Posted on 09/09/2007 6:07:57 PM PDT by blam
Kurdish guerillas launch clandestine war in Iran
By Damien McElroy in the Qandil mountains
Last Updated: 1:54am BST 10/09/2007
Kurdish guerrillas have launched a clandestine war in north-western Iran, ambushing troops as they seek Western backing to secure an ethnic homeland.
Kurdish fighters in training. Iran claims that the US is secretly supporting Kurdish attacks upon its infrastructure and troops
In retaliation, the Iranian army has carried out a series of counter-attacks in the mountains, which span the border with Iraq.
Murat Karayilan, a Kurdish guerilla commander, told The Daily Telegraph that Teheran had originally tried to recruit the outlawed groups to fight coalition troops in Iraq.
"The US and Britain came to Iraq to establish a democratic system, but this scared the Iranians, so they negotiated with us and offered many things to attack the coalition," he said under a canopy of trees near his headquarters on Iraqi territory in the Qandil mountains.
"But we told the Iranians that the US and Britain were going to solve the Kurdish problem and we will be with them."
Iranian newspapers have reported the deaths of seven soldiers in recent clashes with Kurdish guerrillas. Last month, the rebels claimed responsibility for shooting down an Iranian helicopter.
A loose alliance of guerrillas, styling itself the Kurdistan Democratic Federation, is fighting for an independent state which would cover the Kurdish-majority areas of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
Mr Karayilan, who is from the PKK guerilla group, said that Iran and Turkey were acting in tandem to repress their Kurdish regions. But, he added, the Kurds have been inspired by the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, which has been relatively secure since Saddam Hussein's downfall in 2003.
"The regional government in Iraqi Kurdistan has increased the national feeling of Kurds everywhere," he said.
Iran believes that the US and Britain are now arming and training the Kurdish guerrillas to strike its territory from bases inside Iraq.
Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, accused the US of supporting terrorism inside the Islamic Republic.
"America wants to carry out actions such as blowing up the country's oil pipelines by supporting bandits and small groups of Kurdish rebels," he told the Iranian press.
In the Qandil mountains, signs of a conflict gathering momentum are easily found.
US army helicopters are reportedly used to shuttle officers to regular meetings with Kurdish fighters.
There is a landing pad complete with spotlights near Mr Karayilan's headquarters, while four-wheel-drive vehicles belonging to a US private security contractor, are easily seen.
PKK officials say privately that its fighters have left in recent months to join cells inside Iran.
But Mr Karayilan, an apparently jovial figure who delights in the literal translation of his surname, Black Snake, suggests that the US has so far done too little for the Kurds.
"We are defending the developments in the region since 2003," he said. "In this we are ready to be on the right side and have the benefits of that.
"So far we keep our stance apart because American and Britain are not doing enough to help us."
Meanwhile, artillery shells are reportedly fired into this region almost every day and families have been forced to abandon summer farmsteads.
"Every day it gets worse," said Abdullah Hamid, 52. "I have crops still in the ground but I can't take it any more."
Iran has denied responsibility for the shelling. Yet Abdulwahid Gwany, the mayor of nearby Chomin, recalls a telling encounter with his counterpart on the other side of the border.
"I was showing him some photos on my desk when he saw one of Tony Blair with our Kurdish president. He was so startled he left immediately."
The Kurds will show the way!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The only thing that is justified is winning against Iran.
None of the three wish to see an independent Kurdish state.
Any independent state will move on the other two areas.
It is a problem.
By the way - I don’t remember seeing Kurds in these type headdresses? The Kurdish soldiers I’ve seen in photos wear dark red berets or the brown hat with the rolled up rim - headdress is indicative of region and tribal affiliation.
It is a problem.
~~~~~~~~
There’s an understatement. BTW, there are also kurds in syria and maybe even israel and lebanon. They’ve been trying to form their own nation within turkey for decades. A coptic egyptian I once knew told me that kurds are very strange people that no one understands and no one likes. That tells me that maybe they should have their own nation.
I hope the Kurds succeed.
I’ve wondered if they are the ‘Northern Tribes’ that the Assyrians moved into that area...way back when?
Their road unies.
If Kurdistan was a country the middle east would be a different place. You can thank the Brits not creating this country after WWI.
The U.S. should be helping these people and Iranian dissidents in every way possible, including with military arms and support.
I hope that we help these people, and I hope that if we do, we don’t sell them down the river by negotiating with the Ayatollahs and just use them as playing cards.
American credibility is always on the line when we support dissidents and so we should do so to the hilt.
go get’em, men!
no wonder turkey is so anxious
since easily one third of turkey is kurds, mistreated by the turks.
I’ll need to read this article later.
Here’s what I’ve been pushing for, and it sounds like it’s partially coming true.
We should withdraw from Iraq — through Tehran. Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.
Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
.
.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend” when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldn’t be a wise move for them, they’d get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. It’s time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, it’s a messy situation. If Turkey goes “into the war on Iran’s side” then they ain’t really our allies and that’s the end of that.
I agree that it’s hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that don’t agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant “allies” like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that we’d need as many folks in police and nurse’s uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didn’t follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just haven’t won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, they’ve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when they’re done with that, we can help “negotiate” with our other “allies”, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up what’s left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
That leaves Damascus for round II. The whole deal could be circumvented by Syria if they simply allow real inspections of the WOMD sites. And when I say “real”, I mean real — the inspectors would have a small armor division that they could call on whenever they get held up by some local yocal who didn’t get this month’s bribe. Hussein was an idiot to dismantle all of his WOMDs and then not let the inspectors in. If he had done so, he’d still be in power, pulling Bush’s chain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.