Kurdish independence drive under threat as Iraqi forces move into Kirkuk - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]KIRKUK, Iraq — After weeks of threats and posturing, the Iraqi government carried out a military assault on Monday to curb the independence drive by the nation’s Kurdish minority, wresting oil fields and a contested city from separatists pushing to break away from Iraq. The Kurds voted overwhelmingly for independence from Iraq in a referendum three weeks ago. The United States, Baghdad and most countries in the region had condemned the vote, fearing it would fuel ethnic divisions, lead to the breakup of Iraq and hobble the fight against the Islamic State. Baghdad had forged an agreement with the Kurdish faction that controlled most of the strategic points of Kirkuk, allowing government forces to sweep into much of the city without firing a shot. But skirmishes with another Kurdish faction left nearly 30 dead and dozens wounded, according to local hospitals. The referendum, which had Kurds celebrating in the streets three weeks ago, has now clearly backfired. The Kurdish region depends heavily on oil revenue, roughly half of it from the Kirkuk region, and the independence vote alienated the United States and angered neighbors. The Kirkuk operation also exposed deep divisions within the Kurdish command, as fighters loyal to a Kurdish opposition party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, agreed to make way for the advancing Iraqi forces even as other fighters loyal to the governing Kurdistan Democratic Party continued to resist. The Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani spearheaded the referendum, which most Kurds saw as a historic step toward achieving the national dream of an independent homeland. But critics accused Mr. Barzani of staging the vote to deflect attention from the Kurdish region’s troubled economy and what they consider to be Mr. Barzani’s authoritarian rule. In a statement Monday afternoon, the American-led coalition played down any skirmishes as accidental. The clashes were precipitated by “a misunderstanding,” the statement said, and were “not deliberate as two elements tried to link up under limited visibility conditions” at night. Col. Ryan Dillon, a spokesman for the coalition in Baghdad, said American forces in the area were watching the situation, but were not involved in the fighting. “We are monitoring the situation closely and strongly urge all sides to avoid additional escalatory actions,” he said. “We opposed violence from any party, and urge against destabilizing actions that distract from the fight against ISIS and further undermine Iraq’s stability.”[/quote] [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/world/middleeast/kirkuk-iraq-kurds.html[/url] For a more detailed article outlining the situation in Kirkuk as well as explaining the origin and role of Kurdish fighters: [url]http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/is-the-dream-of-kurdish-independence-now-over[/url] With ISIS out of Raqqa western allies have taken to fighting each other with imported american weaponry. Peshmerga are withdrawing the city citing insurmountable odds and being forced into an impossible situation by Barzani, although people within the city are claiming that they struck a deal seperately to hand the city over. There's reports of isolated incidents where Kurdish civilians are taking up arms to fight the Iraqis and some are even shooting at Peshmerga that are leaving the city. Kurds are also feeling betrayed by their western allies as the US and UK both guaranteed Kurdish freedoms in the early 90s, not to mention Kurdish fighters have been incredibly helpful and well received in the fight to push ISIS out of Iraq.

seems like some leadership is in order to [i] negotiate a diplomatic solution[/i] too bad we don't have anybody who can do that.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52788587]seems like some leadership is in order to [i] negotiate a diplomatic solution[/i] too bad we don't have anybody who can do that.[/QUOTE] The other issue is Kirkuk remaining in Kurdish hands would be seen as a defeat for the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who's currently seen as one of the main influences keeping Iran out of Iraq - allowing Al-Abadi to be defeated would be seen as directly harmful to western interests in the country.

[QUOTE=RearAdmiral;52788591]The other issue is Kirkuk remaining in Kurdish hands would be seen as a defeat for the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who's currently seen as one of the main influences keeping Iran out of Iraq - allowing Al-Abadi to be defeated would be seen as directly harmful to western interests in the country.[/QUOTE] oh ya its a massive quagmire with no good answer but it seems like it could very easily conflagrate into a civil war (again) if the wrong decisions are made. we own iraq, we broke it, we are rebuilding it, we should be moderating this

[QUOTE=Sableye;52788594]we own iraq[/QUOTE] New state of America confirmed

[QUOTE=Sableye;52788587]seems like some leadership is in order to [I] negotiate a diplomatic solution[/I] too bad we don't have anybody who can do that.[/QUOTE] It's already happened. KRG is going back to 2003 borders. Kurds got the shorted end of the stick and Barzani fucked them. Barzani decided after [I]everyone[/I] around him told him not to to go through with the referendum. The referendum on the heels of renewed Iraqi government power, army moral, and victory of Mosul... If the referendum hadn't had happened Iraqi federal govt may have not done the current land sweep they just did. [editline]17th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;52788594]oh ya its a massive quagmire with no good answer but it seems like it could very easily conflagrate into a civil war (again) if the wrong decisions are made. we own iraq, we broke it, we are rebuilding it, we should be moderating this[/QUOTE] :v: Iran owns Iraq bro. You're out of your league.

[QUOTE=RearAdmiral;52788591]The other issue is Kirkuk remaining in Kurdish hands would be seen as a defeat for the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who's currently seen as one of the main influences keeping Iran out of Iraq - allowing Al-Abadi to be defeated would be seen as directly harmful to western interests in the country.[/QUOTE] the Iranian Revolutionary guard helped Iraq retake Kirkuk, you're a bit late on that one

Wait, who owns Iraq?

[QUOTE=RearAdmiral;52788581] Kurds are also feeling[B] betrayed by their western allies as the US and UK both guaranteed Kurdish freedoms in the early 90s,[/B] not to mention Kurdish fighters have been incredibly helpful and well received in the fight to push ISIS out of Iraq.[/QUOTE] Promises to a non-state 30 odd years ago in a completely different time period, political atmosphere, and administration and they're upset about that? Fuck off

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52788703]Promises to a non-state 30 odd years ago in a completely different time period, political atmosphere, and administration and they're upset about that? Fuck off[/QUOTE] There's also been quiet western support for the peshmerga up until recently, as the kurds have been seen as a group that's pretty compatible with western ideals as well as having quite a professional and motivated fighting force in the battle against ISIS.

i'm not surprised at all from this. yeah, the kurds fought the good fight with the coalitions support to destroy ISIS and they still are, but in the bigger picture, to think they'd become independent right after is unrealistic. i feel like they're going to have to fight a different war for that.

They probably have no other choice but to fight for their own independence, seeing as how everyone treats them like shit. Iraq and other ME nations will not have the same western values as us for a long time no matter how much we try to instill it in to them. *it already took a long as shit time for us to start treating minorities better in the US, it will be worse over there. Anything the ME leaders try to say will just be that, words. *edit.