FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Will a US War Free the Kurds?

Right now, it suits the U.S. government’s purposes to support the Kurds–in part because they have the only armed forces in Iraq opposed to the current regime. But Washington and the West have a long record of betraying the Kurdish people.

The Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world without their own country. Their total population is around 26 million–with about half living in Turkey and most of the rest in Iran, Iraq and Syria.

At the end of the First World War, when the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East collapsed, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson promised to create a Kurdish state within two years. This promise, however, was soon forgotten, as Western powers competed to control the region’s oil.

British planes gassed and bombed Kurdish villages in Iraq in order to enforce the borders that the colonial rulers of London wanted. “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas,” said Winston Churchill, Britain’s war secretary at the time. “I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.”

Meanwhile, the Turkish government brutally repressed Kurds living in its territory, denying them freedom of language and culture. This violated international treaties, but the Western powers supported the Turks, who were seen as a vital ally in preventing the spread of the Russian revolution.

At the end of the Second World War, Kurds in northern Iran briefly set up their own republic. But the government in Tehran soon crushed this experiment, with the backing of the U.S. and Britain.

In the early 1970s, as tensions between Iran and its neighbor Iraq increased, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger agreed to support a plan devised by the Shah of Iran to encourage an uprising by Kurds in Iraq. By 1975, Kissinger had secretly channeled $16 million in military aid to the Kurds, who believed that Washington was finally supporting their right to self-determination.

But the following year, the House Select Committee on Intelligence issued the Pike report, which revealed that the U.S. never had any intention of supporting a Kurdish state. “Documents in the Committee’s possession clearly show that the President [Richard Nixon], Dr. Kissinger and the foreign head of state [the Shah of Iran] hoped that our clients [the Kurds] would not prevail,” the report concluded. “They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap the resources of our ally’s neighboring country [Iraq]. This policy was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting.”

After Iran and Iraq resolved their border dispute at the 1975 OPEC summit, however, the Iraqi government was told that U.S. support for the Kurds would now be withdrawn. The Iraqis immediately launched an aggressive campaign against Kurdish rebels. “The insurgents were clearly taken by surprise,” the congressional report recounted. “Their adversaries, knowing of the impending aid cut-off, launched an all-out search-and-destroy campaign the day after the agreement [with Iran] was signed. “The autonomy movement was over, and our former clients scattered before the [Iraqi] central government’s superior forces.”

As Iraq wiped out the remaining rebels, the Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani sent a message to Kissinger. “Our movement and people are being destroyed in an unbelievable way, with silence from everyone,” Barzani said. “We feel, your excellency, that the United States has a moral and political responsibility towards our people, who have committed themselves to your country’s policy.” Kissinger, however, thought otherwise, and sent no reply.

According to the Pike report, “Over 200,000 refugees managed to escape into Iran. Once there however, neither the United States nor Iran extended adequate humanitarian assistance. In fact, Iran was later to forcibly return over 40,000 of the refugees, and the United States government refused to admit even one refugee into the United States by way of political asylum, even though they qualified for such admittance.”

As usual, Kissinger had no trouble justifying this cold-hearted behavior. “Covert action,” he explained to a congressional staffer, “should not be confused with missionary work.” As the Pike report concluded, “Even in the context of covert actions, ours was a cynical enterprise.”

This cynicism continued into the 1980s, when, after the Iranian revolution that overthrew the Shah, the U.S. began supporting Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq–even after Baghdad used chemical weapons in its war on Iran.

During the course of the war, both Iran and Iraq carried out brutal massacres of their own Kurdish populations. In 1988, as the war was winding down, the Iraqi army carried out its murderous and now infamous gas attacks on rebellious Kurdish villages, which it accused of aiding Iran.

In response, some members of Congress called for an end to U.S. military aid to Iraq and other mild sanctions. But these measures were vigorously opposed by both the Reagan and Bush administrations, which called them “premature” and “misguided.”

It was only after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 that Washington’s concern for Kurdish rights suddenly reappeared–during the build-up to the last Gulf War. George Bush Sr. proclaimed that Saddam Hussein was the new Hitler and said that the U.S. was fighting to free the Iraqi population.

But at the end of the war, when Shia Muslims in the South and Kurds in the North rebelled against the regime, the U.S. abandoned them–even permitting the Iraqi military to use helicopter gunships to crush the insurrections. Washington preferred a unified Iraq under Saddam to successful rebellions that would have split the country and strengthened Iran.

After the war, the U.S. and Britain unilaterally established no-fly zones in the North and South of Iraq, claiming that these were intended to protect the Kurds and the Shias. But the real reason for the no-fly zones was to box in Saddam–in the hope that he would be replaced by a more compliant dictator.

