Skip to comments.Iraqi Invasion: Looting, Arson Triggers Exodus of 100,000 from Kurdish Kirkuk
Posted on 10/20/2017 6:11:40 PM PDT by huldah1776
Kurdish authorities estimate that 100,000 people have fled Kirkuk, Iraq, this week, formerly under control of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) but now lost to the Baghdad government and its Iran-backed Shiite militia allies. Kurds fleeing Kirkuka multi-ethnic city heavily reliant on its vast oil resourcessay Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) fighters are looting, burning houses down, and attacking Kurdish citizens.
The Iraqi government announced a military initiative to wrest Kirkuk out of KRG authority after September 25, when the KRG organized a non-binding referendum asking Kurds whether they would support the establishment of an independent Kurdistan. While Kirkuk has not traditionally been considered a part of Kurdish territory, the Kurdish Peshmerga have controlled the city and its province since 2014, when the Iraqi army fled an Islamic State attack. The Peshmerga prevented ISIS from taking over the city, and its oil supply, and incorporated it into the KRG.
Unable to trust its own military, Baghdad eventually incorporated the more militarily adept PMF into its armed forces. The PMF have received military backing from both the United States and Iran and appear loyal to the government in Tehran, not Baghdad.
The Peshmerga also claim to have evidence that Irans Quds Force terror brigade, a wing of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Cords (IRGC), are fighting against them in Kirkuk. Reports have placed Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force, in Iraq supporting the PMF.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
My laptop is still running but the headline is enough if you don't want to visit.
And, finally/s, "US State Dept cautions Iraqi govt against troop advances in Kurdish territory"
I went to the State Dept site and found this release:
Press Statement Heather Nauert Department Spokesperson Washington, DC October 20, 2017
Situation Near Kirkuk, Iraq
The United States is concerned by reports of violent clashes around the town of Altun Kupri in northern Iraq. We are monitoring the situation closely, and call on all parties to cease all violence and provocative movements, and to coordinate their activities to restore calm.
In order to avoid any misunderstandings or further clashes, we urge the central government to calm the situation by limiting federal forces movements in disputed areas to only those coordinated with the Kurdistan Regional Government. We are encouraged by Prime Minister Abadis instructions to federal forces to protect Iraqi Kurdish citizens and to not provoke conflict.
The reassertion of federal authority over disputed areas in no way changes their status they remain disputed until their status is resolved in accordance with the Iraqi constitution. Until parties reach a resolution, we urge them to fully coordinate security and administration of these areas. To that end, all parties should engage in dialogue now on the basis of the Iraqi constitution, as Prime Minister Abadi offered and the Kurdistan Regional Government accepted publicly.
The United States remains committed to a united, stable, democratic, and federal Iraq, and committed to the Kurdistan Regional Government as an integral component of the country. We will continue working with officials from the central and regional governments to reduce tensions, avoid further clashes, and encourage dialogue.
We also remain determined to finish the fight against ISIS in Iraq and call on the Iraqi Government to redouble its efforts with the Global Coalition until that task is done
Isn’t it all just so f***ing great? We’re bringing peace!
oops, too late.
SETH J. FRANTZMAN OCTOBER 21, 2017 03:27 [Israeli time?]
IRAQI ARMY ATTACKS KURDISH FORCES ON ROAD TO ERBIL
When we left Iraq things got worse but that was just Iraq vs ISIS. Now, the Iraqis, Russians, Iranians, Syrians, Kurds, and Turds are all involved. It’s like fighting 5 gangs on the streets of Chicago.
Exactly...if only Bush-43 had NOT attacked Iraq, we would have no ISIS, Sadddam and sons would be keeping all radical Muslims where they belong, in prisons doing hard labor. Iran would be still tangled with Iraq and would not become a nuclear power. And there would be no mass invasion by displaced people seeking sanctuary in Europe and Obama would not have approved arrival of hundred thousand refugees from middle-east.
Best of all we would be $6 Trillion ahead in US Treasury and all those brave American soldiers killed in Iraq, Syria, Libya would still be alive.
IMHO the invasion of Iraq by Bush-43 will go down in history as the biggest foreign policy blunder ever.
Were any babies tossed from incubators this time? And by the way it is hard to comprehend how could Iraq invade Iraq.
Yep, and all because Saddam had plotted against his old man. Iraq was a personal vendetta by W played out on the world stage. The quagmire of all quagmires, with no end in sight.
At least the anthrax postage stopped.
When do you think the US left Iraq. There is about the equivalent of a full division there these days. If anything, that's probably fewer than after Obama completed the 'complete withdrawal (probably closer to a couple of divisions if you include the mercenary "defense contractors) in 2011.
Saudis loves radical Islam and hates Saddam. Bushes loves Saudi. Between Saudis, Bushes, radical islam and Saddam the latter had no chance.
I feel so sorry for the poor Kurds. Only halfway honorable people in the region, and they are attacked by everyone, as soon as temporary alliances to defeat a common enemy have succeeded.
The KURDS are the MEDES in the BIBLE.
