"The U.S. Still Reluctantly to Supports The Kurds..." Topic

… In The War Against The Islamic State.

"The raw Sunni recruits in crisp camouflage uniforms, popping off rounds at the firing range at a U.S. training camp here, illustrate the dilemma for the United States as it seeks to form a strong military force to drive the Islamic State from its capital, Raqqah.

The United States could try to build the Sunni army it would want, ideally, to capture Raqqah, a Sunni city. But that might take years. Or it can go with the army it has, which is dominated by the tough, experienced Kurdish fighters from the YPG militia. They're anathema to Turkey, to the north, and to the official Syrian political opposition. But the rampaging Syrian Kurds get the job done.

The United States is trying to do some of both, by building a new opposition coalition under the makeshift banner of the "Syrian Democratic Forces," or SDF, which integrates Sunnis, Christians, Turkmen and other inexperienced fighters with the larger, powerhouse that is the YPG. That's not ideal politically but it makes military sense…"

Main page
link

You go to war with the resources AND people that you have. The Kurds fight … the Iraqi army flees …. not much to figure out where you should then put your resources and efforts.

Amicalement
Armand

Helping the Kurds is the right thing, also they're the best fighters around. Should be a no-brainer – let's face, the Turks are not proving good allies in this area.

Actually, the Turks wanted to go into Syria and oust Assad early on, but was stopped by the US for fear of antagonizing the Russians.

So now we have Russians in Syria with no intention of leaving, Assad still there and a country shattered by war.

It's who the Turkish government wanted to put in place of Assad that worried me.
Russia has always supported Syria and had no intention of sacrificing Assad from day one.
Turkey in Syria would have been a disaster for the Alawites, Christians and Kurds.
And who knows where IS might be now if Turkey had been attacking the only groups in the area that have successfully combated IS on the ground.

Just funnel all the aid to the Kurds through Germany. The Germans seem to have no fear on how Turkey reacts.

The Iraqi government wants all military supplies to go thru the. And then they issue what they want to who, etc.

And as we know the Kurds are not "favorite sons" of the Iraqi government.

The US if they have not done it yet. The US could "back door" the resupply thru another party. [Like Germany!] Like what happened with the Muj vs. the USSR.

The Turks are not good allies and they should have ignored the US like they have in the past. Take care of Assad, etc., it should have been done before the Russian intervention. Because as we all know the Turks have the 2d largest military in NATO. And if Turks went in, ousted Assad. Would Syria be in a bigger mess than it is now, IMO … ?

The Turks would not have invaded Syria just to get rid of Assad because it means she would have to fight Iran and possibly Russia. Turkey may have a large army on paper but she is notoriously risk-averse and unwilling to pay the price in treasure and blood getting into a sectarian war.

As for not backing the YPG fully, it's a political issue and not a military one. Current US policy is to keep the sunnis in play and part of Syria's political future regardless of how ineffective and unready they are, so that they can continue to function as an opposition to Assad down the road. And despite their military effectiveness the YPG are still pariahs and few want to see them become too powerful.

Strange reading about "Sunni recruits" at a US training base. The Iraqi army under Sadam was Sunni lead. The US fired the entire Sunni army after the war and left them unemployed. I think after years of being mistreated by the new Shia lead Iraqi army many of the Sunnis received employment with ISIS. And round and round it goes…

How soon we forget the blowback from Operation Cyclone (1980-1992). Arming the Kurds with anything more than light arms is a really bad idea. It will escalate tensions between Turkey and the West, it will lead to the Balkanization of Iraq, Syria and possibly lead to a repeat of the atrocities of 1915.

The Kurds will not defeat ISIS even with western help and ISIS will never stop until it is defeated. The Kurds simply do not have enough manpower to control enough territory to suppress ISIS. The most likely outcome would be the Kurds pushing ISIS out of Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria and then the Kurds would turn their attention to liberating territory from Turkey and Iran. That would very likely trigger a wider regional war and could possibly cause Turkey and Iran to cooperate. If such cooperation happened then it is not too hard to see a division of the Middle East into Turkish, Iranian and Saudi spheres of influence and war between the Iranians and the Saudis. Then ISIS or some other organization with a different name but the same agenda would rise out of this chaos and the Grand Caliphate of the Mesopotamian Basin and the Levant would begin to take shape. At that point all bets are off as to what Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey might do.

The US and Europe are playing with fire and will likely get badly burned if they are not VERY CAREFUL in this region of the world. Many here say that the arming of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the invasion of of Iraq were terrible mistakes and each mistake had progressively bigger negative ramifications. The ramifications of a third mistake could be worse than anything we have seen yet. ISIS is bad, very bad but it is also limited in scope for the most part. A regional upheaval would be much worse.

It is often said that hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps it is time to use some better foresight. Think long and hard about the damage which could be done by arming the Kurds with heavy weapons and MANPADS. If you stop, turn around and look back while you walk away from a no-win situation then foresight becomes hindsight and hindsight is 20/20.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

I agree to a point … but now matter what three things will remain:

1) The Kurds and Turks will continue to be at odds resulting in bloodshed.

2) The weak corrupt Shia dominated, Iranian supported Iraqi government will not treat the Kurds as equals, so to speak.

3) The Kurds for better or worse want an independent state … their own "Kurdistan". Not be part of another country(s) as it is today.

Ultimately Turkey is probably going to have to accept that its somewhat intransgent approach to issues of terratorial integrity are going to have change.

However, in the interim Turkey and its relations with the West/NATO may have some fairly chunky hurdles – the current administration seems to be lurching in the direction of a crypto-theocratic dictatorship. The president looks a touch paranoid and appears to have already created an internal enemy in his former associate Gülen and his network of supporters. There's already been some military officers bought to trial on some very dogdy looking charges of plotting a coup. Given Turkeys history that kind of thing could become a self-fulfilling prophecy if some more officers decide that they may as well get hung for the whole sheep so to speak! At which point the Kurds may be the only game in town, with decent odds of success, while Turkey attempts to deal with internal problems.

The sunni Baathist government of Saddam Hussein treated the Kurds far worse than the current shia regime in Iraq, which conducted joint operations with them against ISIS.

That time Saddam gassed a couple of Kurd villages was very bad. I remember being in a briefing at Benning when that footage was still classified. You had to have at least a TS just to get thru the door. Very grisly … very bad. I can't "un-see" that …

And Kurds are Sunni … but not Baathist Sunni … so …

Iraq and Syria are not already Balkanized? I see the disintegration of that region into non-contrived nations based on culture, rather than European colonial decree, as an improvement.

Turkey is a major problem and needs to be dealt with, militarily or otherwise. It is unacceptable that it has been allowed to remain in NATO.

We in the US have already been feeling the effects of ISIS-inspired lone wolf attacks. I have DOD sources who say the majority of nearly-successful attacks are not reported to avoid panicking the public.

Who said anything about giving the Kurds MANPADS? They face no air threat other than that from Turkey, which is arguably a Western problem anyways.

Turkey is a major problem and needs to be dealt with, militarily or otherwise. It is unacceptable that it has been allowed to remain in NATO.

Some do feel that way. And I think it being the 2nd largest military in NATO. And in a key location between East & West is why the are still a member.

However, they like many from that region/moslem dominated nations, have proven to be less than satisfactory "allies" … Whether being in NATO are not …

Turkey has a large military force pointing into Russia's underbelly. They are needed for NATO.

They are now the gatekeepers for Middle Eastern refugees wanting to get into Europe.

The USA nor Europe will not abandon them.

Erdogan is a tyrant like Putin, he knows how to play politics.

but he knows how to play politics.

Unlike Putin? The area is known for "Byzantine politics."

"but" wasn't meant to be there. Removed.

Turkey has a large military force pointing into Russia's underbelly. They are needed for NATO.

Agree as I said in my other post.

Erdogan is a tyrant like Putin

Yes and sooner or later we'll be criticized for supporting a Tyrant. Like Saddam against the Iranians. Or support of the Iranian Shah. Or Ghaddafi, etc. … And some[including some here !] will say the US is a horrible for supporting tyrants and dictators, etc. …
I guess that is a working example of "Realpolitik" …

Realpolitik -

Realpolitik is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics, e.g. 'pursuing pragmatic policies'

Too bad in the real world it works that way sometimes …