Kurds in N. Iraq Receive Arms From Bulgaria

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202297_pf.html

3 Planeloads of Munitions Worry Officials in Baghdad
By Ernesto Londoño

Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, November 23, 2008; A01

BAGHDAD -- Kurdish officials this fall took delivery of three planeloads of small arms and ammunition imported from Bulgaria, three U.S. military officials said, an acquisition that occurred outside the weapons procurement procedures of Iraq's central government.


The large quantity of weapons and the timing of the shipment alarmed U.S. officials, who have grown concerned about the prospect of an armed confrontation between Iraqi Kurds and the government at a time when the Kurds are attempting to expand their control over parts of northern Iraq.


The weapons arrived in the northern city of Sulaymaniyah in September on three C-130 cargo planes, according to the three officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.
Kurdish officials declined to answer questions about the shipments but released the following statement: "The Kurdistan Regional Government continues to be on the forefront of the war on terrorism in Iraq. With that continued threat, nothing in the constitution prevents the KRG from obtaining defense materials for its regional defense."


Iraq's ethnic Kurds maintain an autonomous region that comprises three of the country's 18 provinces. In recent months, the Shiite-led central government in Baghdad, which includes some Kurds in prominent positions, has accused Kurdish leaders of attempting to expand their territory by deploying their militia, known as pesh merga, to areas south of the autonomous region. Among other things, the Kurds and Iraq's government are at odds over control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, which lies outside the autonomous region, and over how Iraq's oil revenue ought to be distributed.


The Kurds of northern Iraq have run their affairs with increasing autonomy since 1991, when U.S. and British forces began enforcing a no-fly zone in northern Iraq to protect the region from President Saddam Hussein's military. The U.S.-led invasion in 2003 sparked concern that Iraqi Kurds would seek independence, but the Kurds have insisted that they wish to remain part of a federal Iraq.


Neighboring countries with large Kurdish minorities, including Turkey and Iran, have said they would oppose the emergence of an independent Kurdistan, as the autonomous region is known.


Iraq's interior minister, Jawad al-Bolani, said in an interview that central government officials did not authorize the purchase of weapons from Bulgaria. He said such an acquisition would constitute a "violation" of Iraqi law because only the Ministries of Interior and Defense are authorized to import weapons.


Experts on Iraq's constitution said the document does not clearly say whether provincial officials have the authority to import weapons. However, Iraqi and U.S. officials said the Ministries of Interior and Defense are the only entities authorized to import weapons. The Defense Ministry provides weapons to the Iraqi army, and the Interior Ministry procures arms for the country's police forces.


The Iraqi government has acquired the vast majority of its weapons through the Foreign Military Sales program, a U.S.-run procurement system, Brig. Gen. Charles D. Luckey, who assists the Iraqi government with weapons purchases, said Saturday. He said he knew of no instances in which provincial authorities had independently purchased weapons from abroad.


With thousands of American military officials involved in the training of Iraq's security forces, there is little the U.S. government does not know about weapons that are legally imported to Iraq. The shipments from Bulgaria in September caught the American military off guard, the three officials said. They first learned of the shipments from a source in Bulgaria, the officials said.


The three said they did not know whether U.S. officials had confronted Kurdish leaders about the shipments or alerted Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government.


"Yes, the Kurds have this autonomous region and they're authorized to keep the pesh," one of the officials said, referring to the militia. "But arming themselves and bringing in weapons stealthily like that -- if I were the Iraqi government, I'd be pretty concerned."


While violence in Iraq has decreased markedly in recent months, political tension is rising as Iraqi leaders gear up for provincial and national elections scheduled to take place next year, and as they prepare for an era in which the U.S. military will have a smaller presence there.


