Iraq - Why Unrest Now?

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'm listening. The Kurds are Sunnis are they not, religiously speaking?

My understanding is that the Iraqi Kurds are not as tight with the Iranian ones?

I am probably way off base, but to me that's like saying an
Irish Catholic is the same as a Roman Catholic. I can think
of a few that would strongly disagree about being the same.
That's my interpretation.

With respect to the second part, I have to steal from Surgicalcric's
prior post: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

I have to disagree with the idea that the uprising is against
the USA. Timing makes no sense to me. If we hand over authority
June 30 I expect we would gradually reduce forces. They want us
gone now and using tactics which, unfortunately, have typically
caused us to leave conflicts in the past. We are in the way, we
are not the target. IMHO.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Probably not wrong there RL. But if they are handing over anything, why not wait and see what happens, then crank up the terrorism?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Probably not wrong there RL. But if they are handing over anything, why not wait and see what happens, then crank up the terrorism?

Because there are infidels to kill now. Why wait?

[Pandora]

Is the timing for ceasefire attempts also relevant in that this is Easter weekend?

This is the entire Stratfor briefing I was referring to earlier - FYI.

Pan-Kurdish Nationalism
March 19, 2004 1510 GMT

Summary

Kurds staged a rally in northern Iraq on March 18 to protest recent clashes between Syrian security forces and Kurds in northeastern Syria. After securing self-rule in Iraq, the Kurds are trying to act as a vanguard for their ethnic brethren beyond Iraq, beginning with Syria. This development is critical because it could hurt U.S. plans for Iraq and relations with Iran, Syria and Turkey as well.

Analysis

Thousands of Iraqi Kurds demonstrated March 18 in support of their fellow Kurds in Syria outside the building of the Kurdistan Regional Government Council of Ministers in As Sulaymaniyah. Clashes over the past week between Syrian forces and Kurds in the northeastern al-Hasakah governorate left 24 dead and 100 wounded.

With their quasi-independence secure, Iraqi Kurds have begun to be the vanguard of Kurdish rights across the Middle East. This move poses serious potential problems for the United States in Iraq, and in U.S. dealings with Damascus, Ankara and Tehran.

The Kurds are the world's largest ethnic group without a state. The vast majority live in a region that spans northern Iraq, southeastern Syria, northwestern Iran and southeastern Turkey.

This is not the first time the pan-Kurdish banner has been raised. What is different now is that they have entrenched themselves in Iraq.

The often rocky partnership between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), led by Massoud Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), led by Jalal Talabani, that was forged in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War has matured into a strong alliance in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. This is a huge difference from the not-so-distant past when rival Kurdish leaders were willing to fight to the death of the last Kurd in order to stake their claim as leaders of the nation.

The KDP-PUK partnership has even written Kurdish autonomy into the interim Iraqi constitution, the Transitional Administrative Law. This has been made possible by the U.S. intervention in Iraq, and Washington has not hesitated to use the Kurdish card as leverage against other states in the region -- in this case, Syria.

U.S. pressure on Syria has created a situation in which many Syrian groups opposed to Damascus become so emboldened as to begin acting against the state. One such group is Syria's ethnic Kurdish community. The recent unrest in the al-Hasakah region in northeastern Syria is a manifestation of the Kurds' increased confidence, which has been precipitated and augmented by Kurdish gains in Iraq.

Iraqi Kurds, particularly those from the geographically adjacent KDP, are now trying to take up the Kurd cause in Syria. In the short term, there is little danger of this spilling over beyond Syria. The Kurds are hyperaware of the delicate nature of their relationship with Turkey and Iran -- where anti-Kurd campaigns are carried out with relish -- and are equally cognizant that their chances of preserving their autonomy within Iraq are fully dependent upon the good graces of the United States.

But Kurdish efforts against Syria are likely to do nothing but intensify. The United States has worked with Turkey, Israel, Libya and Jordan to put Syria in a vise and will settle for nothing less than Damascus's complete capitulation. So long as the Kurds do not cause problems in Turkey, the United States will turn a blind eye to events in northeast Syria -- and might even assist with some intelligence assets.

This does not mean the Kurdish issue is one that Washington can control. Anything that empowers the Kurds makes the Sunnis and Shia of Iraq nervous at best, and Washington is well aware of what Tehran and Ankara think of Kurdish autonomy, much less independence. Washington also knows full well that while the Kurds are useful -- even loyal -- allies, the region's real powerbrokers remain Ankara and Tehran.

It is too early in the process to say where current Kurdish posturing will lead, but it is certain to complicate matters for the United States as it seeks to finalize the deal with the Shia in Iraq and Iran, force Syria to yield to its demands and placate Turkey -- where one-fifth of the population considers itself Kurdish.

NDD, you posted the question.

May I ask, what is your theory?

[NousDefionsDoc]

I'm not really sure. It looks to me to be positioning, with a few ancillary events thrown in.

In the case of Sadr's Shi'ites, I think that is simple criminality in protest of the arrest of his minion, the closing of the paper and Sadr's own potential arrest for the murder of the cleric. He appears to me to be nothing more than a young criminal hood in a Mullah's robes, but he has ties to hizbollah and Iran, so he must be dealt with.

