Playing Both Sides

With the recent invasion of Iraq's Kurdistan region by Turkey last week, the tenuous position of the US in Iraq was made even more evident.

The problem for the US is who should be supported in the incursion. Washington cannot risk isolating Istanbul any more than it already has, but it simultaneously has been supportive of the the Iranian branch of the PKK for a number of years. According to the Telegraph:

"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."

The PKK was also supported by the Washington during the invasion, much in the same way that the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan during the 1980s - and look how well that turned out. During the invasion, Washington relied on the Kurds in the north of Iraq to fight the Iraqi army there, allowing US forces to take the south with less resistance. This was even after the US government officially listed the PKK has a "terrorist organization," leading to an interesting question: why would Washington support the independence of Albanian Kosovo from Serb Serbia, while labeling the group dedicated to creating an independent Kurdistan a terrorist organization.

One answer may be that "destabilization" in the Balkans is far less threatening to US hegemony and international oil than if it happened in the Middle East. Another possible, albeit less likely answer is that the PKK is Marxist-Leninist and Nationalist organization. Holdover prejudice and fear from the Cold War may force Washington to target Leftist groups out of pure reflex, rather than analysis of the situations. Finally, alienating Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq by supporting an independent Kurdistan made up of territory from the above countries would destroy US integrity and soft power in the Middle East - more so than has already been eroded by the war - and seriously threaten American interests in the region.

So when Turkey invaded Iraq last Thursday and ignored the fledgling new puppet government's national sovereignty, Washington was put in a bind. It had to support Turkey's actions, while simultaneously ensuring that the work it put into training Kurdish militants in Iran did not go to waste and also while enforcing Iraq's sovereignty. These three competing and mutually exclusive goals have led to a milquetoast statement by the US urging restraint on all sides.

The Iraqis, however, have not taken kindly to this unilateral action by Turkey. An Iraqi government spokesman has said,

"The cabinet in a meeting today expressed its rejection and condemnation of the Turkish military incursion which is considered a violation of Iraq's sovereignty.

"The cabinet stresses that unilateral military action is not acceptable and threatens good relations between the two neighbours."

All that remains now to is see how the US will react: whether it will defend the national sovereignty of Iraq as it is supposed to do as an occupying force, or whether it will allow Turkey to pursue it's unilateral actions in the north of Iraq. Either way, Washington will be in the wrong. If it fails to defend Iraq, it will be failing in its job as an occupying force - not particularly new for Washington, since it has already failed dramatically and continuously in this area, but rather one more example of the criminal incompetence of the occupation. If, on the other hand, it rejects Turkey's right to unilaterally and preemptively attack an enemy, it will show that the idea of American Exceptionalism is far from dead.