The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
How the Kurds Lost Iraq
'They had tanks and planes, we had no chance'
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The defeat of the Kurds in Kirkuk is devastatingly complete. “We used to be in control here and now we are not,” says Aso Mamand, the Kurdish leader in the city, summing up the situation in a helpless and embittered tone as he describes the fall of Kirkuk and the nearby oilfields to the Iraqi government forces. He would like some new power-sharing arrangements and warns of dire consequences if this does not happen, but he does not sound very hopeful.

Kirkuk used to be described as “the powder keg” of Iraq because of furiously contested rival claims to it by Kurdish nationalists and the Baghdad government. It was potentially even more explosive because its Kurdish, Arab and Turkmen communities make it a deeply divided place. But, despite these rancorous disputes and differences, when the final crisis came on 16 October, the switch from Kurdish to federal government control was surprisingly swift and peaceful.

Mr Mamand says that there was no battle because the Kurds simply did not have the military strength to hold the city and he is dismissive of conspiracy theories about its betrayal. Asked if the advance of the Iraqi forces could have been resisted if the two main Kurdish parties – his own Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party led by president Masoud Barzani – had been united, he says: “Of course not. The Iraqi forces had tanks and planes and we had no chance. Maybe we would have lasted a day if we had fought, but the only result would have been bloodshed.”

Many Kurds fled at the time and not all have returned, but there is no sign of damage from the fighting and shops and markets are open. A thunderstorm briefly emptied the streets when we were there, but otherwise traffic was heavy and there are few soldiers or checkpoints. “Do you see anything out of the ordinary?” asks the acting governor, Rakan Saeed Ali al-Jubouri, the Arab former deputy governor, whose office looks little changed from when it was occupied by the Kurdish governor Najmaldin Karim who was forced to flee to Irbil. Mr Jubouri says that “the local police are the same and there are just two battalions of the counterterrorism forces in Kirkuk”. Iraqi battalions are small so this probably means only a few hundred soldiers.

Mr Mamand insists that things aren’t quite what they look like. He says that “the government needs to do something to calm down the Kurdish street”. He suggests the appointment of a Kurdish governor or some arrangement to share power. Asked if there had been any significant security incidents, he cited only some shots fired by a former KDP security police officer at an army checkpoint. But, around about the time he was speaking, there was in fact a savage murder in a town called Duquq just south of Kirkuk city, which might give substance to Mr Mamand’s fear that the potential for violence is just below the surface.

The victim was Arkan Sharifi, 50, a Kurdish cameraman working for Kurdistan TV, who was knifed to death by four or five men who broke into his house and locked his wife and children in a separate room. When they got out five hours later, they found him lying in a pool of blood, his body mutilated and with a knife stuck in his mouth, evidence that he been killed because of something he had said or reported. His family says that the killers spoke the Turkmen language, suggesting that what happened may be the outcome of the ongoing feud between the Kurds and the Shia Turkmen that is particularly fierce south of Kirkuk.

I drove through the area where the murder took place earlier in the day and there was no sign of violence there or anywhere else on the closely guarded road from Baghdad. But the murder is a reminder that at all times Iraq is a very violent country. I spoke to a Turkmen member of the Hashd al-Shaabi pro-government paramilitaries called Jawdat Assaf who explained that he came from a village called Tisin Khadim which had been destroyed by Saddam Hussein in 1980. “I survived because I was under 15, but they killed 353 people – everybody over that age including my father and two brothers,” he recalled. “They accused us of supporting the [Shia revolutionary] Dawa Party, though we had hardly heard of it.”

The murder of Arkan Sharifi is striking in its brutality, but no fewer than 465 Iraqi journalists have been killed in the last 14 years. Otherwise the takeover of Kirkuk was unexpectedly pacific. Though the KDP accuses the PUK, always the dominant Kurdish party in the city, of a treacherous Iranian-orchestrated deal with Baghdad, both parties simultaneously withdrew their Peshmerga without fighting. If the Iraqi forces had to fight their way into Kirkuk city they would have inevitably won, but it could have detonated a wider ethnic and sectarian conflict in the disputed territories.