Another thing that occurred to me is perhaps they have been given a glimpse of post 30 june and don't like it.

I'm a little frustrated because I don't know as much as about the area as I wish I did, and I can't seem to figure out what they are thinking. They seem to be fairly simple in their strategic approaches most of the time, then they throw in something that makes absolutely no sense to me.

The FARC do it as well.

Maybe its just stupidity. Or maybe it is simply a war of attrition as far as they are concerned like GH said. I can understand the Shi'ites, but not the Sunnis.

I have no doubt they are trying to force a US pull out-back by:
1. Barbaric incidents on tv in order to influence the will in the US.
2. Destroying the coalition by going after the weaker members in their own territories.

I think they will try something in the US in Sep/Oct in order to influence our elections, but I find it hard to believe they actually think it will work.

Very confusing mess.

[Solid]

According to you and Bard E. O'Neill, the clearest reason for these attacks, regardless of timeframe, is to provoke over-the-top and non-surgical responses from the governmental force, thereby alienating the population and forcing them onto the Insurgent's side.

The timing is slightly strange though, right?

Solid

[NousDefionsDoc]

Becareful with Mr. O'Neil, he's a little dated and doesn't seem to know the ME. Just my opinion.

yeah, that's a very frequent scenario, especially with a democratic government like the US as the target and the homefront divided. The Arabs ahve also used it against Israel, so that may be where part of it is coming from. Good thinking.

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

Very confusing mess.

On that I agree. There are a few events occuring that
make me wonder.

"On april 8: 1459 GMT - Iraq's interior minister said April 8 that he will resign his cabinet position. Nouri Badran, a Shi'i, told journalists in Baghdad that his decision is in keeping with the wishes of the U.S.-led coalition that wants a Sunni in the position. Badran said top U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer had told him that the coalition "cannot accept" an imbalance within the leadership. "The solution is for you to step down from your position,� Badran quoted Bremer as saying. The other security position, the defense ministry, is also led by a Shi'i. "

I have tried to follow who we selected for the Iraqi Governing
Council, but I can't keep all the players straight without a
chessboard. I think this resignation was part of the "ceasefire"
negotiation. Makes me wonder what else is being negotiated.
I haven't found any other information. What is it about
the composite of the IGC that is so disliked? Is it that
the US has not pushed one Iraq?

This was posted early Jan:

"..Ethnic Kurds have submitted a bill to Kurdish members of the Iraqi Governing Council pushing for the IGC to declare a federalized Iraq before the scheduled transfer of power begins in June. This push does not sit well with ethnic Turkmen and Sunni Arabs, who fear being incorporated within a larger Kurdish autonomous region and recently have begun to protest, at times violently..."

I can't find what happened to this proposal.

I think there is a lot more to this uprising and I fear it is deeper
rooted than a few radicals.

[Solid]

NDD: Thanks for the advice on O'Neill... It's hard to critique these experts without a larger reading base.

Why are they kidnapping Chinese nationals?

Solid

[ktek01]

Originally posted by Solid
According to you and Bard E. O'Neill, the clearest reason for these attacks, regardless of timeframe, is to provoke over-the-top and non-surgical responses from the governmental force, thereby alienating the population and forcing them onto the Insurgent's side.

The timing is slightly strange though, right?

Solid

Not really. The roads are flooded with pilgrims, the 7th was the anniversary of the formation of the bath party, the 8th was an Iraqi holiday "Iraqi Freedom Day", the 9th was the 1st anniversary of the toppling of sodamn insanes statue in Firdos Square, also from the 9th thru the 11th is the Shi'a Arbaeen Commemoration, which is why all those pilgrims are clogging the roads. Today of course was Easter. Lots of special dates all coming together, streets full of people making it difficult to engage without collateral damage. Lots of reasons to start now, and then you have June 30th and the US Election. They may have been emboldened by Spain's reaction to the Madrid bombings too.

[Solid]

Good call.

Originally posted by ktek01
Not really. The roads are flooded with pilgrims, the 7th was the anniversary of the formation of the bath party, the 8th was an Iraqi holiday "Iraqi Freedom Day", the 9th was the 1st anniversary of the toppling of sodamn insanes statue in Firdos Square, also from the 9th thru the 11th is the Shi'a Arbaeen Commemoration, which is why all those pilgrims are clogging the roads. Today of course was Easter. Lots of special dates all coming together, streets full of people making it difficult to engage without collateral damage. Lots of reasons to start now, and then you have June 30th and the US Election. They may have been emboldened by Spain's reaction to the Madrid bombings too.

Not sure if I agree, sort of, but for different reasons.
Dates make it convenient to shuttle in resistance from Iran and Syria under the guise of pilgrims.

Latest info from AP about Iran and Syria:

here

[ktek01]

Originally posted by ghuinness
Not sure if I agree, sort of, but for different reasons.
Dates make it convenient to shuttle in resistance from Iran and Syria under the guise of pilgrims.

Thats true, also makes it more difficult for coallition forces and private contractors to move around safely. The pilgrims slow them down, and makes it easier to hit them.