Well God willing they will remain as liberal and secular as they’ve always had. They even have female fighting units in the Peshmerga, something we Americans don’t have yet!!!

The media report (at least the longest version of the AFP English-language story I’ve been able to find is here: Kurds in secret weapons deal: Iraqi official [http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jfd5RmAYcoQOQpbCqXru-Hse3ebw?docId=CNG.174be06ad8ee4755308494817ef96f0e.a81])

It seems the source of the weapons could be either Russia, or a former Soviet satellite able to procure and sell such weaponry; as suggested on another list discussion the Iraqi government’s efforts to access Russian helicopters – with which they are more familiar than the more expensive and harder to maintain Russian models – will be driving their procurement … BUT, promises of a large purchase order from the Iraqi state might be used as leverage to keep Russia from selling to the KRG …

… this thread is so important because of the fluidity of the situation … while both sides might be ‘playing’ the Russians and their former-Soviet compatriots in a zero-sum game between Baghdad and Erbil … but, with Gazprom’s entry to Kurdistan’s petroleum sector and the (now four) major oil companies efforts to develop fields in the north the KRG might itself have returned to a battle of proxies between regional and global powers … how the KRG navigates this will keep all of our attention’ I am certain.

“The Iraq army is not allowed to protect its own borders and cannot step one foot into KRG territory.”

Is this really such a terrible thing considering that, consciously or unconsciously, Maliki ordering his troopers to cut off the border with Syria only serves to benefit Khomoenism’s interests and not the world’s short term and Iraq’s long term interests??

I read that a State of Law MP whined loudly about how violating of Iraqi sovereignty it was that Barzani was training freedom fighters in Kurdistan to help overthrow the Baathist Iranian cliented regime in Syria that Maliki detested in 2009 for brazenly murdering hundreds of Iraqis in car bomb attacks. Now why the hell is this a bad thing?

Is this what Iraqi “nationalism” has come to?

Only hating the Turks for breathing air in Kirkuk and the Kurds for batting eyelashes in Kurdistan while Iran bribes almost every single political party and ruins the civic society?

Shame on those Iraqi “nationalists” who care more about phantom Salafists and “uppity” Kurds under their beds then the actual theocracies and actual terrorists next door.

Shame on them!!!

“I’m assuming you’re not denying the KRG’s desire to defend the people of Kurdistan with such weapons purchases.”

As someone who supports eventual Kurdish independence and the Kurdish people in general, no I do not deny Kurdistan’s right to defend itself, I was merely inquiring as to the exact nation in question that sold the arms to the KRG in the first place.

If it’s say a nation that merely sold the weapons because of money (like say Belarus) and not because of politics (like perhaps Turkey, the USA, or a Gulf Arab State) then the origin isn’t really significant. However if it is the latter, then it *is* important, because it would explain the particularly heightened emotional responses coming from certain corrupt politicians from Baghdad.

I agree with your points, my confusion is with your statement: “Turks may prefer to maintain the facade of a territorially unified Iraq but with heavy de facto Turkish influence inside KRG and maybe in a separate Kirkuk federal entity as well.”

Undoubtedly there is Turkish influence in the KRG, but the problem is that there is not even a facade of territorially unfied Iraq anymore. The Iraq army is not allowed to protect its own borders and cannot step one foot into KRG territory. By taking these actions, KRG has in effect stated that the federal govt has absolutely no say over any matter in the KRG, and “please send us our 10 billion in basra petro dollars thank you very much!” As I see it, the Kurds have input into what happens in the rest of Iraq by virtue of their 50 seats in parliament, but the rest of Iraq has ZERO input into what happens in the KRG. Barzani also stated that if Maliki were to withhold the 10 billion, that would amount to a declaration of war! (see Jane Arraf interview). What unity?

Withe the Total deal today, the pressure will mount on Baghdad to do something. Exxon also announced recently that it plans to start drilling. If Turkey allows the Kurds to ship oil through a new pipeline directly to Turkey without agreement from Baghdad (and that decision will need to be made in the next 1-2 years), it essentially means that they have accepted Kurdish independence, no? At that point, it would be comical to call the KRG as part of Iraq (it would more accurately be described as an autonomous part of Turkey). I can’t see Turkey refusing the oil pipeline. After all, they are letting hundreds of trucks a day full of oil through—that is very inefficient.

My point is that if Turkey wants to keep that “facade” going, it will simply not be sustainable beyond 1-2 years (even if there was a different PM in Baghdad).

regards,
M

Christian: The Iraqi press seems to suggest that the “foreign” nation is Russia or one of the old USSR republics.

My point is that this more realistic scenario is at variance with the message Barzani is pumping to his electorate on Kurdish independence and Kirkuk. The Syrian factor is going to make it all the more acute since Turkish and Kurdish aims appear to be even more divergent in Syria than in Iraq. Syrian Kurdish and Iraqi Kurdish cooperation right now is likely to emphasise some of the contradictions in Barzani’s manouevering between Ankara and Baghdad.

You stated: “it is in practice a confederacy in which the Kurdish entity appears to be torn between seeking independence and de facto Turkish overlordship.”

Is there a practical difference between these two scenarios?

Did you see the interview between Barzani and Jane Arraf? Barzani states/implies that it is only a matter of time (not IF) that kurdistan will seek independence. I would argue that today KRG functions almost like an independent country except that it is receiving 10 billion USD in subsidies from Basra petro dollars. But in practice, the all-powerful Maliki has absolutely no influence on KRG policy.

Even if Maliki were today to state, “look Kurds, I am sick and tired of your antics..let me save you the trouble, I hereby call upon parliament to expel the KRG from the rest of Iraq!” The two main issues that would be need to be resolved are 1)would a war break out between newly indpedendent kurds and iraq over the disputed territories?, and 2) would turrkey allow the kurds to exist as indendependent country to export oil, etc?

My point is that even an independent Kurdistan would be completely (even moreso than now) reliant on Turkey for life-support (as their overlords). The only difference is that they would then lose the Basra petro dollars and their economy would be in major trouble.

Turkey seems to have an ambiguous policy as far as I can see; but it certainly will not be sustainable much longer…they will need to show their hands.

regards,
M

I’d also challenge the “gave” moniker – the Kurdistan leadership (if the weapons procurement is indeed true) will have paid handsomely.

The question has always been central to the entire political dynamic – is Kurdistan pursuing independence, federal, or confederal arrangements – and with what status / rights if not full statehood. The agressive move in support of Syria’s Kurdish region is bringing this to the fore in a dynamic and pronounced fashion as we have all stated above.

I’m assuming you’re not denying the KRG’s desire to defend the people of Kurdistan with such weapons purchases.

http://news.yahoo.com/kurds-secret-weapons-deal-iraqi-official-153110994.html

Turkey, USA (assuming Obama grew balls which is unlikely), a Gulf nation, or even Israel?