More Oil/More Problems
Kirkuk to Join Kurdistan Independence Referendum
show comments
  • FriendlyGoat

    Is this one of those cases like Brexit or recreational marijuana in certain USA states where voters can make messes by being allowed (or goaded) to vote on a less-than-fully-developed idea?

  • DiogenesDespairs

    I see no reason for anyone to support the Saddam Hussein Arabization of Kirkuk except for Baghdad, whose interest it would serve. The Kurds want independence, and they will fight for it, including in Kirkuk. The question is, how much stomach will Baghdad’s forces have for fighting the Kurds over it? They could be marshalled against ISIL, which was a m onstrous existential threat. But the Kurds are not a threat; it’s about the oil.

  • Rodney

    The Turks are faced with quite a dilemma. If Kurdestan becomes independent, Turkish Turks may well want to join them. On the other hand, another Sunni power in the region to counterbalance Iran, Syria and Shiite Iraq might be important to Turkish security.

  • WigWag

    Of course, Kirkuk is Kurdish. It should be part of an independent Kurdistan and the Arabs moved there by Saddam Hussein should be expelled. Mosul should also be included in an independent Kurdistan. The fact that Tillerson, Mattis, Kelly and the rest of the nincompoops now in charge of Trump’s foreign policy are taking exactly the same line on Kurdistan that the Obama Administration did is all the evidence we need that Trump is failing massively in the foreign policy arena. Guess what? Had Hillary been elected she would have adopted exactly the same policy.

    The swamp creatures won’t go quietly. Unfortunately.

    • Tom

      Of course, the possibility that a position of neutrality might help the US’s position in mediating the post-vote negotiations doesn’t exist…

  • Jonathan Dembo

    Get that: The real issue is oil money! Not the national rights of the Kurdish people? Not the correction of decades of “arabization” and even genocide by the Arab rulers of Iraq? It seems that, whenever Arabs are intent on committing ethnic cleansing, in Sudan, Syria, the West Bank, or Iraq, or seek to steal the lands of non-Arab people, or rape Swedish and German woman, or create no-go areas for non-Arabs and non-Muslims in European cities, or claim sovereignty in Israel where they never ruled, the business interests in the West suddenly start to count the money (or oil). At such times, like the present, there is this same rush to justify the Arab behavior, as a response to colonialization, or “Islamophobia”, terrorism, or Western interference. None of that will work here. The Kurds, being Muslim, cannot be accused of Islamophobia, which explains the mysterious absence of the Islamophobia charge, but the rest of the accusations are also false. The Kurds are a real people who deserve their own state. Kirkuk was historically a Kurdish city, like Kosovo was historically Serbian, like Judea and Samaria were historically Jewish, and like Kashmir was historically Indian. Anyone who thinks that this issue is really about oil had better solve the national problem of the Kurds, first, or there won’t be any oil for anyone from the region.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2018 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.