Massoud Barzani, the effective political leader of the autonomous Kurdish population in Iraq, has said that the Kurds will fight for the (oil rich) city of Kirkuk, if necessary.
Basically, this is sort of a microcosm of the big picture in Iraq. Sunnis are the principal “insurgents” for two reasons: (1) they know that the Shia majority will not only invoke pay-back for the abuses of the Saddam regime, but will cut them out of their heretofore privileged position in the pecking order, and (2) the “foreign fighters” (imported terrorists) are generally Sunnis– and, since they are indeed A.Q. allies and affiliates– frequently Saudi. Shia are generally battling for one reason: as the majority, since we purport to value “democracy”, whoever controls the Shia can control Iraq. Of course, thugs like Baby Sadr also like controlling religious toll-collecting operations like the Imam Ali Mosque.
Kurds are NOT insurgents, and are our best buddies, because they (1) already have autonomy under our protection, and (2) look to improve their lot in reward for being our buddies, and improving their lot means control of Kirkuk and some oil. The Turkmen are concentrated around Kirkuk, and want a piece of that action too. These are the big four groups… all jostling for control of the same thing…
So, whether it was about the oil or not for us to invade, it sure as hell IS about the oil as far as the locals are concerned. And we really have no good way of dealing with them– and if we don’t, the Kurdish Pashmurga are pretty damned well armed. As such, if the Kurds perceive their bread as no longer buttered playing ball with Washington (and Ankara), they are in a position to make a military play, and probably hold it– putting us in an untenable position of having to do battle with Kurds ourselves.
This (all out civil war) possibility was, certainly, one of the scenarios envisioned in a recent Pentagon prognostication of Iraq. I’m just trying to figure out how any other result is even possible, at this point.
tdog
Recent Comments