaniyah, Irbil and Dohuk. The experience will be enlightening.
And, for emphasis, the KRG is not "harboring" any of these groups, as in the nature of actively providing support and refuge as a matter of policy. The closest to that characterization would be the Kurdish militants from Turkey - and I already attempted to clarify the difference between popular support (as many in the US supported the IRA for years) and official (open or clandestine) support provided by the KRG. The former does exist (strongly in some places - take Boston to further my analogy), the latter does not.
...with regard to the MEK:
The Jamestown Foundation, 9 Feb 06:
Bulgarians to Dismantle Iranian Terrorist Group MKO in Iraq
CRS, 1 Nov 06: Iran: US Concerns and Policy Responses...It has now been confirmed that Bulgarian troops will assume control of the formerly-armed Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MKO) organization's Ashraf camp. This move likely constitutes the final stage of removing the MKO from Iraq, a process that began with the U.S. bombing of the organization's bases in April 2003....
...This will be the first time that non-U.S. soldiers have been involved in dealing with the MKO in Iraq. Interestingly, the Bulgarians' primary task is to ensure security "inside" the camp. There is little doubt this signifies a major development relating to the status of the MKO in the near future, with the camp's complete dismantlement within 12 months a distinct possibility. After all, this is the first time coalition troops have been deployed inside Ashraf. Previously, U.S. forces have been stationed immediately outside the camp and rarely interfere in the daily routine of its inhabitants. ...
...U.S. forces attacked PMOI military installations in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom and negotiated a ceasefire with PMOI military elements in Iraq, requiring the approximately 4,000 PMOI fighters to remain confined to their Ashraf camp near the border with Iran. Its weaponry is in storage, guarded by U.S. and now Bulgarian military personnel.
Press reports say that some Administration officials want the group removed from the FTO list and want a U.S. alliance with it against the Tehran regime. Then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice stated in November 2003 that the United States unambiguously considers the group as a terrorist organization. However, the debate over the group was renewed with the U.S. decision in July 2004 to grant the Ashraf detainees “protected persons” status under the 4th Geneva Convention, meaning they will not be extradited to Tehran or forcibly expelled as long as U.S. forces remain in Iraq. At the same time, some Iraqi leaders from pro-Iranian factions, including Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, have said that the group might be expelled from Iraq by early 2007....
Mek
I wish I could report that either of those reports were entirely correct. Regardless of the initial "plans" or intent, the MEK remains under US "custody." While they no longer have protected person status, they remain guarded by US troops in Iraq.
The Jamestown Foundation's Terrorism Monitor, 12 Apr 07:
Turkey's Coming Offensive Against the Iraqi-based PKK
...Turkey and Iran have quietly worked out a reciprocal security arrangement, whereby Iran's military will engage Kurdish separatists whenever encountered, in exchange for Turkey's cooperation against the Iranian Mujahideen-e-Khalq movement (MEK), a well-armed and cult-like opposition group that previously found refuge in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Both Iranian officials and Turkey's prime minister have alluded to "mechanisms" (likely to involve intelligence-sharing) already in place to deal with security issues of mutual interest. Neither Turkey nor Iran has any desire to see an independent Kurdish state established in northern Iraq.....
'Turkey mainly, Iraq and the Kurds: a merged thread
Moderator's Note
The title of this thread was 'Turkish Officials: Troops Enter Iraq' and covered now historical events. There are several, smaller threads on Turkey and the Kurds, both within Turkey and in Iraq, which shortly will be merged into this thread. The thread has been re-titled 'Turkey, Iraq and the Kurds: a merged thread'.
Jamestown Foundation - Kurdish Peshmerga reinforce Turkish border.
...
