Can we stop for a moment, take a breath, and think about the Kurds and the Middle East?
I would like to know exactly what was the relationship between the $20T USA Nation State, largest military ever, and a band of Kurds? Oh, and when did it start? Remember, the Kurds effectively control Northern Iraq. Also, remember that 98% of Kurds are Sunni Muslims, and so are the people in northwestern Iraq, who rose up against the Shiites, who took over from Saddam. The US military surge in 2007 was directed at fighters who were predominantly Sunnis. Oh, and the Kurds also effectively control part of Iran, more or less in the Northwest. So called Kurdistan, which covers parts of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, and also other countries, includes about 1/3 or 1/4 of Eastern Turkey. You think the Turks have a little bit of national interest here?
A little history. Before the second Iraq War, we had no interest in the Kurds. To use the slang, we did not have a dog in that fight. During the recent post World War II era, the West wanted Turkey in NATO, and they joined, and Turkey wanted into the EU, which has not been fully consummated. But there is deep economic alignment between Turkey and the EU. NATO is a rather formal agreement among allies. Moreover, the Kurd issue has existed in that geography for a very long time, pre-dating WW I by decades and decades.
The Ottoman Empire – Turkey – was crushed in WW I and the Europeans, essentially the English and French, carved up the Middle East north of the Arabian Peninsula, and some of the eastern areas of Arabia, for example, Kuwait, which lost territory to Iraq. The boundaries served European interests first, and those of the Arabs, second. Essentially, Europeans created most of today’s boundaries for the Middle East, east of Egypt, and north of Saudi Arabia. This of course includes Israel. Indeed, after the second Iraq War there was a lot of discussion about dividing Iraq into three parts: The Kurds would have the north, the Sunnis the central area, and the Shiites the south, bordering Iran. These discussions did not go anywhere, probably because such a configuration would have created a whole new set of conflicts.
Now, back to my first question. Why did the US engage so intimately with the Kurds in the ISIS campaign? What deal did we cut, if any? Did it pre-date the current administration? Did the US sacrifice long term national interests in order to get another group to fight and die for a short-term campaign that interested them more than us? I write this because it is hard to imagine that the Kurds have much relationship at all to the long-term strategic interests of the United States.
While it makes me sick to my stomach to observe what is happening in northern Syria right now I would genuinely caution people from making conclusions about this week’s US policy without pausing to think about how we got into a situation where we are regarding threats to a stateless tribal people as threats to US national interests. (If you find that rather cold, do not get involved in foreign policy.) It may be the case that damage to the Kurds is now damage to the US. But, how in the name of God did this happen? If we do not look at this more deeply, our next move out there will surely be wrong.
There seems to be non-partisan agreement that the US has abandoned an ally. Seems we have done that, walked away from brothers and sisters in arms. However, I am still confused. What exactly is Turkey, with whom we have a formal agreement? US foreign policy should be based on our selfish national interests.
I hear a lot of noise about how we are turning the Middle East over to this group, or that group. Well, this confuses me. Turkey has been a reasonably secular state, and is dominantly Sunni, Muslim. (Yes, Erdogan has been leaning more and more to the religious side for political advantage.) Iran is Persian, not Arab, and is Shia, Muslim. Iraq is dominantly Shia, but Sunni in the central and northern areas. Syria is only 70% Muslim, and the controlling group, the Assad forces, are neither Sunni nor Shia, but Alawites. More than 8.0 million Kurds living in the multi state Kurdistan geography are dominantly Sunni Muslims. The Russians? Who the hell knows what the Russians are? Their largest religion is Christianity, of the Eastern Orthodox variety. More than anything, the Russians need population, and everyone close to them ought to worry a bit about that. This is a group of States/interests that are going to align against the United States?
One other set of facts. There are estimated to be over 3.5 million Syrian refugees in Turkey. Turkey wants to force these people back into Syria, in an area that covers 300 miles of Turkey’s border with Syria and is perhaps 20-30 miles wide. Presently, many Kurds live in this area, it being part of the Kurdistan region, and they would be profoundly hurt by this policy. Who knows how Syria actually views this since they may not have had much governmental authority in that area previous to their own civil war? And by the way, it is written that Erdogan is threatening the Europeans that if they get in his way, he’ll unleash all of these refugees on Europe. Yes, there is quite a mess out there.
I would observe that there seems not to be a US foreign policy strategy for this part of the world that has a life expectancy of more than about 90 days. (George Kennan must be tossing in his grave.) I do not think many sensible people would agree with how the Trump Administration has gone about deciding to step away from the Turkey/Kurd issue. And it is beyond laughable that the US President is somehow going to step in and negotiate something between the Kurds and the Turks. At the same time, the cry that we have deserted an ally and, by implication if the criers are genuine, that we should militarily enter into this Turkey/Kurd decades old conflict is just plain stupid. And the notion that the rest of the world now knows that they can no longer count on the US is equally stupid. As perhaps Kissinger said, I don’t remember, there are no friendships in international politics, there are only aligned interests. Anyone who has interests directly aligned with the United States can count on the United States, and they know it. Probably most of our allies are wondering, as do I, how did we get ourselves into this mess.
Another thought:
Wars that are not fought for survival, or that do not have a very clear and unambiguous purpose, almost never end well. WW II? Obvious. Gulf War I? H.W. had a clear purpose and when accomplished, stopped. He was deeply criticized. History may call this his finest moment. Vietnam? Not so good. Now we come to the relationship with the Kurds, with whom we have few allied interests. We were allied to get rid of ISIS. On the other hand, we have no strategic interest in Kurdistan, or getting between the Kurds and Turkey on that issue. (We already proved that we would not do that in Iraq.) Turkey is more than a NATO member. They sit between Russia and Iran, and are much more leery of how each of them might threaten Turkish interests than does the United States. So how does our support for the Kurds end? Uncomfortably. How do you think it is going to end in Afghanistan, which is loaded with ambiguity? The goal of the temporary, single focused Kurd alliance, was achieved. We move on. So do they. Trump’s processes and indignities drive me crazy. But there is no dignified way to stop 19 years of active military engagement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria. These wars have become institutionalized among those who devote their lives to these issues, and over time, have accumulated doctrine. Woodward writes, in his book on Trump, that McMaster’s presented his five year plan on Afghanistan and Trump said, in effect, what the hell are you talking about? Watch whether a single politician, including the Democratic contenders for the thrown, have a word to say about the Kurds in six months.
