I’m not saying the Kurds should not protect their territory or maintain their integrity during this time of turmoil. But long-term, when things settle down, and independent Kurdistan is likely to cause more problems than it solves. They will probably need to be a part of whatever state eventually forms. They may end up an autonomous and largely self-governing part of that state, which is probably a sustainable state for the. To be in
“Every sympathetic minority deserves an ethnic homeland” is a quick route to endless war.
That may be so, but the issue in the OP is whether or not to help the Kurds right now against ISIS. Is the answer ‘we shouldn’t, because they want an ethnic state, which will create more problems than it solves?’ or conversly, should we be helping the Kurds right now despite that possibility?
Problem is that this is really a yes/no question. You can either help them now, or not.
Given that the Kurds lost their homeland when their country was split up, and given that they seem to be about the only people in the region who are reasonably moderate and have their act together, maybe this is the perfect time to allow them to reconstitute their homeland. Syria and Iraq are in tatters, Turkey is moving in a more Islamist direction… Maybe weakening those powers to the benefit of a moderate, prosperous Kurdistan is a decent thing to do. It should at least be considered.
So you’re against Palestinian statehood? The right of return to Israel? If not, why is it more just or a better idea for Palestinians to have their own state, but not the Kurds?
So you’re against Palestinian statehood? The right of return to Israel? If not, why is it more just or a better idea for Palestinians to have their own state, but not the Kurds?
[/QUOTE]
But that’s just different.
If you’d been in the Peace Corps, you’d understand.
Not sure what point you’re trying to make, Sam. I would file that under “caused more problems than it solved”. Wouldn’t you?
I had a post written earlier, which I decided against, but it said something like: We could give them a country just like we did with Israel. What could possibly go wrong?
It’s not about who lives there (and it’s not just Kurds living there) but who claims it. And why. As noted, there is a shitload of oil in Iraqi Kurdistan, and the Iraqi central government isn’t about to just give it up.
Well, unlike Israel there has been an historical ‘Kurdistan’, and it was even supposed to be ratified by treaty after the Ottoman Empire broke up. But the Turks invaded the part of Kurdistan they still control, and as a result the allied powers broke up the country and gave pieces of it to Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
My first, somewhat rhetorical question goes to supporters of a Palestinian state: If you think the Palestinians deserve to have their state back because it was supposedly taken away from them by foreign powers, don’t the Kurds equally qualify? How can you advocate for one and not the other?
The other, more serious point is that restoring Kurdistan would put a big western-friendly country right in the middle of a swamp of crazy, and that could have a strong stabilizing effect on the region.
Of course, it could also lead to more insanity and even more violence. I’ve stopped trying to predict what will happen when something changes in the middle east. But on the other hand, it looks like change is already happening and chaos is going to continue, so maybe trying to direct it in a helpful direction is not a bad thing.
Israel was set up by vote in the UN. That will never happen for Kurdistan. At some point we have to draw the line and say ENOUGH. The borders are set, and we need to make them work. Now, if they want to fight a war with the regional powers, win, and then set up their own state, bully for them. Just don’t involve us.
And… I’m really, really, REALLY sympathetic to the Kurds. It pains me to subject them to what is nothing more than realpolitik. But I’d rather work towards peace and economic integration so that borders become less important. They can carve out “semi-autonomous regions” as a compromise.
I’d note “we” didn’t “give” Israel a country. All “we” did was vote for partition (which was rejected and led to war), and recognize the country that later emerged from that war.
Western support for Israel (particularly American) is an artifact of a later age, once the country already existed.
From a “realpolitik” perspective, the notion that a unitary Iraqi state is likely to emerge from the present conflict is looking more and more like a pipe dream.
While I think everyone would want “peace and economic integration”, there remains that little issue of the existance of ISIS, which seems to stand in the way of either. The government of Iraq appears utterly incapable of fighting them. The Kurds seem to have better abilities in that direction - at least, inside their own territories. Should fealty to the notion of the sanctity of existing nation-states prevent us from helping them out, or not?
Both. We shouldn’t go around facilitating the shifting of borders, but if they really want to duke it out like folks did in the olden days, then bully for them. They can resolve things the old fashioned way; just leave us out of it.
I may have missed something. When did I advocate that? I don’t have any ideas of how to make that situation better, but it’s definitely not “Palestinians deserve to have their state back.” As mentioned, moder multi-ethnic states work, ethnic homelands are a recipe for generations of bloodbaths.
Sorry, I wasn’t directing that specifically at you, but answering John’s question. I actually can’t remember whether you advocate a Palestinian state or not.
You can’t “have a state back” if that state never existed, in the history of the world.
As for Kurds - they will not “have a state back”. Again, it never existed. But they are definitely organized, are in full control of significant territory, and have the military that is capable of defending it. They are also seemingly non-extremist, and are the “live and let live” people. I don’t see anything that would prevent me from supporting independent Kurdistan.
Exactly. Getting kind of confused by this idea that the U.N. just plopped down some borders and said “here you go, Jews. Now you got a homeland. You’re welcome.”
No, there was not. Terr is quite correct there. Any created Kurdistan would be similar to creating a country out of Basque country in France and Spain. Not completely implausible an an entity, but hardly the recreation of some pre-existing state. It would just as artificial a creation as Iraq. Not that that matters much to me - I have never given much credo to the “historical state” argument anyway. If so might as well re-create the Mongol Empire and be done with all this foolish squabbling ;). If I may be circular for a second Israel deserves to exist because it exists now and is accepted by the majority of its inhabitants, not because it has some quasi-farcical connection to some ancient backwater kingdom.
Theoretically I agree with even sven - ethnic nationalism generally sucks IMESHO. I regard the breakup of the former Yugoslavia as a preventable tragedy. However we live in the real world and in that world ethnic nationalism is an organizing principle that works after a fashion and is a powerful attractant. Iraqi Kurdistan is de facto heading towards a functional independence, which I think is a crying shame. Just because it would be more pro-American in the short term than Iraq doesn’t mean we should laud the dismemberment of the Iraqi state. But it is moving in that direction and is dysfunctional as Iraq continues to be and as much as I’m opposed to the idea in principle, I can’t honestly say it will be worse off ( though it might ).
But the fact of the matter is that it is not independent right now, nor is it in a civil war for independence with the Iraqi central government where we might take a side. Arming the Kurds in Syria is one thing - that’s picking sides in the Syrian Civil War, good luck with that. Arming the Iraqi Peshmerga directly is another entirely. We should not be in the business of arming any militia, Sunni Arab, Shi’a Arab, Kurdish, Assyrian Christian - whoever. We should be arming the Iraqi central government forces only. Anything else is a deliberate sabotage of the Iraqi state. If Iraq is stupid and corrupt enough to arm extra-governmental actors, that’s their business. We shouldn’t be funding their own self-destruction.
As for a united ethnic Kurdistan of Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria, I’ll just mention again what a Kurdish acquaintance of mine ( Iranian nationalist by the way, anti-Kurdish state ) once told me. He’s a Sorani-speaker and once tried to have a conversation with a Turkish Kurd who spoke Kurmanji. He says the other guy might as well have been speaking martian. They had to resort to German to make each understood. No one should make the mistake of thinking that because they share a common ethnonym that all Kurds are automatically “one people.” It’s a pretty arguable point, really.
Look, you either support self-determination for ethnic groups that seek it, or you uphold received borders against such seekers, or you stay out of it. With respect to any one region, at least, you can’t do “both” of any of these.