Although Kurds in northern Iraq have taken the opportunity to establish a degree of autonomy for themselves, the area is far from a safe haven. The U.S. permits the Turkish military to cross the border and kill Kurdish rebels whenever it pleases.

Though Washington condemns Iraq for its treatment of the Kurds, it has supported Turkey’s equally brutal repression of its own Kurdish population, where more than 30,000 Kurds have been killed in the past two decades.

The U.S. may tolerate Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq for the time being. But it refuses to recognize the Kurds’ right to a state in the region, because that could weaken allies such as Turkey, making it more difficult for Washington to maintain control.

Weak leadership and antagonisms between competing factions have greatly weakened the Kurdish struggle for freedom. But after a century of Western betrayals, one thing is sure–the Kurdish people must rely on their own struggle, not Washington’s false promises, to win liberation.

PHIL GASPER writes for the Socialist Worker.

More articles by:
April 19, 2018
Ramzy Baroud
Media Cover-up: Shielding Israel is a Matter of Policy
Vijay Prashad
Undermining Brazilian Democracy: the Curious Saga of Lula
Steve Fraser
Class Dismissed: Class Conflict in Red State America
John W. Whitehead
Crimes of a Monster: Your Tax Dollars at Work
Kenn Orphan
Whistling Past the Graveyard
Karl Grossman - TJ Coles
Opening Pandora’s Box: Karl Grossman on Trump and the Weaponization of Space
Colin Todhunter
Behind Theresa May’s ‘Humanitarian Hysterics’: The Ideology of Empire and Conquest
Jesse Jackson
Syrian Strikes is One More step Toward a Lawless Presidency
Michael Welton
Confronting Militarism is Early Twentieth Century Canada: the Woman’s International League for Peace and Freedom
Alycee Lane
On David S. Buckel and Setting Ourselves on Fire
Jennifer Matsui
Our Overlords Reveal Their Top ‘To Do’s: Are YOU Next On Their Kill List?
George Ochenski
Jive Talkin’: On the Campaign Trail With Montana Republicans
Kary Love
Is It Time for A Nice, “Little” Nuclear War?
April 18, 2018
Alan Nasser
Could Student Loans Lead to Debt Prison? The Handwriting on the Wall
Susan Roberts
Uses for the Poor
Alvaro Huerta
I Am Not Your “Wetback”
Jonah Raskin
Napa County, California: the Clash of Oligarchy & Democracy
Robert Hunziker
America’s Dystopian Future
Geoffrey McDonald
“America First!” as Economic War
Jonathan Cook
Robert Fisk’s Douma Report Rips Away Excuses for Air Strike on Syria
Jeff Berg
WW III This Ain’t
Binoy Kampmark
Macron’s Syria Game
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia’s Top Cop Defends Indefensible Prejudice in Starbucks Arrest Incident
Katie Fite
Chaos in Urban Canyons – Air Force Efforts to Carve a Civilian Population War Game Range across Southern Idaho
Robby Sherwin
Facebook: This Is Where I Leave You
April 17, 2018
Paul Street
Eight Takeaways on Boss Tweet’s Latest Syrian Missile Spasm
Robert Fisk
The Search for the Truth in Douma
Eric Mann
The Historic 1968 Struggle Against Columbia University
Roy Eidelson
The 1%’s Mind Games: Psychology Gone Bad
John Steppling
The Sleep of Civilization
Patrick Cockburn
Syria Bombing Reveals Weakness of Theresa May
Dave Lindorff
No Indication in the US That the Country is at War Again
W. T. Whitney
Colombia and Cuba:  a Tale of Two Countries
Dean Baker
Why Isn’t the Median Wage for Black Workers Rising?
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia’s Top Cop Defends Indefensible Prejudice in Starbucks Arrest Incident
C. L. Cook
Man in the Glass
Kary Love
“The Mob Boss Orders a Hit and a Pardon”
Lawrence Wittner
Which Nations Are the Happiest―and Why
Dr. Hakim
Where on Earth is the Just Economy that Works for All, Including Afghan Children?
April 16, 2018
Dave Lindorff
President Trump’s War Crime is Worse than the One He Accuses Assad of
Ron Jacobs
War is Just F**kin’ Wrong
John Laforge
Nuclear Keeps on Polluting, Long After Shutdown
Norman Solomon
Missile Attack on Syria Is a Salute to “Russiagate” Enthusiasts, Whether They Like It or Not
Uri Avnery
Eyeless in Gaza   
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Iraq Then, Syria Now
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail