“In the fight to save their people, whether from Saddam or ISIL, the Peshmerga have proven themselves a capable and effective fighting force.”
The Kurdish Peshmerga have come to prominence in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In the fight against ISIL, the Peshmerga received praise for their ability to effectively thwart ISIL expansion, their bravery on the front lines, and their general respect for Western norms even during times of war.
While the Peshmerga have come to prominence in recent years, they are not a new organization. The Peshmerga, whose name translates to “those who face death”, were born from the militias of Kurdish tribes in the late 1800s. The Kurds, with their reputation for bravery and ability to endure hardships, did not have a major need for a defense force before the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They did not need to protect themselves from Istanbul, which largely left them alone. The mountains of northern Iraq, northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and northwestern Iran afforded them relative safety from most outsiders. Modernization and the reshaping of the Middle East changed the equation and created the necessity for a dedicated force.
The Peshmerga truly took shape as the Middle East was carved up by the European powers after World War One. The Peshmerga, under Mahmud Barzanji, not to be mistaken for Mahmud Barzani, led the fight against British rule from 1919-1923. They were ultimately defeated as the British consolidated control over the newly created state.
Another Kurdish revolt began less than a decade later under the command of Ahmed Barzani, with Mustafa Barzani leading the Peshmerga forces in Iraqi Kurdistan. Like previous attempts, the 1931-1932 revolt was unsuccessful; however, it achieved a binding of Kurdish forces across regional borders. In addition, it brought along Mustafa Barzani, who would father future attempts at statehood by the Barzani dynasty, as well as be the patriarch of the modern Barzani dynasty that leads the Kurds today.
All military forces have a history they look back on and take pride in. Saladin, a Sunni Kurd, predates the Peshmerga, and while a source of Kurdish pride, the event they can look back on — the long march across the Araxes by 500 Peshmerga in 1947 — is a recent part of the Peshmerga’s culture.
Iran was coming into shape under the Shah and sought to crush any and all opposition. Among the opposition were the Kurds in the northwest who proclaimed their independence and formed the Republic of Mahabad. The Iranian crackdown brought about the arrest and execution of all opposition. Mustafa Barzani led the 500 Kurdish leaders, and the Peshmerga who could escape, on a harrowing winter journey through the snowy mountains of northeastern Iran. First they arrived in Turkey, where they were turned away, and then up towards the Soviet Union, swimming across the brutally cold Araxes River before reaching safety.
While the modern Peshmerga is not the loose tribal alliance of the late 1800s, it is not a unified force in a Western sense, as divisions still exists based along political lines. Efforts have been made recently to unify and create uniformity amongst the disparate forces. The Iraqi Peshmerga are, by law, under the command of the President of the KRG, however, individual fighters and units align with their party, namely the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). The KDP is led by Mahmoud Barzani and is based in the north of Iraqi Kurdistan. Others follow the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) led by Jalal Talibani, who are based in the south of Iraqi Kurdistan.
These divisions were of minor-to-no consequence when the Peshmerga had to fight ISIL for the survival of the KRG; however, these divisions could resurface when there is no threat to unify, or if there is a post-independence power struggle. What this struggle could look like is unknown, but looking briefly at Israel from the post-World War Two to 1949 Armistice period may be helpful.
Like Kurdistan, there were two major political blocs in pre-state Israel: the liberal Mapai, led by David Ben-Gurion, and the more conservative Herut, led by Menachem Begin. Both had military forces, with the Labor’s Haganah, the precursor to the modern Israeli Defense Force, and the Begin led Etzel (also known as the Irgun).
Prior to independence, the Haganah and the Etzel fought amongst themselves. At times, the Haganah aided British colonial authorities in identifying and arresting Etzel fighters, whom the British deemed terrorists. The most notable conflict was the Altalena incident, when the Haganah opened fire on an Etzel ship carrying recruits and supplies and Menachem Begin himself, who gave the command to not return fire.
Ultimately, the Etzel was integrated into the Haganah, but the consolidation was not seamless or easy. While the military forces were consolidated there still existed a rift between Ben-Gurion and Begin, with Ben-Gurion refusing to address Begin by name, instead referring to him as “the member who sits next to Dr. Bader,” in reference to Dr. Yohanan Bader, whom Begin sat next to during Knesset meetings.
A newly formed Kurdish state would suffer from such an irreparable division between the KDP and PUK, as support for the two is more evenly divided than was the case with Mapai and Herut in early Israel. The same is true of the Peshmerga. Loyalty, while ultimately directed towards the Kurdish people, runs through political affiliation. In the early state period, Kurdistan will be at its most vulnerable as outside forces already opposed to Kurdish independence will seek any and every opportunity to impose their will. At the very least, such forces will want to shape Kurdistan to its own interests.
In the fight to save their people, whether from Saddam or ISIL, the Peshmerga have proven themselves a capable and effective fighting force. They have shaken off their reliance on Baghdad and now benefit from direct military aid and support from the U.S. and other Western nations. While the fighting against ISIL was intense, the ultimate crucible may have yet come as the new nation may face opposition from regional powers who view the establishment of an independent Kurdish state as directly against their interests. Many of these regional powers may be willing to deploy their professional military forces.