This long-predicted confrontation never took place, but the loss of Kirkuk is more than a crippling blow to Kurdish hopes of independence. With a divided leadership, no allies abroad and without a military option, the Kurds are losing the semi-independent status they had built up since Saddam Hussein was defeated in the Gulf War in 1991 and Iraqi government forces withdrew from the three Kurdish provinces.


This process is now going sharply into reverse. Iraqi government troops on Tuesday set up a checkpoint at the most important border crossing at Ibrahim Khalil between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan. Vehicles crossing the border must now be checked three times – by Turks, Iraqi forces and the Kurds. “Habur border gate has been handed over to the central government as of this morning,” said Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim. With Turkey and Iran cooperating with Baghdad, the Iraqi Kurdish authorities are in no position to resist the central government’s takeover of their main powers. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi made clear in an interview with The Independent that he expects the Iraqi state to control the main Peshmerga forces, oil production and exports as well as international flights and the issuing of visas.

Yet the quiet takeover of Kirkuk could be a little deceptive. Weak though the Kurds may now be, political circumstances may not always be so wholly against them or in favour of the Iraqi state. The Kurds looked utterly defeated in 1975 when Saddam Hussein signed the Algiers Agreement with the Shah who abandoned his previous alliance with the Kurds. But the start of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980 forced the withdrawal of much of the Iraqi army from Iraqi Kurdistan, which was then taken over by Kurdish nationalist forces. Defeated again through savage repression, Saddam’s overthrow by the US-led coalition in 1991 enabled the Kurds to start building a statelet, which became a powerful player when the US invaded in 2003.

If the central government in Baghdad exploits its present superiority over the Kurds too greedily, then it could provoke a powerful communal counter-reaction by the Kurdish population. This approach is likely to be opposed by Mr Abadi, but approved by his predecessor as Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, in the run-up to the parliamentary elections next May. In Iraqi politics, almost everybody ends up by overplaying their hand.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Iraq, Kurds 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. So, the Kurds got used and abused and then abandoned by the Globalists.

    Nothing new here.

  2. MEexpert says:

    Patrick Cockburn: Kurds Good……Shias Bad. Same old rhetoric by the Kurdish sympathizer.

  3. Remember when the mighty Peshmerga ruled (the media)?

    Remember the stylish women Kurd fighters? The Kurds are so cool with women warriors.

    The Marxist-Communist beliefs? Oh gosh – no need to mention that. Looky there! Isn’t she cute with her AK-47? It’s a war to liberate women!

    Bush the Elder didn’t just encourage the Kurds to rebel. He made them feel they had no choice. Study his statements and the last CIA broadcast on February 24, 1991 – days before the cease fire was announced in Gulf War I. The US had slaughtered the Iraqi military forces, just vaporized them.

    The people of Iraq had no idea whether to trust the USA would stop at Kuwait, or take over all of Iraq. They were being told that to stop a complete foreign takeover, to stop their men from being mass imprisoned and tortured, the women being raped, atrocities we proved so eager to fulfill, that they had no choice but remove Saddam. Remove Saddam or it’s foreign invasion.

    And they were slaughtered by Saddam’s Republican Guard.

    More recently, so long as the Kurds have served as objects to our foreign policy ends, they’ve been lionized. This emphasis on Kurdish women fighters, it seems a peculiar fetish of the legacy CIA propaganda media.

    A google search of “women combat fighters Iraq” yields this as the top hit:

    It’s a Huffington Post piece of Kurdish Peshmerga women fighters, so typical: that’s what’s important here: a combat brigade of women, who are not in fact on any front line – like in the same country but not on any battlefield… posing for pictures. That’s how you take revenge on ISIS, you have a perfectly pressed patch on your arm, posing with your homies as if you were surrounded, nowhere near the front line.

    Like the Republican Guard sweeping through before, the Iraqi government forces just swept through again, swatting these mighty, stylish Kurds aside like flies.

    Like before, we had no idea the Kurds were such pussies when the USA isn’t riding shotgun with air power, satellite battlefield intelligence, drones, and “advisors” equipped with field artillery. Plus our ammunition, personnel carriers, KBR field services camps, complete with Burger King.

  4. Anonymous [AKA "hassles"] says:

    I get it you are disappointed , but just face it cocky; You (israel) lost. Your beloved Yinon plan, the re-drawing of maps along sectarian lines wont happen. Just a year ago you were jumping up and down saying it was “inevitable”, funny how fast things change isn’t it?

    Your (israels) last hope (plan C) wont happen either, the female genital mutilating & honor killing nomadic tribe originally from Kordistan in Iran, the Kurds, egged on by israel and US can gobble up as much land and resources they like but they can’t keep it, because it’s not theirs, it never was. Whatever rights they had before is increasingly becoming forfeited by the countries (reluctantly) hosting them.

    Iraq is right, there wont be a second “israel”. Thank God for that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  5. Maybe we would have lasted a day if we had fought

    The reason they lost is pretty simple – they weren’t willing to fight. The Shiite Arab army is worn out from fighting ISIS. Yes, they’re feeling good because of past victories. But the reality is that this army is shredded from years of hard fighting. PTSD and injury lists don’t go away because of good feelings.

    Note that Uncle Sam would not have bombed the Kurds in the Shiites’ behalf, and it was American air power, stepped up under Trump, that was decisive in defeating ISIS. And Shiites would always have to worry about the 40K+ GI’s in-country that could intervene on the Kurds’ behalf, meaning it could not do the kinds of things to Kurdish civilians that it did to Sunni civilians who were the backbone of ISIS’s support.

    Bottom line is that when push came to shove, the Kurds backed off. It’s understandable that they would shrink from taking the kinds of casualties that ISIS did. But as Jefferson once wrote, freedom comes with a blood price attached, viz “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots”.

    If the Kurds think that national sovereignty is something handed over on a platter by Uncle Sam, they are sadly mistaken. In around 3 years after the end of WWII, the Jews built a proto-state in the Holy Land that subsequently declared independence and held off the combined Arab armies. Its armory consisted mostly of cash-and-carry WWII surplus purchased from Soviet bloc countries. And yet they prevailed. The Kurds have had a quarter century to put a functioning state together and Uncle Sam in their corner, ready to jump in if the Shiites go too far. And yet they blinked. For an independent country to emerge out of Iraqi Kurdistan, the Peshmerga has to live up to its name.

    • Replies: @MEexpert
  6. MEexpert says:
    @Johann Ricke

    it was American air power, stepped up under Trump, that was decisive in defeating ISIS.

    You are dreaming if you think Trump had anything to do with defeating ISIS. It was the fatwa of an 80-years old cleric that mobilized an army of volunteers that did the fighting. ISIS was not defeated through air but on the ground. These volunteers were trained by Iranian Guards. They gave their lives to retake their homeland from US/Israel/Saudi Arabia financed, trained, and armed barbarians. The American trained Iraqi soldiers fled the field, just like the Kurd Peshmergas did, leaving ISIS to control the area.

    The Americans only know how to bomb from the air. They have not faired well on the ground. Look what the aerial bombing does. Israel destroyed the Lebanese infrastructure but could not destroy Hezbollah. Similarly, Israel carpet bombed Gaza but Hamas is still there. Saudi Arabia has been bombing Yemen for two years and have nothing to show for it. The US can drop the “Mother of all bombs” but the Taliban control is growing in Afghanistan.

  7. Anonymous [AKA "Cam J."] says:

    In business, nowadays they say anything apple touches turns into gold. In life and in politics, anything that Israel or Saudis touch turns into disaster! Forget about a second Israel being built to serve as a buffer for the first one. As you observed that is not going to happen, and I agree thank God for that. You see that young Saudi fellow who is now running the show in the desert kingdom, he is a God sent wrecking ball for the inhabitants of the Mid East: In no time he will destroy the house of saud, and everyone will breathe a sigh of relief, and the Israelis would start to seriously ponder whether even half-a-dozen years left by the expiration date. Stay tuned. Good time are ahead.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr