Peshmerga

Peshmerga is the term for Kurdish military forces, especially the armed forces of Iraq’s Kurdistan Region. The Kurdish word is commonly translated as “those who face death.” Peshmerga have fought in revolts against central governments, defended Kurdish areas and become a formal security institution within the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).

The modern force includes units linked historically to the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). Although the KRG has a Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs, party loyalties have continued to shape command and deployment. Efforts to place all brigades under a unified national chain of command have advanced unevenly.

The Peshmerga became internationally prominent during the campaign against the Islamic State. They defended Erbil, helped protect Iraqi Kurdistan and participated in operations to retake territory. Their record also includes serious controversies, especially the withdrawal of forces from Sinjar in August 2014 before Islamic State fighters attacked the Yazidi population. That failure left residents exposed to massacre, enslavement and displacement and remains a subject of bitter debate.

Etymology and historical background

The word “Peshmerga” combines Kurdish terms for facing death and is used as a name for fighters prepared to die for their people. It became associated with Kurdish armed resistance in the twentieth century. The term has been used by multiple Kurdish movements, not just the forces of the KRG, and its meaning has evolved with changing political circumstances.

Kurdish revolts against central governments took place across the region after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. In Iraq, Kurdish forces resisted British administration and later the Iraqi monarchy and republic. Tribal leaders and political parties organized armed groups that operated in difficult mountainous terrain. Their objectives included local autonomy, language rights and political recognition.

In 1946, Kurdish leaders established the Republic of Mahabad in northwestern Iran. Mustafa Barzani and other fighters served as commanders of its forces. The republic collapsed after Soviet support was withdrawn and Iranian forces reasserted control. Many Peshmerga retreated to the Soviet Union or returned to Iraq. The episode became a formative memory in Kurdish political history.

Mustafa Barzani later led the Kurdistan Democratic Party’s revolt against the Iraqi government. The 1961–1970 rebellion involved intermittent conflict and negotiations over Kurdish autonomy. A 1970 agreement promised autonomy but was not fully implemented. Fighting resumed in 1974, and the rebellion collapsed after Iran ended its support following the Algiers Agreement with Iraq in 1975.

The PUK was founded in 1975 under Jalal Talabani and developed its own armed forces. Competition between the KDP and PUK produced separate command structures and zones of influence. The two parties later fought a civil war in the Kurdistan Region from 1994 to 1997. This history explains why the Peshmerga has remained divided between political parties despite the existence of a regional government.

Iraqi Kurdistan and legal recognition

After the 1991 Gulf War, an uprising in northern Iraq was followed by a mass flight of Kurdish civilians toward Turkey and Iran. The United States, Britain and France established a no-fly zone that helped create space for Kurdish self-rule. Elections in 1992 led to the formation of a Kurdistan Regional Government, while the KDP and PUK continued to maintain separate administrations and military forces.

The Peshmerga became the principal armed force in the autonomous region. Their role included border security, protection of government institutions and defense against neighboring states and armed groups. The Kurdish parties controlled recruitment, promotion and deployment, making the forces closely linked to their respective political leadership.

In 2003, the United States-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein’s government. Peshmerga units cooperated with coalition forces in northern Iraq and helped secure Kurdish areas. Iraq’s 2005 constitution recognized the Kurdistan Region as a federal entity with regional institutions. The KRG’s authority over internal security was recognized, while defense and foreign policy remained federal responsibilities.

The constitutional settlement did not fully unify the Peshmerga. The KDP and PUK retained influence over separate units, often called “party Peshmerga.” The Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs was established to coordinate forces, but command appointments and operational decisions remained divided. This arrangement complicated coordination with the Iraqi army and federal security services.

Disputes over territory, oil and authority persisted between the KRG and Baghdad. The Peshmerga deployed in contested areas, including Kirkuk and parts of Nineveh and Diyala. Federal and regional forces sometimes cooperated against common threats but also faced tensions over jurisdiction. The status of these territories remained unresolved under Iraq’s constitution.

War against the Islamic State

In June 2014, the Islamic State captured Mosul and advanced across northern Iraq. Iraqi army units collapsed, and the Peshmerga moved into several areas previously held by federal forces. They defended Erbil and other towns and helped contain the group’s advance. The crisis led the United States to begin airstrikes and expand military support to Kurdish forces.

The Peshmerga received weapons, training and intelligence from the United States and other coalition members. Foreign advisers helped establish coordination and logistics. Kurdish forces fought alongside Iraqi troops, local militias and international aircraft. They played an important role in retaking towns and opening supply routes.

Peshmerga units participated in the 2014–2015 battles around Makhmur, Gwer, Sinjar and other areas. They helped drive the Islamic State away from parts of the Kurdistan Region and secured routes for displaced civilians. In 2016, they took part in the broader operation to isolate Mosul. The campaign required coordination among multiple forces with different command systems and political objectives.

On 25 September 2017, the KRG held an independence referendum that was rejected by Baghdad and neighboring states. Federal Iraqi forces and Iran-backed units advanced into Kirkuk in October. The Peshmerga withdrew from the city after divisions between the KDP and PUK weakened their position. The episode exposed the consequences of party fragmentation and reduced the KRG’s control over contested territory.

The Islamic State lost its last major territory in Iraq in 2017. Peshmerga forces continued to conduct security operations and coordinate with the Iraqi army in disputed areas. The group’s cells remained active, using ambushes and attacks. Kurdish and federal units have worked together at times, but political disputes have limited consistent joint security.

