http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1669421,00.html

Herein lies the problem. As the first signs that the USA may lose interest in Iraq, there are border skirmishes with “the Kurds”. Is that a euphamism for Kurdistan, a state that Turkey would be threatened by as a fifth of its population is Kurd. Would it mean eventual assimiliation, or loss of Turkish identity? It is a difficult question as Iraq was carved out of the ruin of the Ottoman empire after what is now Turkey was defeated. That more problems arise for Turkey does not bode well for the peace treaties that have existed for a hundred years or more. The USA may seek to protect the peace and this may disrepair any EU engagement with Turkey.

Turkey-Kurdistan

“Kurdistan”

When viewed thus, the dimensions of Kurdistan reveal the political tensions it would unleash – much of the wealth of all of its neighbors contained in a land that dreams of independence does not bode well for security. Why do very old treaties matter? How many generations must pass before dissolution of inherited political barriers limiting the freedom of the Kurdish people from self rule? Why should Turkey not want to trade with a Kurdish entity? Because it better to be the owner and seller of the oil than the customer of a people, whom – after all this time, is still considered an enemy?

Please discuss – I would love to know more about this potential flash-point in the insane saga of Western interventions in Middle East politics.