Following the announcement of the proposed Turkish military plan against PKK installations in northern Iraq, witnesses also reported that two Turkish aircraft penetrated Iraqi airspace for about 10 minutes when they flew over Kista, a village near the Iraqi-Turkish border (Azzam, April 16). The Turks are not only putting a military squeeze on Iraqi Kurdistan, but are restricting trade along the Khabour Crossing, a vital trade link for the Kurds, to ratchet up the pressure. Turkish Minister of Foreign Trade Kursad Tuzmen said that Turkish trucks carrying material into Iraq will no longer use the Khabour Gate, whose collection tolls are a major source of revenue for the Kurdish government, and instead will start using the border gate with Syria to transport material into Iraqi territory (al-Bayyna al-Jadidah, April 15). The Turkish military also positioned about 50 tanks along the Turkish side of the Khabour checkpoint. If the Turkish blockade along the Khabour Gate continues, the Kurds will lose a significant source of income and influence. This will likely have a stronger effect in influencing Kurdish actions and rhetoric regarding the PKK ...
Last edited by davidbfpo; 01-13-2012 at 08:11 PM. Reason: Add Mod's Note prior to work
Turkish Officials: Troops Enter Iraq
6 June AP - Turkish Officials: Troops Enter Iraq.
Several thousand Turkish troops crossed into northern Iraq early Wednesday to chase Kurdish guerrillas who operate from bases there, Turkish security officials told The Associated Press.
Two senior security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said the raid was limited in scope and that it did not constitute the kind of large incursion that Turkish leaders have been discussing in recent weeks.
"It is not a major offensive and the number of troops is not in the tens of thousands," one of the officials told the AP by telephone. The official is based in southeast Turkey, where the military has been battling separatist Kurdish rebels since they took up arms in 1984.
The U.S. military said it could not confirm the reports but was "very concerned."
The last major Turkish incursion into northern Iraq was in 1997, when about 50,000 troops were sent to the region...
This cannot be good...
... tie this into the small altercation yesterday between Prime minsiter Maliki and President Hashemi (a Sunni) who said (believeing he had been accused of cooperating with insurgents) 'Maybe I should quit' or something to that effect ... would this incursion coupled along with the stagnation in the government be a reason for the KDP/PUK to consider taking their three trained Iraqi Army Divisions, reform the Peshmerga and declare a Kurdish state?
Last edited by Abu Buckwheat; 06-06-2007 at 05:16 PM. Reason: Latent stupidity
Putting Foot to Al Qaeda Ass Since 1993
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Tariq al-Hashimi is a Sunni Arab from the Iraqi Islamic Party, not a Kurd from the north.
I agree that this is not good. I think everything, including Kurdish response, depends on the size and actions of this force, especially how long they intend to stay.
Belay my last... you are correct. Can't tell players without a score card ... I really gotta stop posting in my sleep because I thought it was talibani he got into it with but hey, its night over here ya know.
Putting Foot to Al Qaeda Ass Since 1993
Seems it was just another of their usual small SOF raids against the PKK.
Jabar Yawir, deputy minister for Peshmerga Affairs in Kurdistan, said: "This afternoon 10 Turkish helicopters landed in a village in Mazouri, which is ... 3 km (2 miles) inside the Iraqi border. They landed with around 150 Turkish special forces."
"After two hours they left and there were no confrontations with the PKK," he told Reuters. He said the village was in a PKK-controlled area.
Putting Foot to Al Qaeda Ass Since 1993
Turkey Rattles Its Sabers at Militant Kurds in Iraq
8 June NY Times - Turkey Rattles Its Sabers at Militant Kurds in Iraq by Sabrina Tavernise.
Turkey is stepping up its presence along its border with Iraq to levels not seen in years in an effort to root out Kurdish separatist guerrillas who take refuge in northern Iraq...
And while reports this week of a large Turkish military push into Iraq seem to be untrue, the army is acting with greater urgency here in the southeast, home to a large part of the Kurdish minority, which accounts for one-fifth of Turkey’s population.
On Wednesday the military announced that it was establishing “security zones” in three districts, including Sirnak, east of here, a step reminiscent of emergency rule imposed on this area until 2002 in an effort to destroy a militant group of Kurdish separatists...
A New Danger in Iraq
8 June NY Times editorial - A New Danger in Iraq.
Absolutely the last thing Iraq needs right now is to have thousands of Turkish troops pour across the border into the country’s one relatively peaceful region — the Kurdish-administered northeast. Turkey’s government needs to know that it will reap nothing but disaster if that happens...
Turkey does have a real problem. Guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or the P.K.K., have been striking into Turkey from their bases in Iraqi Kurdistan with growing impunity and effect, using plastic explosives, mines and arms that are readily accessible in Iraq.