Structure and party affiliations

The Peshmerga is administered through the KRG’s Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs. The ministry oversees brigades, training, logistics and some specialized units. The Kurdistan Region also has intelligence and internal security bodies that operate separately from the regular Peshmerga. These institutions have been associated with the KDP and PUK and maintain distinct chains of command.

The KDP and PUK historically maintained their own forces, often referred to as Unit 80 and Unit 70 respectively. The KDP’s units are strongest in the west and north of the region, while the PUK’s are concentrated in the east and south. These geographic patterns reflect the parties’ areas of political influence and have shaped military coordination.

The Peshmerga includes infantry, artillery, engineering and specialized forces. Some units have received training and equipment from foreign partners. The force’s inventory has included light and heavy weapons, armored vehicles and anti-tank systems. It has limited air capabilities and relies on cooperation with Iraq and international partners for air support.

The organization has also included women fighters. Female Peshmerga have served in combat and support roles and became more visible during the campaign against the Islamic State. Their service challenged traditional gender roles while remaining a small proportion of the overall force. Women’s participation has been celebrated in Kurdish political messaging and documented by foreign media.

Unification reforms

Efforts to unify the Peshmerga under a single command have continued since the formation of the KRG. The party-affiliated structure has enabled the KDP and PUK to retain political influence and independent security capacity. Reform efforts have sought to transfer units to the ministry, standardize salaries and establish a professional chain of command.

The United States and other coalition partners have conditioned some assistance on reform and coordination. International training programs have supported brigade-level units intended to report directly to the ministry rather than party headquarters. Progress has been slowed by disagreements over appointments, budgets and the distribution of authority between the parties.

A 2022 memorandum of understanding between the KRG, Iraq and the United States renewed commitments to reform and improve cooperation. The agreement addressed command structures, salaries and coordination in disputed territories. Implementation continued to face political obstacles, and units remained divided along party lines.

U.S. oversight reports have described gradual progress but persistent challenges. The Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs has sought to complete the unification of forces, while KDP and PUK leaders have negotiated over command and representation. The process has practical consequences for readiness and the ability to respond quickly to threats.

Controversies and the Sinjar withdrawal

Partisan control of the Peshmerga has drawn criticism. The KDP and PUK have used their forces to protect political interests and have sometimes employed them against domestic opponents. In 2011, security forces linked to the PUK broke up protests in Sulaymaniyah, and KDP forces blocked opposition delegates from reaching parliament in 2014. Reports have also alleged corruption, patronage and “ghost employees” on the payroll.

The most consequential controversy occurred on 3 August 2014, when the Islamic State attacked Sinjar, a district with a large Yazidi population. Thousands of Peshmerga stationed in Yazidi towns withdrew without informing residents or issuing evacuation orders. Islamic State fighters entered communities and carried out mass killings, abductions and enslavement. Many Yazidis fled toward Mount Sinjar, where they became trapped without food or water.

Accounts of the withdrawal differ over why the forces left and what orders they received. Some Peshmerga sources said they were outgunned by Islamic State units equipped with weapons captured from the Iraqi army. Yazidi leaders said they had sought weapons and support before the attack and were left without adequate protection. Academic and journalistic accounts have described the episode as an abandonment of the Yazidis.

The withdrawal is widely regarded as a factor that enabled the Sinjar massacre and the genocide of Yazidis by the Islamic State. Kurdish forces later returned and helped open routes for people fleeing the mountain. The event remains a source of trauma and political grievance among Yazidis. It has also prompted debate about command responsibility, minority representation and the limits of the Peshmerga’s protection role.

In areas captured from the Islamic State, Peshmerga and other Kurdish forces faced accusations of property destruction and forced displacement. Amnesty International documented demolitions in some villages and argued that civilians were unlawfully expelled. Kurdish authorities disputed claims of a systematic policy and said demolitions were connected to security threats. Later investigations have differed in scope and conclusions, so assessments should distinguish documented incidents from broader allegations.

Role in regional security

The Peshmerga has become a partner of foreign governments seeking stability in northern Iraq. The United States, Britain, Germany and other countries have provided training, equipment and medical support. International aid has strengthened the force but also increased political dependence on foreign support and exposed divisions in the KRG’s security architecture.

The force’s relationship with the Iraqi army is essential to security in disputed territories. Joint coordination can prevent Islamic State cells from exploiting gaps between Kurdish and federal control. Political disagreements over territory and revenue have repeatedly disrupted cooperation. The Peshmerga’s future role depends on whether Baghdad and Erbil can establish reliable joint mechanisms.

The Peshmerga also has implications for regional relations with Turkey and Iran. Turkey has conducted operations against the Kurdistan Workers' Party in northern Iraq and maintains relations with the KDP. Iran has influence through political ties and armed groups in Iraq. The Peshmerga’s divided command structure affects how the KRG balances these external relationships.

Assessment

The Peshmerga is both a Kurdish national symbol and a set of armed forces shaped by competing political parties. It defended Iraqi Kurdistan, helped defeat the Islamic State and became an important partner for international coalitions. Its service has brought security and political recognition to the region.

The force’s unresolved divisions weaken professional command and create opportunities for political misuse. The withdrawal from Sinjar exposed the human consequences of poor coordination and left Yazidi communities vulnerable to genocide. Controversies over partisan control, corruption and minority protection remain part of its record.

Reform and unification could strengthen the Peshmerga’s ability to defend the region and cooperate with Iraq’s national forces. Achieving that goal requires transparent budgets, clear civilian oversight and an end to party control over military units. The force’s future will depend on whether it becomes a unified regional institution or remains divided between political organizations.