So, to be clear, do you see Israel as a working modern multi-ethnic state?
Sure I can. If the Kurds come to me asking for help creating Kurdistan, I say “no-thanks.” If they fight a civil war with Iraq, and win, then I’ll recognize the new state. But they have to win, which means Iraq recognizes them as a sovereign state.
A good article on the Kurds today: Kurds tell Jpost: 'Just send us weapons to defeat ISIS' - The Jerusalem Post
No one is remotely arguing that every Kurdish majority region should be slabbed off to a Kurdistan. I would be seriously baffled if the intent of the OP was that we should arm Turkish rebel Kurds. Come on man. The Iraqi and Syrian Kurds have a strong foothold. Should we back those guys. Your statement here is a strawman.
Actually the Turks have been mentioned by folks like ralph124c, it’s Iran that hasn’t been referenced by anyone but me ;). For that matter the putative Kurdish entity I’m guessing Sam Stone was thinking of was as proposed in the never implemented Treaty of Sèvres largely to be carved out of modern Turkey. Anyway l wasn’t intending to strawman anyone in that paragraph, just adding an oblique addendum. It’s a pet topic of mine.
As to Iraq, which the OP most directly referenced, I think I made it clear I think it’s a crap idea. We should only deal with the central government, not de facto foster the independence of semi-autonomous enclaves.
Syria is more complicated, not least because they are getting aid from the Iraqi Kurds. Like I said at that point you are taking an active side in the Syrian Civil War. My opinions on that is conflicted, but lean towards being opposed.
Ralph124c clearly has no clue what he is talking about so you probably shouldn’t spend too much of your debating efforts on his account.
Imho, the central government of Iraq is shit. And supporting them is flushing money down the toilet. I see, but disagree here with your philosophical point on nation building, but your option is clearly not going to work in this case.
I don’t really have a great response to this, as I agree the Iraqi government sucks. And Iraqi Kurdistan does seem to be at least a modicum more stable and functional. My idealistic and pragmatic impulses frequently war with each other, with resultant headaches.
But in for a penny, in for a pound. At this point I think trying to work with Iraq per se is the appropriate way forward until it fails completely. We substantially created this mess, directly or not, intentionally or not. If we’re serious about “nation-building” and we’ve decided we’re going to continue involve ourselves at all, throwing in the towel on Iraq at this point seems premature.
CarnalK, you should know better than to directly insult another poster in Great Debates.
Warning issued. Please restrain yourself in the future.
It’s a modern multi-ethnic state that is saddled with an unfixable problem stemming from the idea of ethnic homelands.
The thing is, weapons don’t turn in to pumpkins when the clock strikes midnight. Handing people arms because they seem like generally decent folks and are fighting someone we don’t like has turned around and bit us in the ass again, and again, and again. Every choice we make is going to have implications for decades, and it’d be idiotic not to think those through.
Plenty of other folks seem eager to supply the Kurds. And if you really want to see an idnepedent Kurdistan, their support is going to be critical to their long-term viability, while overt US support will ultimately be a liability.
Umm, ok. Seems a little odd but ok.
They are also potentially the enemies of our friends?
Anybody remember what happened when we supplied weapons to the enemy of our enemy in Afghanistan? You know, Osama Bin Laden?
No, they don’t. A distant foreign power randomly drawing lines is not the same thing as regional groups establishing sensible social and cultural boundaries, and then allowing for ethnic diversity within those boundary divisions. Because all ethnic groups overlap with other ethnic groups. There is no clean boundary for Kurds versus Sunnis versus Shiites.
And as pointed out, even lumping all Kurds together, for example, is just asking for trouble, because they are only ethnically the same depending on how broadly you define the groups. Once you filter out the Turks and the whatevers and the whosits, and are left with only Kurds in the room, they then get into a fight over which Kurd ethnicity is the group in charge. Or maybe they don’t get in a fight, but the point is they aren’t one monolithic group, any more than all Muslims are a monolithic group, or all Christians, or all Greeks, or all Chinese.
That is, perhaps, a point for consideration. On the other hand, Turkey is an existing NATO partner, and you don’t want to break that lightly.
See, another example of ethnic nationalism creating chaos.
Kurds are Sunni, fyi*. Sunni isn’t an ethnic group at all anymore than Catholic is.
*eta OK, 98% are…
If you’re talking Iraqi Kurds, yes. But globally, there are Shia Kurds, Yazidi Kurds, Zoroastrian Kurds and even a smattering of Christian Kurds.
From talking to some Kurds, they are not fanatical about religion and value ethnicity over religion. At least the ones I spoke to.
From googling: Yarsanism - 1 million followers, not to be sneezed at. Never heard about it before.
Yes, I was going to qualify Iraqi Kurds. In Iran they are apparently evenly split between Shiite and Sunni. But my point stands with yours. Sunni and Shiite are not ethnic groups; Kurdish is and they care about it.
And that changes my point how?
There are various sundry groups that are in various stages of conflict. Kurds aren’t a monolithic group. Ethnic groups within Iraq and Syria and everywhere else in question may have enclaves, but they are not exclusive and are intermingled with at least some other ethnic groups in the same regions.
Religious banners of Sunni and Shiite aren’t mapped 1:1 with other political/social entities in the area.
That didn’t really change your point. But this part of your point was not relevant, really:
“Anybody remember what happened when we supplied weapons to the enemy of our enemy in Afghanistan? You know, Osama Bin Laden?”
US was supplying weapons to religious extremists in Afghanistan such as Hekmatyar. If the US limited its weapons supplies to the popular moderates such as Ahmad Shah Massoud, the results would have been much different (though the Russians’ withdrawal would have taken longer, probably).
Kurds are not extremist, and have no history of religious extremism, at least in comparison with almost every other ethnic group in the area, so there is no comparison with Afghanistan where the US should have known better.
Well it doesn’t change your point, but I don’t get why you’re arguing with me about it. Of course there’s overlap and differemces between Kurds. I never said anything about lumping all Kurds together. But the group in Syria and the one in Iraq are each fairly cohesive.
You don’t think this makes them incapable of cruel and inhumane acts, do you?
I can easily imagine a situation where religiously moderate Kurds decide to wipe out, say, a potentially troublesome Arab village.
Interesting - if somewhat thin - article about how Zoroastrianism is making a comeback among modern Kurds. I’d take it with a grain of salt, though, seems mainly anecdotal.