Revenge of the Kurds: Kurdistan’s Future in Bible Prophecy
May be so, but Saddam held off much bigger Iran for 10 years. It was Bush-43, using American military for his own reasons (most likely revenge for purported attempt on his father by Saddam, which never succeeded if true) invaded Iraq and DESTABILIZED ENTIRE MIDDLE_EAST.
Israel is at 10 times greater risk from nuclear Iran under control of Mullah’s than anything Saddam could do or intend.
If we left the dictators alone we would have a much more peaceful world.
> “Exactly...if only Bush-43 had NOT attacked Iraq...”
Though I can’t say I’ve been at all fond of Bush in recent years — or of his recent speech — he himself didn’t attack Iraq (Bush could have done nothing without the support of others). Neither did the United States “attack” Iraq.
Iraq didn’t comply with the inspection provisions that produced a ceasefire in the first Iraq war, which Saddam started. Iraq was required not just to stop development of WMDs but to account for materials already produced, so that their destruction could be confirmed. Saddam didn’t do so, foolishly leaving doubt about whether he still had them — apparently on purpose to keep up his status in the region, intimidate Iran, or just out of machismo. He probably thought that pacifists and isolationists in this country would keep it from ever overthrowing him.
He didn’t expect to be pulled out of a hole, tried, and executed. Unfortunately that salutary example that might have served as a deterrent to other enemies of the United States didn’t have the positive deterrent effect it might have because of dissension in the United States.
The invasion of Iraq was not an “attack” on Iraq but a resumption of the war that Saddam was dumb enough to start by invading Kuwait (at that time too he foolishly underestimated American intentions to oppose him — he was a reckless fool, with far more power than reckless fools should ever have).
The Iraqi nuclear scientists who testified that Iraq suspended development of nuclear weapons when inspections were instituted — and apparently they did — also said they expected development to be resumed when the inspections ended. Saddam was a mass murderer — who used WMDs against the Kurds, the least objectionable group in the country from an American point of view — and if he’d had his way, he’d have added another malevolent nuclear power to the world. He deserved to be overthrown. The fact that others subsequently screwed things up doesn’t change that.
> “It was Bush-43, using American military for his own reasons (most likely revenge for purported attempt on his father by Saddam, which never succeeded if true) invaded Iraq and DESTABILIZED ENTIRE MIDDLE_EAST.”
Destabilized? When was it ever stable? Israel hasn’t really been at peace since it was established. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands within Iraq, and over a million died in his wars against Iran and Kuwait. Also 9-11 — an attack on the United States that killed more persons than at Pearl Harbor — happened BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. (The United States has been better off since the invasion of Iraq. How many American casualties have we had since then, compared with 9-11? It’s been many years, but I doubt that we’ve accumulated the number we lost on that one day.)
Before the invasion of Iraq the situation in the Middle East was producing all kinds of harmful — and in the future possibly even more dangerous (e.g., from nuclear weapons) -—consequences. The fact that things were screwed up afterwards doesn’t change that.
> “And there would be no mass invasion by displaced people seeking sanctuary in Europe and Obama would not have approved arrival of hundred thousand refugees from middle-east.”
If countries accept masses of unvetted illegal immigrants (who are often hostile to the cultures of the United States and Europe), that’s the mistake of the current governments that accept them.
We’re still accepting more than we should. I’m not saying that we should allow refugees who are really at great risk to be slaughtered (the true refugees). I think either Muslim countries should be pressured to accept the Muslims, or we should try to establish relatively safe areas in their home countries where they can go (preferably by using air power against anyone who threatens them).
These are hassles, I agree. I too prefer less engagement overseas whenever it’s prudent. If you think that isolationism will work when a large part of the world hates the United States, though, and when nuclear weapons are becoming more and more accessible, I think you’re sadly mistaken.
” for purported attempt on his father by Saddam”
A very bad reason for a war.
“Also 9-11 an attack on the United States that killed more persons than at Pearl Harbor happened BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. “
And what exactly ít has to do with Saddam?
“Before the invasion of Iraq the situation in the Middle East was producing all kinds of harmful and in the future possibly even more dangerous (e.g., from nuclear weapons) -consequences. The fact that things were screwed up afterwards doesnt change that.”
Before which invasion? In 2003 Iraq wasn’t in a position to cause big troubles. It wasn’t that much a deterrent against Iran though. Although it is rumored chemical weapons were moved to Syria no traces of nuke program were shown ever.
> “And what exactly it [the 9-11 attack] has to do with Saddam?”
I cited it in reference to the alleged stability of the Middle East before the Iraq invasion. The United States was hated before then, and at great risk from its enemies before then. Since the invasion of Iraq we’ve had no attack on that scale (though I expect one because of the incompetence with which our wars and policies against our enemies have been conducted).
> ...no traces of nuke program were shown ever.
There was plenty of evidence that it had existed in the past. (Saddam’s son-in-law had defected and revealed the secret development that had been taking place, then later killed when he returned to Iraq.) That’s not even under dispute. What was not shown was that the nuclear development continued during the inspections. As I said, though, Iraqi nuclear scientists (who had been part of the nuke program) testified that they expected it to be resumed after the inspections ended.
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.