Dr Erwin van Veen, Senior Research Fellow Security and Justice at Clingendael Institute in an interview with Kurdpress also explained the ties between the Kurdish forces and the Iraqi army and the U.S. support to the Peshmerga.

Relation ISF-Peshmerga

He stressed that the Kurdish forces of Peshmerga has made a lot of efforts in the region in the past years but they are, at the same time, following party intersts and back the interstes of the two main ruling partie sof the region, adding that "at their core, the Peshmerga are party-political militias charged with maintaining the KDP and PUK in power, according to analysis we have done. In other words, they are constitutionally mandated forces but do not currently operate in ways that put the security priorities of the Kurdish people at large first."

The expert added that “Iraq Security Force (ISF) is still recovering from its collapse in 2014 in the face of the onslaught of the Islamic State (a few bits excepted, like the Counter Terrorism Division) and remain relatively weak organizations in terms of their ability to provide day-to-day security for the Iraqi people and deal with the remnants of the Islamic State. At this point they probably need continued support from the Al-Hashd al-Sha’abi to augment their capacity, despite the challenges of coordination and control that this generates.”

“In short, the relation between the ISF and Peshmerga appears to me as rather pragmatic and operational, i.e. they work together where political interests in Erbil and Baghdad coincide and where there is a practical need for cooperation. There is little in terms of strategic cooperation or integration, e.g. long-term joint training, exchange of staff officers, integration of chains of command, joint security planning etc. The recent decision to fund Peshmerga salaries from the central government payroll is interesting as it may provide the Iraqi government with future leverage to insist on greater cooperation between ISF and Peshmerga forces. But it's too early to tell,” van Veen further noted.

Peshmerga return to DT

Wondering whether the Kurdish forces ever fully left the disputed territories that both the Iraqi central government and the Kurdish autonomous region in the north claim authority over, the researcher stated “my understanding is that while Kirkuk city and the surrounding areas were partially evacuated, Peshmerga forces remain in other parts of the DT (Disputed Territories). This situation will probably remain ‘as is’ unless a more political solution is found between Erbil and Baghdad to decide on the administrative allocation and governance of the DT.

“In other words, the status quo already features Peshmerga forces in the DT but an effort to significantly expand their presence (or the reverse, by the ISF or the Hashd) will be seen as an act of aggression and probably solicit a counter response that can lead to violence.”

He warned that “absent a political roadmap, the risk of (local) incidents remain. A joint Hashd-ISF-Peshmerga force for the Kirkuk area might offer a way to mitigate this risk, but would further complicated Iraq’s already rather fragmented security landscape.”

The US turning Peshmerga into an army

About the support of the U.S. to the Kurdish forces, he said “it seems to me that the US tends to support the Kurds when and if this serves its own priorities. As President Trump appears to consider the fight against the IS as largely over, this priority is being downgraded. Yet, at the same time the US is ratcheting up the pressure on Iran so if the KRG was willing to play ball and serve US priorities in that game, they would likely be able to obtain more US support for the Peshmerga. But it is unlikely that the PUK would agree I think.”

“In any case, it makes sense for the US to keep supporting the Peshmerga, even at lower levels of support than what was the case during the fight against the Islamic State, in order to maintain good political relations with the KRG, obtain intelligence and to sponsor a friendly force in an area that is otherwise problematic for the US. But then again, the same argument could be made for the SDF/YPG in neighboring Syria and they basically got thrown under the bus by President Trump. In other words, it is hard to say whether smart moves that seem obvious from a US foreign policy perspective will not fall victim to its current reductionism and nativism,” he finally noted.

Reporter’s code: 50101