ISIS destroyed Jonah's tomb and other historical sites

[Irbis]

And yet, the Kurds' anger is understandable. They were seriously betrayed. It's difficult to contemplate any satisfactory solution other than separating the Kurds and Arabs - there is so much bad blood.

Yes, it is understandable, but it also plays right into ISIS hands. Nothing helps the zealots like another easily singled out enemy who is not too strong yet commits enough bad deeds to help you muster additional support that wouldn't help you before.

[Channel72]

Which is why I feel the US needs to strongly back the Kurds. Honestly, the Kurds have always been the sanest lot in that region - for decades Erbil has been the most progressive, safest, and tolerant city in Iraq, with good universities. For some reason, Kurds have historically not been as susceptible to Islamic extremism (they likely feel alienated from mainstream Sunni culture because of their ethnic identity). Plus, the US has a great relationship with them due to our history with the No Fly Zones.

[Broomstick]

Given how we let them down post-Kuwait Invasion conflict I don't see why the Kurds would trust the US particularly much. The US has not always been a good or reliable ally.

[Channel72]

I think we let the Shi'a down post-Kuwait way more than the Kurds. We basically protected Kurdistan from the skies throughout the 90s.

[Broomstick]

Bush I implied that if the Kurds rebelled the US would back them. When they rose up against Saddam the US was nowhere to be found and thousands were slaughtered. Perhaps you are too young to either remember that, or to have gotten to that part of history in school.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think it's in the history curriculum. One of those little irrelevant details (rolls eyes) that goes straight from "poorly publicized fact" to "down the memory hole."

[Channel72]

The Shi'a population in the South got it much worse than the Kurds. The post Gulf War rebellion led to the establishment of quasi-autonomy in Kurdistan, enforced by US-regulated no-fly-zones. It was the Shi'a who mostly had to bear the brunt of Saddam's counter-revolutionary wrath. I think the enforcement of the no-fly-zones throughout the 90s has made the Kurds somewhat reliable allies.

But yeah, it was really shitty for H.W. Bush to cheerlead these poor rebels and then do nothing to back them up.

[Channel72]

BTW, seriously Broomstick.... not everyone was born like, yesterday you know. I was in school when this happened, so of course it wasn't in my curriculum. It was headline news.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, but on the other hand there are a considerable number of mature adults today who have no clear memories of the geopolitics of that conflict, because if you're forty now you were seventeen then, and maaaybe didn't understand the details too clearly.

Heck, I'm twenty-eight now and my only memories of the Gulf War were of the victory parade, and specifically the part where there were tanks parked on the National Mall. Only time I ever saw the inside of an Abrams. Although to be honest I was more interested in the merry-go-round, being as how I had just turned five old at the time.

[Broomstick]

The Shi'a population in the South got it much worse than the Kurds.

Although that is true it is largely irrelevant when discussing US/Kurd relations. The Kurds have reason to distrust us, even if we did provide no-fly zones.

I think the enforcement of the no-fly-zones throughout the 90s has made the Kurds somewhat reliable allies.

But is the United States a "somewhat reliable" ally?

BTW, seriously Broomstick.... not everyone was born like, yesterday you know. I was in school when this happened, so of course it wasn't in my curriculum. It was headline news.

If you're going to discuss the history leading to current events it is your responsibility to do a little research and/or fact-checking. As Simon said, the US betrayal of the Kurds is one of those facts that don't always seem to be remembered or make it into the history books, but the information is out there.

I certainly double-check my facts (and probably should do even more of that), it's not just a matter of age.

[Channel72]

And what makes you think the average Kurdish citizen is even thinking about this 20-year-old incident? I'm not saying US-Kurdish relations are perfect, but the Gulf War incident is ancient history to them as well as us. The 10+ years of US protection via the no-fly-zones, and the US coordination with Kurdish forces in the 2003-Iraqi war is a much more recent memory.

Anecdotally, Kurds generally have a positive opinion of US intervention in Iraq. I can't prove that with objective evidence, but take for example: http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ds/274196/

[Broomstick]

A lot of people in this world have longer memories than the average US citizen, who is generally clueless about their own country's history much less anyone else's.

[Channel72]

That's a nice sentiment, but the median age in Kurdistan is like 20 years, so no... most Kurds are not likely to be thinking about the Gulf War incident. The 90s and the 2003 war have much more impact in the Kurdish mindshare.

Again, the general disposition towards the United States is positive in Kurdistan. The US would be wise to take advantage of that, and keep things positive.

[Channel72]

Plus, I should add that regardless of whatever promises H.W. Bush broke in `91, the Kurdish hatred of Saddam Hussein is so great that the US comes off as a salvific hero no matter what. You'd seriously be hard-pressed to distinguish the difference between hard-core war-hawk Republican neo-con rhetoric and typical Kurdish opinion when discussing US foreign policy in the Mideast, regarding both Iraq and Iran.

[K. A. Pital]

That is because most Kurds tie the US policy with their nationalistic hopes of getting their own sovereign state. Fail to deliver on that, and you will see how quickly opinions turn.

[Broomstick]

The point which you are so comically missing, Channel72, is that most people outside the US actually are more aware of their history than Americans are. You are talking about a region of the world where people are still pissed off about things like the Christian Crusades, which happened hundreds of years ago.

Stas is right - the Kurds see the US as a means to an end. That doesn't mean they trust the US.

[Irbis]

That's a nice sentiment, but the median age in Kurdistan is like 20 years, so no... most Kurds are not likely to be thinking about the Gulf War incident. The 90s and the 2003 war have much more impact in the Kurdish mindshare.

You'd be surprised what BS can young generations spew under the influence of old, radicalised parent generation. Median age being 20 means only that they were unable to get their own life experiences and moderate with age.

There was enough of bad blood between both Americans and Arabs when it comes to Kurds I wouldn't be surprised if all it would take for Kurds to start ethnic cleansing of their own would be a few more clashes with ISIS, all while saying 'screw what the US has to say, they always "help" late!'.

[Channel72]

That is because most Kurds tie the US policy with their nationalistic hopes of getting their own sovereign state. Fail to deliver on that, and you will see how quickly opinions turn.

Yes, I know. Although, the US failed to deliver that with the new government in Iraq, and Kurdistan has stayed friendly. I'm not saying the Kurds are our "best friends forever" or some nonsense; just that they are right now the most relatively stable ally in the region. I really don't think anyone can dispute that, so I don't see the point of all these counter-arguments.

Stas is right - the Kurds see the US as a means to an end. That doesn't mean they trust the US.

They likely trust the US a lot more than the Shi'a government, the Turks, the Syrians, or any of the various Sunni militia. They are surrounded by enemies, you know. In a sense, their situation is somewhat similar to Israel, in that they are surrounded by people who hate them, and look to the US for help. (Whether or not the US delivers that help consistently, and of course without the same level of domestic political support from actual right-wing Americans...)

[K. A. Pital]

So you have an incentive not to let them down, but the opposite is not true (them not trying to carve out their state, fully expecting your support).

[Channel72]

So you have an incentive not to let them down, but the opposite is not true (them not trying to carve out their state, fully expecting your support).

As a matter of realpolitik it would be wise for the US to leverage the historical good relations with Kurdistan to help get rid of ISIS, which is exactly what the US and other NATO countries are doing at this moment. The Kurds have their own agenda, yes, which is to establish a sovereign state, but whether or not the US supports them in that endeavor (which the US will likely not) the Kurds have little choice but to go along with the US. Barzani practically begged Obama for military support against ISIS, you know. I'm arguing that the US should honor that request to the fullest extent possible, because (1) the Kurds are good allies in the region and (2) it's in the interest of the US, the Kurds, the Iraqis, (and the Iranians, incidentally) for ISIS to be yesterday's news.

If the destruction of ISIS leaves the Kurds in a position to stake a claim to statehood and demand their own U.N.-recognized "Stan", then so be it. They probably deserve it after all the shit they've been through - and protecting them throughout the 90s was one of the few decent things the US has done in the Middle East last century.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, if you say it that way, I cannot disagree. And in my view they do deserve a state, too, even if that will screw up many of the ME states.