These strikes have roused powerful passions in Turkey, stoked by generals eager to regain their primacy over the civilian government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which military leaders loathe for its roots in Islamic politics. So far, Turkish forces have occasionally chased P.K.K. rebels into Iraq, but they have always withdrawn.
Turkey’s feud with the P.K.K. is inextricably tied to other conflicts and rivalries inside Iraq. The most directly relevant is the tug of war between the Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens over the oil-rich region of Kirkuk. Ankara’s fear of fears is that a quasi-independent, Kurdish statelet on its borders could embolden Turkey’s 15 million-strong Kurdish minority to demand autonomy or independence...
Is anyone looking into the possibility that these latest PKK activities might really be the work of poseurs? Why could this not be the work of agents provacateurs who are acting like PKK terrorists in order to stir the pot in the region and distract the Coalition from continuing to do other things further south that may be on the verge of being successful?
Among other things that make me ask this question are the following.
--Have not allegations been made about clandestine Turkish-Iranian cooperation to deal with what each perceives as the "problem" of their Kurdish minorities, especially in light of the improved status of the Kurds in northern Iraq?
--If, as some allege, the Iranians are in fact stirring up the Shi'a-Sunni violence in the south, why would they not be employing a similar tactic between Kurds and Turks up north?
Getting answers to questions like these would be part of my priority intelligence requirements were I in charge of trying to achieve peace and stability in the region.
The Turks have also been having something of a governmental crisis if memory serves. The timing of this is a bit interesting.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
The conflicts between Turkey and the PKK have been going on since the 80's. There's no doubt in my mind that the Kurds want their own country and with 14 million Kurds living in Turkey ... they probably want to 'secede' a section of Turkey and join their brethrens in Kurdistan.
In Turkey, where the government has long attempted to suppress Kurdish culture, fighting erupted in the mid-1980s, mainly in SE Turkey, between government forces and guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which was established in 1984. The PKK has also engaged in terrorist attacks. In 1992 the Turkish government again mounted a concerted attack on its Kurdish minority, killing more than 20,000 and creating about two million refugees. In 1995, Turkey waged a military campaign against PKK base camps in northern Iraq, and in 1999 it captured the guerrillas' leader, Abdullah Ocalan, who was subsequently condemned to death. Some 23,000–30,000 people are thought to have died in the 15-year war. The legal People's Democracy party is now the principal civilian voice of Kurdish nationalism in Turkey. The PKK announced in Feb., 2000, that they would end their attacks, but the arrest the same month of the Kurdish mayors of Diyarbakir and other towns on charges of aiding the rebels threatened to revive the unrest. Reforms passed in 2002 and 2003 to facilitate Turkish entrance in the European Union included ending bans on private education in Kurdish and on giving children Kurdish names; also, emergency rule in SE Turkey was ended. However, in 2004, following Turkish actions against it, the PKK—renamed Kongra-Gel (the Kurdistan People's Congress—announced that it would end the cease-fire and resumed its attacks. In 2006 there was renewed fighting with Kurdish rebels and outbreaks of civil unrest involving Kurds; an offshoot of the PKK also mounted bomb attacks in a number of Turkish cities. In Sept., 2006, however, the PKK unilaterally declared a cease-fire.
Last edited by Firestaller; 06-09-2007 at 08:32 PM.
In the past there have been allegations that military units of neighboring countries posed as PKK and attacked civilians in SW Turkey. I worked in Kurdistan for a couple of years in the mid-1990's, and found at least one such allegation credible.
Cheers,
Joe
Kurdish Rebels Declare Cease-Fire in Turkey
13 June AP - Kurdish Rebels Declare Cease-Fire in Turkey by Selcan Hacaoglu.
Kurdish separatist rebels declared a "unilateral cease-fire" Tuesday in attacks against Turkey and said they were ready for peace negotiations, but the group maintained the right to defend itself.
The statement came as the Turkish military has been building up its forces along the border with Iraq, threatening to stage a major incursion to pursue Kurdish rebels at their bases. Such an operation could ignite a wider conflict involving Iraqi Kurds and draw in the United States...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks