ZeroAX wrote:Blu wrote:What is there to do about ISIS? Are we going to continue surgically striking with drone attacks, or are boots on the ground needed to combat a force like this? I understand that it's a matter of Iraq and Syria's sovereignty to resolve this, but it's grayed by the fact that we were stewards of the instability that was created through the wars fought.
Arm the Kurds? Unlike most middle eastern militants they have a goal uniting them that doesn't involve destruction and hatred of the west, namely having their own country.
There's both positives and negatives there(from a US point of view). The Kurds currently have an autonomous region in Iraq but would prefer a nation built from the territory they consider theirs. This territory isn't limited to Iraq, but also includes portions of Turkey, Syria, and Iran. We are hesitant to automatically arm the Kurds because they might then declare themselves a sovereign nation in those four countries, two of which are supposedly allies(Turkey and Iraq).
The Kurds are also interested in being allowed to sell the oil located within the Kurdish autonomous region(which they have asked for along with arms and munitions to help fight ISIS), which would further reduce Iraq's economic output.
Third, the loss of such a large and relatively self-sufficient region of Iraq would not only damage Iraqi stability, but might also further alienate the Sunni minority, as the Shia-centric policies and government of Nouri al-Maliki was already doing. This is part of the reason why ISIS hasn't had trouble finding willing Sunni volunteers. Such a blow could further disrupt Iraq to the point of its dissolution in the face of an ongoing guerrilla war. Conversely, a push by the Iraqi government to continue favoring Shia would also play into the hands of the Iranians, making them a new ally to help fill the loss of Syria. Or worse, an independent Kurdistan could cause ISIS to redirect their attention entirely on the weakened Iraq, leading to a potential victory.
So there are three major concerns for arming the Kurds and them declaring independence as a result: Iraq turns into a failed state, Iraq becomes an open ally to Iran, or Iraq is overrun by ISIS. And this is just regarding Iraq. How would Iran react to such an attempt? Probably not well, as it whittles away at its territory, power, and prestige at a time when it's engaged in a larger regional power struggle with Saudi Arabia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are also positives:
The Kurds have historically been kind to other minorities in the region(and other peoples in general) and could therefore offer protection to these groups while other governments fail.
The creation of an independent Kurdistan could lead to a new ally in the region with access to vital resources that doesn't also have a genocidal religious streak or fund international terrorism, isn't involved in an ongoing regional power struggle, and doesn't automatically have a negative attitude toward another US ally, Israel.
The Kurdish military is already well-trained and capable of serving as ground troops in nearby regions which ISIS controls. The Kurdish military also has high morale, it receives a lot of civilian support, and the Kurds are willing to break social taboos that both make it more effective and terrify the enemy(such as using women in combat roles).
It should also be noted that the government of Turkey has been working with the Kurdish minority there, so the Kurds are less likely to attempt any sort of violent overthrow if they do receive arms.
Pulsar_t wrote:I wonder if this newest ceasefire would hold at all? Better to be pessimistic.
This Russian incursion into eastern Ukraine has reminded me of 2003 when the US-UK coalition went into Iraq on false pretext. Back then the global uproar was much louder. The invasion of sovereign nations under false/weak pretences should always be a condemnable action.
Legality of war notwithstanding, I'm still happy Saddam is dead.
