Instead of giving thanks to the Kurds, the U.S. denied them freedom


Source: https://www.pinterest.com
/pin/139541288431965767/
On November 6th, Iraq’s highest federal court ruled that the referendum to declare independence from Iraq by the Kurdish people was unconstitutional. Two months prior to this decision, the Kurdish people successfully voted and passed a declaration that created the new nation in northern Iraq of Kurdistan. The movement to separate from Iraq had been decades in the making but had been temporarily ceased due to the rise of the Islamic State and the fighting that took place in the region.

Kurdish militants, or YPG (Kurdish People’s Protection Unit), were extremely successful in the fight against the Islamic State. Without the Kurds, ISIL would be nowhere close to being ousted from Iraq and Syria and on a downward spiral. When ISIL first began to conquer large swaths of territory in 2014, the U.S. did not want to send more ground troops and engage in yet another war. So, the United States turned to the YPG to fight the conflict for them. In return, the United States sent arms to aid the Kurdish effort. In 2014, State Department official Marie Harf said, “ISIS has obtained some heavy weaponry, and the Kurds need additional arms and we’re providing those – there’s nothing new here.” Furthermore, the United States called in airstrikes over the last three years to help the YPG ground forces push ISIL from their strongholds.

Once the fight against the Islamic State began to wind down, talks of Kurdish independence reemerged. The United States urged the Kurds to wait to take a vote on independence. By this time, ISIL had been ousted from most strongholds in Iraq. The unified independent Kurdistan would be created in Northern Iraq, where the Kurdish population predominantly resides. Without ISIL in Iraq, the Kurdish people could start the movement for independence. The United States and the rest of the international community did not see it as an adequate time for Kurdish independence with the fight against ISIL still ongoing in Eastern Syria. Regardless, the vote for independence was passed on September 25, 2017.

The Iraqi government also advised against the referendum. Dividing the region of Iraq and allowing a new state in the area is not in the best interest of the Iraqi government. Once the vote passed, Iraq chose to take action. The Kurdish forces took control of military bases and oil refineries once the Islamic State was ousted from the area in 2014. In October, Baghdad sent military forces to take back these areas in Kurdish control. Artillery fire was exchanged between forces but eventually the YPG backed down and Iraq resumed control of the bases and oil fields.

Assisting the Kurds has always been a controversial topic. P.K.K., an offshoot of Kurdish ideology is widely regarded as a terrorist organization. The P.K.K. branch of the Kurdish movement seeks to establish a Kurdish state within Turkey. While the United States does back the YPG, it does not support the P.K.K. The United States has had to be careful as to not cross a line of showing support for the P.K.K. but guaranteeing backing for the YPG, both of Kurdish origin. Turkey, who joined the fight against ISIL in 2014, has arguably been more preoccupied fighting P.K.K. forces than it has ISIL. Turkey is a U.S. ally through the NATO agreement that includes The United States and 11 other nations.

Aside from upsetting Turkey, there are two further problems with backing the Kurdish independence movement from a U.S. standpoint. First of all, the United States is still preoccupied driving ISIL out of their final strongholds in Iraq and Syria. Furthermore, Islamic State fighters have been dispersing back to their home countries as well as joining forces with al-Shabaab in Somalia and safe havens in Libya. Venting support to the Kurdish independent movement could possibly take away valuable resources needed to draw the final blow to ISIL. Secondly, backing the Kurdish independent movement would draw a wedge between United States-Iraq relations. Doing so could mean a stronger relationship between Iran and Iraq, which could pose serious complications to the United States.

It is critical to revisit how the Kurds supported the United States in the last 3 years of conflict. The United States didn’t have to send in U.S. troops and risk the lives of American citizens. Instead, the YPG forces volunteered to fight and die for the cause. In return, when the Kurdish people needed the United States for independence, we turned our backs. Biner Aziz, a Kurd, explains the thought process behind Kurdish hopes for U.S. support, “the level of support from the United States has also proved disappointing. We knew that the United States government opposed the referendum, yet hoped that pro-Kurdish sentiment would protect us anyway.”

What does this say about the United States from a foreign policy standpoint? Ultimately, it says that if you aid the United States there is a large chance you will be used and hung out to dry. The United States cares too much about it’s own interests to do what is morally right in a situation concurrent to this. The Kurdish people strived for a new nation where they wouldn’t be ignored. A nation where the Kurds could feel free and appreciated. Instead, they fully supported a United States that is seen as the ‘most successful nation in the world’ and got nothing in return. Consequentially, groups and nations alike are not going to look out for the interest of the United States if it has been known to not reciprocate in return.
Enjoy this article? Follow this link to a similar
piece North Korea conflict





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The defeat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is only a short-term victory

Image
Photo source            The Islamic State, commonly known as ISIS or ISIL has unofficially been ousted from many strongholds in Iraq and Syria. The terrorist organization, a once off branch of Al Qaeda, was able to swiftly rise to power in 2014. Three years prior to this, the United States officially backed out of the War effort in Iraq. That same year, President Assad of Syria propelled a gruesome civil war in his country that is just as ubiquitous now as it was in 2011. Terrorist organizations rise to power and thrive in unstable regions of the world. In doing so, groups like ISIS are able to take advantage and easily overwhelm underfunded and exhausted federal forces. In 2013, ISIS was able to capitalize on the instability in Syria and capture the city of Raqqa from rebel forces. Raqqa, the Islamic States’ Syrian capital was liberated from ISIS control in October of 2017 by counterterrorism forces. In 2014, the Islamic State began its campaign to establish a caliphate in Iraq.
Read more

Should North Korea be listed as a state that sponsors terrorism?

Later this week or early next week, President Trump is set to announce if North Korea will be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. On the job currently is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to investigate the claim. North Korea was put on the state sponsorship of terrorism list in 1988 after it bombed a South Korean airliner. North Korea was removed from this list in 2008 when President Bush hoped to strike a deal with the country in freezing it's nuclear program. Today the question remains, does North Korea sponsor terrorism? To answer this question, let's turn to the region of Lebanon and Palestine. In the area, there are two groups referred to as Hamas and Hezbollah. In short, Hamas is a pro-Palestine group whose aim is to take back the lands of Israel. In order to achieve success, Hamas has turned to killings and suicide bombings. Tactics that have condemned them by Israel, the EU, and the United States as a terrorist organization. Hamas' second goal is to establish
Read more

To understand the ongoing nuclear crisis, view the conflict from a North Korean perspective

Imagine a foreign state that has no deterrence capabilities. On top of that, this particular country is experiencing serious poverty and a famine crisis. For an outside state, like the U.S., invading this country would be simple. There would be no option for the government of this state to retaliate if it had inadequate defense to deter. The presence of nuclear weapons, however, would completely change this dynamic. Now, you have a state that is able to deter outsiders from invading and implementing any type of regime change. This is where we stand with North Korea today. A country that is fully capable of deterring in order to sustain regime success. The presence of nuclear weapons in North Korea is as much strategic as it is threatening. Kim Jong-Un wants the world, including the United States, to fear North Korea. In doing so, North Korea can control the outcome. The United States and its allies are understandably afraid of Kim Jong-Un and his regime. In the foreign policy realm,
Read more