Of the primary fault lines -- which include tension between Sunnis and Shiites and rivalry among Shiite political parties -- the rift between Kurds and the Arab-dominated Iraqi government has become a top concern in recent months. Senior government officials have engaged in a war of words, and Iraqi army and pesh merga units have come close to clashing.
"You could easily have a huge eruption of violence in the north," said Kenneth B. Katzman, a Middle East specialist at the Congressional Research Service in Washington. "Nothing having to do with the Kurds is resolved."
Because Arab Sunnis largely boycotted the 2005 election, Kurds obtained disproportionate political power in key provinces such as Tamim, which includes Kirkuk, and Nineveh. Both abut the Kurdish autonomous region. Kurds also control 75 of the 275 seats in parliament.


This year, violence broke out in Kirkuk amid political squabbling over an Arab proposal that seats on the Tamim provincial council should be divided evenly among ethnic Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. In the end, Iraqi lawmakers had to shelve plans to hold provincial elections in Tamim because the sides were unable to reach a deal.


In August, U.S. officials narrowly averted an armed confrontation between an Iraqi army unit and pesh merga fighters in the town of Khanaqin, in Diyala province.


In recent weeks, Maliki and Kurdish leaders have exchanged sharp words over Maliki's creation of so-called support councils. Maliki has said the councils, which are made up of pro-government tribal leaders, are the central government's eyes and ears in provinces. But Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani and other Iraqi leaders have accused the prime minister of using the councils to bolster Maliki's influence in areas where he has little political support. In a recent news conference, Barzani said Maliki was "playing with fire."


Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who is a Kurd, recently sent Maliki a letter saying the money being spent on councils should go to the country's armed forces.


The pesh merga, which began as a militia controlled by powerful Kurdish families, fought Iraqi troops when Hussein was in power. Since the 2003 invasion, its primary role has been to patrol predominantly Kurdish areas in the north. However, pesh merga units were deployed to the northern city of Mosul in 2004 to help quell an insurgent uprising, and others were dispatched to Baghdad as part of the 2007 buildup of U.S. troops.
Recently, the Iraqi government has refrained from using pesh merga forces outside of the Kurdish region and has taken steps to replace predominantly Kurdish forces with Sunni and Shiite soldiers in Nineveh, one of the most violent areas in Iraq.


Central government officials recently bristled at Barzani's offer to allow U.S. troops to establish bases in the Kurdish autonomous region, saying the regional government had no authority to make such an overture, especially as Iraqi officials are calling for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops.


"There is a lot of tension," Kurdish parliament member Mahmoud Othman said. "Maliki and his administration are accusing the Kurdish authorities of violating the constitution. And the Kurds are accusing Maliki of violating the constitution."

Hasn't anyone told them we already won?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Hasn't anyone told them we already won?

---

Maybe somebody forgot they're already autonomous. They sure didn't. They'd like to be independent, and to gobble up Kirkuk.

you mean there has been something bubbling just beneath the surface?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

you mean there has been something bubbling just beneath the surface?

---

Not sure what you mean, clambake. You could throw a dart at a map of Iraq and the answer would probably be yes.

The Kurds have been a people without a nation for a very long time. 10 years under the US no-fly blanket changed that.

The pot's been simmering for centuries, but it could boil over quickly if the Kurds get too big for their britches.

i was referring to the real surge by putting sunni and shia on the payroll so they wouldn't kill us.

wait till you get a load of what happens when we turn off the spigot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

i was referring to the real surge by putting sunni and shia on the payroll so they wouldn't kill us.

wait till you get a load of what happens when we turn off the spigot.

---

That is hard to say. If the process of getting the sunnis involved in the political goings-on continues and they can really, finally, be integrated into the nations military and police forces, it won't matter as much.

An all out civil war was barely averted, and the low-intensity fighting that took place did enough damage to be sure, but I think there is a fair possibility of truly bringing the country back from the brink.

If the country does not really integrate in the next decade or so, I do see the country essentially splitting up. It would not surprise me much at all to see the Shia areas join Iran, the Sunni area join Syria, and the Kurds to fully become a nation, much to Turkey's dismay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Hasn't anyone told them we already won?

---

Mission Accomplished! Whew-- glad that's over with!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Hasn't anyone told them we already won?

---

They know that. They also know terrorism is real. Do you have a problem with them wanting to be able to defend themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

They know that. They also know terrorism is real. Do you have a problem with them wanting to be able to defend themselves?

---

:lol

Please tell us all about the terra-ist threat to Kurdistan that is so dangerous to its existence that it made them break the legal Iraqi procedure for procuring firearms.

Be specific for the benefit of all of us on the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

:lol

Please tell us all about the terra-ist threat to Kurdistan that is so dangerous to its existence that it made them break the legal Iraqi procedure for procuring firearms.

Be specific for the benefit of all of us on the board.

---

I'm not worried about supporting how much the treat is or isn't. The Kurds have had autonomy since 1991. I am not aware of any laws that have removed that status yet. Are you? Now maybe the new Iraqi laws do somehow infringe on that autonomy. I really don't know. We all know however, most governments have grandfather clauses in laws.

I don't have the proper answer to your question.

Back to you though. Just because the article says it violates Iraqi law, can you support that?

Tell me you don't believe every thing you read. Please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I don't have the proper answer to your question.

---

You never do. You just make up stuff and hope you can get away with it.

Quote:

---

Back to you though. Just because the article says it violates Iraqi law, can you support that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The article you are trying to dispute "because you said so"

Iraqi and U.S. officials said the Ministries of Interior and Defense are the only entities authorized to import weapons. The Defense Ministry provides weapons to the Iraqi army, and the Interior Ministry procures arms for the country's police forces.


The Iraqi government has acquired the vast majority of its weapons through the Foreign Military Sales program, a U.S.-run procurement system, Brig. Gen. Charles D. Luckey, who assists the Iraqi government with weapons purchases, said Saturday. He said he knew of no instances in which provincial authorities had independently purchased weapons from abroad.

---

Please show me a report saying the US and Iraqi officials declare these purchases to be completely appropriate and legal according to Iraqi law.

Quote:

---

Tell me you don't believe every thing you read. Please.

---

I read your bullshit all the time. I believe none of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The article you are trying to dispute "because you said so"

Iraqi and U.S. officials said the Ministries of Interior and Defense are the only entities authorized to import weapons. The Defense Ministry provides weapons to the Iraqi army, and the Interior Ministry procures arms for the country's police forces.


The Iraqi government has acquired the vast majority of its weapons through the Foreign Military Sales program, a U.S.-run procurement system, Brig. Gen. Charles D. Luckey, who assists the Iraqi government with weapons purchases, said Saturday. He said he knew of no instances in which provincial authorities had independently purchased weapons from abroad.

---

Iraqi and U.S. officials said the Ministries of Interior and Defense are the only entities authorized to import weapons.

OK, that may be current law. It might not be. I'm sorry, I always have a hard time with "Unnamed" US officials.

Again. The Kurds have enjoyed autonomy since 1991. They could buy weapons before, why not now?

Besides. If it's not legal, why were they on C-130s? Until they sign the SOFA, not much they can do to stop us from supplying the Kurds.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0_Hercules.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Iraqi and U.S. officials said the Ministries of Interior and Defense are the only entities authorized to import weapons.

OK, that may be current law. It might not be. I'm sorry, I always have a hard time with "Unnamed" US officials.

Again. The Kurds have enjoyed autonomy since 1991. They could buy weapons before, why not now?

---

Do you seriously not know what has changed in Iraq since 1991?

Get back to us when you figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Do you seriously not know what has changed in Iraq since 1991?

Get back to us when you figure it out.

---

I know what happened.

I'm still waiting for you to show me when the Kurd's autonomy was revoked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I know what happened.

I'm still waiting for you to show me when the Kurd's autonomy was revoked.

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

:lmao

---

Please. I just don't know.

When was the autonomy revoked?

Do you know what autonomy is?

You seem to be so knowledgeable on the subject, you should be able to answer that simple question.

Link please.

You want a link to the Iraqi Constitution?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...on-draft_x.htm

So you think iit's an independent country completely free of the rule of a central Iraqi government.

Let me know when that happened. You seem to be so knowledgeable on the subject, you should be able to answer that simple question.

Link please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You want a link to the Iraqi Constitution?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...on-draft_x.htm

So you think iit's an independent country completely free of the rule of a central Iraqi government.

Let me know when that happened. You seem to be so knowledgeable on the subject, you should be able to answer that simple question.

Link please.

---

OK, You still have no valid argument.

1) You link a DRAFT constitution

2) It doesn't ban the purchase of weapons.

If I'm wrong, plesae show me. The closest thing I found was:

Quote:

---

(b) Forming military militias outside the framework of the armed forces is banned.

---

So, are you saying the weapons are for the formation military militias?

It's the military militias that are banned. Not the weapons.

:lmao

I showed you a document that proves Iraqi Kurdistan is part of Iraq and subject to its laws.

Please show me the document that states that it is not.

Now, if you want to get into a de facto argument about what the Kurds can get away with and what the central government can do about it -- that's a completely different story.

What is going to happen is that the Kurds are going to keep the weapons and there is nothing the central government can do about it.

I'll give you some time to look up what de facto means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Now, if you want to get into a de facto argument about what the Kurds can get away with and what the central government can do about it -- that's a completely different story.

---

It seems you are the one that doesn't care what the law says. At least you cannot support the article's contentions with any law.

When did the Kurds lose the right to bear arms? Besides. The Iraqi constitution also has this:

Quote:

---

1st — Public property is sacrosanct, and its protection is the duty of every citizen.

---

It helps to have weapons to do so.

You say the shipment is illegal. I simple don't see how. I would like someone to explain that. Up to the challenge, or not.

Let's say for the purpose of argument that the Kurds no longer enjoy autonomy. That seems to be a sticking point for you. They had it for more than a decade and now have an armed citizenry. I see no place by Iraqi constitution or law now forbidding them to have weapons.

Please show me.

The answer that an unnamed official, or even a named officials opinion says it's illegal doesn't cut it. What does the law say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

What is going to happen is that the Kurds are going to keep the weapons and there is nothing the central government can do about it.

---

Why is that a problem? We keep weapons in the USA with little trouble over legal ownership. It’s those who resort to illegal activities and illegal ownership we have the most problems with. You can make all the gun laws you want, but you just end up disarming the law abiding citizens. The law breakers will still obtain and use them.

Has the government, or do you think they ever plan to remove the right to bear arms?

Wild Cobra couldn't get it right even after ChumpDumper spoon-fed him the answer.

The Kurds have had de facto autonomy since 1991 but their political autonomy as a matter of law (de jure) is subject to the Iraqi Constitution.

The Kurds fly their own flag and have their own military force. The no-fly regime was an effective partition of Iraq. Eventually we have to face this, and so do Turkey and Iran. The genie can't be put back in the bottle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Wild Cobra couldn't get it right even after ChumpDumper spoon-fed him the answer.

The Kurds have had de facto autonomy since 1991 but their political autonomy as a matter of law (de jure) is subject to the Iraqi Constitution.

The Kurds fly their own flag and have their own military force. The no-fly regime was an effective partition of Iraq. Eventually we have to face this, and so do Turkey and Iran. The genie can't be put back in the bottle.

---

We were arguing over the legality of the Kurds buying weapons. I don't know what you are talking about, but you apparently misunderstand.

As for autonomy, the Kurds did give up full autonomy in the constitution. There are still a few points that they have over other provinces because of:

Quote:

---

9th — Laws do not apply retroactively unless otherwise has been legislated, and this exception does not include laws of taxes and duties.

---

This will, unless otherwise specifically restricted by law, allow them to still retain some autonomy.

Another consideration:

Quote:

---

Article (45): Restricting or limiting any of the freedoms and liberties stated in this constitution may only happen by, or according to, law and as long as this restriction or limitation does not undermine the essence of the right or freedom.

---

Now where Chump said:

Quote:

---

What is going to happen is that the Kurds are going to keep the weapons and there is nothing the central government can do about it.

---

I say so what. I'm sorry he has a fascist attitude of controlling people.

Why is he so worried about the Kurds? What evidence does he have to want to restrict their rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I say so what. I'm sorry he has a fascist attitude of controlling people.

Why is he so worried about the Kurds? What evidence does he have to want to restrict their rights?

---

Your animus seems to have unbalanced you. Consider that it's just possible you misunderstood ChumpDumper. The conclusions you reach about him require unfriendly inferences that are not plain in what he has posted in the thread.

He points out the shipments are illegal. He describes the legal landscape, incorrectly in your view, but this isn't equivalent to "a fascist attitude of controlling people," or somehow that he wishes to deprive the Kurds of their rights.

Besides, whether the Kurds are legally justified in arming themselves misses the whole point. What is cause for concern is that the Kurds may provoke a a regional goatfuck involving Turkey/Iran/Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Your animus seems to have unbalanced you. Consider that it's just possible you misunderstood ChumpDumper. The conclusions you reach about him require unfriendly inferences that are not plain in what he has posted in the thread.

---

I was never looking at this from the angle you are. I am looking at it from a strict legal perspective. That's what the argument always was for me. I make moral judgments from time to time, but I am relying on the law here. It’s a different culture. Not ours. I believe in sovereign rights. Do you?

As for animosity? Yes, Chump and I have a history where he goes ballistic. I sometimes lose my control and follow. He has actually maintained himself rather well in this thread. So have I, for our history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

He points out the shipments are illegal. He describes the legal landscape, incorrectly in your view, but this isn't equivalent to "a fascist attitude of controlling people," or somehow that he wishes to deprive the Kurds of their rights.

---

The fascist reference was prompted by your added implications. I have yet to see where anyone can show the arms shipment to be illegal, or improper.

Can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Besides, whether the Kurds are legally justified in arming themselves misses the whole point. What is cause for concern is that the Kurds may provoke a a regional goatfuck involving Turkey/Iran/Iraq.

---

I have yet to see where anyone can show the arms shipment to be illegal, or improper.

So you think we, or the Iraqi government, should prevent the Kurds from the capacity to defend themselves. They are in a hot-spot and are justified in fortifying their defensive posture. Just because of the possibility they decide to start a conflict instead, you want them to be defenseless? Doesn’t that invite trouble?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I was never looking at this from the angle you are. I am looking at it from a strict legal perspective. That's what the argument always was for me. I make moral judgments from time to time, but I am relying on the law here.

---

This amounts to focusing on an irrelevancy IMO. It doesn't matter who's right. The Kurds will do whatever they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The fascist reference was prompted by your added implications. I have yet to see where anyone can show the arms shipment to be illegal, or improper.

Can you?

---

Again, beside the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The So you think we, or the Iraqi government, should prevent the Kurds from the capacity to defend themselves. They are in a hot-spot and are justified in fortifying their defensive posture. Just because of the possibility they decide to start a conflict instead, you want them to be defenseless? Doesn’t that invite trouble?

---

This is proleptic. Problem is, you keep guessing wrong. I don't think we or the Iraqi government can prevent the Kurds from doing anything they want to do. But Turkey and Iran may want to try, and so will Iraq if the Kurds try to take Kirkuk.

What I said about the genie upstream is a clue. IMO the focus needs to be on the strategic context. The argument about legal justification goes nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

What I said about the genie upstream is a clue. IMO the focus needs to be on the strategic context. The argument about legal justification goes nowhere.

---

Without law, what do you have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I have yet to see where anyone can show the arms shipment to be illegal, or improper.

Can you?

---

Again, beside the point.

---

Wrong. That is the point. Look at the start of our discussion. Its all is about the legality of it.

Discuss the other points if you want with others. I am only arguing the legality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I believe in sovereign rights.

---

You should probably look up that word too.

Quote:

---

So you think we, or the Iraqi government, should prevent the Kurds from the capacity to defend themselves. They are in a hot-spot and are justified in fortifying their defensive posture. Just because of the possibility they decide to start a conflict instead, you want them to be defenseless? Doesn’t that invite trouble?

---

It's really only a hot spot because of the Kurdish independence movements. If you can make me believe the Kurdish government is going to repress those movements for the greater stability of the region, I will concede that it is a brilliant move that should be applauded and encouraged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You should probably look up that word too.

---

Whay are you always such an ass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

It's really only a hot spot because of the Kurdish independence movements. If you can make me believe the Kurdish government is going to repress those movements for the greater stability of the region, I will concede that it is a brilliant move that should be applauded and encouraged.

---

So what.

I was never arguing that point. Only the legality. You fell for the propaganda that it was an illegal arms shipment. Now you change the subject, like always, when you realize you are wong.

Can't you for once, admit that you were wrong?

Again... I was never arguing that point! I agree this could become an issue in the future.

Have any solutions that don't violate the laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Wrong. That is the point. Look at the start of our discussion. Its all is about the legality of it.

Discuss the other points if you want with others. I am only arguing the legality.

---

No problem.

If you will suffer me to introduce something that is germane to my own post into the conversation, please consider:

Given that the de facto Kurdistan owes its existence to the protection afforded them by US forces over the last 17 years, what assistance, if any, do we owe them in the case of hostilities with Turkey, Iran or Iraq?

Apart from this real possibility, do you think it was wise for the US to have created a Kurdish homeland in Northern Iraq, inasmuch as our ally, Turkey, has said it will never permit an independent Kurdistan to be established along its borders?

Just curious. Of course you're not required to consider any of the possible results of the de facto partition of Iraq in the wake of the Gulf War, but I'd be interested to know what you think about it, WC, since our government must consider it.

US forces are still in autonomous Kurdlandia. We don't have the option of ignoring the outbreak of a regional war started by or against the Kurds, and war between Iraq and the Kurds is a virtual certainty at some point, given attitudes on both sides about Kirkuk.

Any thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

No problem.

If you will suffer me to introduce something that is germane to my own post into the conversation, please consider:

Given that the de facto Kurdistan owes its existence to the protection afforded them by US forces over the last 17 years, what assistance, if any, do we owe them in the case of hostilities with Turkey, Iran or Iraq?

Apart from this real possibility, do you think it was wise for the US to have created a Kurdish homeland in Northern Iraq, inasmuch as our ally, Turkey, has said it will never permit an independent Kurdistan to be established along its borders?

Just curious. Of course you're not required to consider any of the possible results of the de facto partition of Iraq in the wake of the Gulf War, but I'd be interested to know what you think about it, WC, since our government must consider it.

US forces are still in autonomous Kurdlandia. We don't have the option of ignoring the outbreak of a regional war started by or against the Kurds, and war between Iraq and the Kurds is a virtual certainty at some point, given attitudes on both sides about Kirkuk.

Any thoughts?

---

Sorry, that's one of several subjects I am not versed on. I could come to one of several positions depending on what I learn as facts should I choose to research it more. I know there is strife between the Kurds and others, but I don't know enough about the real extent of the situation.

I do not trust the mainstream news for accurate information!

Steve Coll:

Quote:

---

During the Bush Administration, adventurers like Dallas-headquartered Hunt Oil paved the way for ExxonMobil, which cut a deal in Erbil in 2011. Bush and his advisers could not bring themselves to force American oil companies such as Hunt to divest from Kurdistan or to sanction non-American investors. They allowed the wildcatters to do as they pleased while insisting that Erbil’s politicians negotiate oil-revenue sharing and political unity with Baghdad. Erbil’s rulers never quite saw the point of a final compromise with Baghdad’s Shiite politicians—as each year passed, the Kurds got richer on their own terms, they attracted more credible and deep-pocketed oil companies as partners, and they looked more and more like they led a de-facto state. The Obama Administration has done nothing to reverse that trend.


And so, in Erbil, in the weeks to come, American pilots will defend from the air a capital whose growing independence and wealth has loosened Iraq’s seams, even while, in Baghdad, American diplomats will persist quixotically in an effort to stitch that same country together to confront ISIS.


Obama’s defense of Erbil is effectively the defense of an undeclared Kurdish oil state whose sources of geopolitical appeal—as a long-term, non-Russian supplier of oil and gas to Europe, for example—are best not spoken of in polite or naïve company, as Al Swearengen would well understand. Life, Swearengen once pointed out, is often made up of “one vile task after another.” So is American policy in Iraq.

---

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/oil-erbil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Sorry, that's one of several subjects I am not versed on. I could come to one of several positions depending on what I learn as facts should I choose to research it more. I know there is strife between the Kurds and others, but I don't know enough about the real extent of the situation.

I do not trust the mainstream news for accurate information!

---

"several" ? :lol

counterpoint:

Quote:

---

Whenever the US takes military action in the Middle East, oil surfaces as the supposed primary rationale. So it is with president Barack Obama’s air war against ISIL, the Islamic militants who threaten Irbil, capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. In the New Yorker, Steve Coll writes that the strikes are “effectively the defense of an undeclared Kurdish oil state.” Robert Fisk comments similarly in the Independent and John Judis in the New Republic.

The argument is seductive. For three years, Kurdistan has parlayed the commercial interest of the world’s largest oil companies into increasingly sovereign status from Baghdad. Take away the oil and the Kurds are merely another rugged people with dreams of statehood.

Yet this simple explanation has problems. The first is that the Obama administration has steadfastly discouragedExxonMobil, Chevron and the other companies from working in Kurdistan. Until recently, it sought to sabotage the region’s efforts to export its oil. The White House’s rationale has been that, to the degree Kurdistan gains de facto financial independence from Baghdad, the less likely that Iraq will hold together as a country. On Twitter, Middle East energy expert Robin Mills has been among those pushing against the it’s-about-oil theory.

---

http://qz.com/247762/no-oil-isnt-beh...-against-isil/

pgardn

US bombing ISIS or whatever as humanitarian tactic is, just coincidentally of course, all about Kurdish OIL and US/UK BigOil working it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

No problem.

If you will suffer me to introduce something that is germane to my own post into the conversation, please consider:

Given that the de facto Kurdistan owes its existence to the protection afforded them by US forces over the last 17 years, what assistance, if any, do we owe them in the case of hostilities with Turkey, Iran or Iraq?

Apart from this real possibility, do you think it was wise for the US to have created a Kurdish homeland in Northern Iraq, inasmuch as our ally, Turkey, has said it will never permit an independent Kurdistan to be established along its borders?

Just curious. Of course you're not required to consider any of the possible results of the de facto partition of Iraq in the wake of the Gulf War, but I'd be interested to know what you think about it, WC, since our government must consider it.

US forces are still in autonomous Kurdlandia. We don't have the option of ignoring the outbreak of a regional war started by or against the Kurds, and war between Iraq and the Kurds is a virtual certainty at some point, given attitudes on both sides about Kirkuk.

Any thoughts?

---

Reference Turkey. Please note the folliowing.

Following US withdrawal
Further information: Disputed territories of Northern Iraq
Disputed areas in Iraq prior to the 2014 Northern Iraq offensive.
Disputed and part of the Kurdish Regional Government since 1991.
Disputed and under the control of central government.

Tensions between Iraqi Kurdistan and the central Iraqi government mounted through 2011-2012 on the issues of power sharing, oil production and territorial control. In April 2012, the president of Iraq's semi-autonomous northern Kurdish region demanded that officials agree to their demands or face the prospect of secession from Baghdad by September 2012.[51]

In September 2012, the Iraqi government ordered the KRG to transfer its powers over the Peshmerga to the central government. Relations became further strained by the formation of a new command center (Tigris Operation Command) for Iraqi forces to operate in a disputed area over which both Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) claim jurisdiction.[52] On 16 November 2012 a military clash between the Iraqi forces and the Peshmerga resulted in one person killed.[52] CNN reported that 2 people were killed (one of them an Iraqi soldier) and 10 wounded in clashes at the Tuz Khurmato town.[53]

During the 2014 Northern Iraq offensive, Iraqi Kurdistan seized the city of Kirkuk and the surrounding area, as well as most of the disputed territories in Northern Iraq.

On 1 July 2014, Massud Barzani announced that that "Iraq's Kurds will hold an independence referendum within months."[54] After previously opposing the independence for Iraqi Kurdistan, Turkey has later given signs that it could recognize an independent Kurdish state.[54][55] On 11 July 2014 KRG forces seized control of the Bai Hassan and Kirkuk oilfields, prompting a condemnation from Baghdad and a threat of "dire consequences," if the oilfields were not relinquished back to Iraq's control.[56]

The region is currently endangered by the rapid advance of ISIS from the southwest. In August, the US began a campaign of airstrikes in Iraq, in part to protect Kurdish areas such as Erbil from the militants.[57]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan

For all practical purposes the Kurds have been independent of Baghdad for years. No way could Iraq impose their rule on the Kurds. I do agree that more than likely the reason we haven't supplied arms to the Kurds was because of the Turks. They have been having lots of problems with border incursions and the Kurds in Turkey itself. But if you will note the Turks themselves, even though they have made several incursions into Kurd territory, haven't wanted to tangle with them.

Arms shipments in the ME being illegal is a joke. Who is to stop them and there are many sellers who will supply the arms if they ANYONE has the bucks.

100% correct at the time of posting, but times do change.

thanks for the update, xray.

conditional support for an independent Kurdistan is just that

"Arms shipments in the ME being illegal is a joke."

... just like in USA.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28770519

Thanks, dubya and dickhead!

How's that Iraqi oil workin out for ya?

Quote:

---

Thanks, dubya and dickhead!

---

Four consecutive US Presidents have attacked Iraq, two of them before Bush/Cheney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Four consecutive US Presidents have attacked Iraq, two of them before Bush/Cheney.

---

St Ronnie and Rummy SUPPORTED Iraq against Iran.

When/how did Clinton attack Iraq?

Pappy Bush stayed out of Iraq, earning him "wimp" from Repug war mongers.

It was dubya and dickhead and PNAC neo-cons who INVADED and DESTROYED Iraq, and de-stablized the Middle East, probably for decades.

Thanks, dubya and dickhead!

How's that Iraqi oil workin out for ya?

Quote:

---

When/how did Clinton attack Iraq?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

your blind spot is showing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

your blind spot is showing

---

whine hole :lol

bombing accomplished nothing, since there was nothing to bomb, and the inspectors eventually said Saddam hadn't had WMD since 1992, and the US NEVER found them.

dubya, dickhnead, BigOil INVADING and destroying Iraq and destabilizing the Middle East and North Africa is totally different for Clinton's bombing, my little blind stalker, a huge difference your false equivalence of "they all did it" blindly avoids.

Thanks, dubya and dickhead!

How's that Iraqi oil workin out for ya?

Quote:

---

bombing accomplished nothing

---

so Clinton did attack Iraq. glad we agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

pgardn

US bombing ISIS or whatever as humanitarian tactic is, just coincidentally of course, all about Kurdish OIL and US/UK BigOil working it.

---

Oh so bombing around the mountain was just a set up for what was really important...
The Kurds having oil has very little to no effect on our thirst for oil, look at the numbers.
What it does do is give a more stable region a source of income.

You continually extrapolate oil into every possible pigeonhole. An no, you are not the only one.
The oil companies will eventually blow up Tesla and the use of solar power charging stations, what's the plan?
The Wind Turbines making Texas the biggest producer of wind power, what's the plan?

fightin for oil, will you ever see that return from the $16t spent on it?