_Jon Niemuth is a freshman economics major at MU. He is an opinions columnist who writes about politics for The Maneater._
As the Iraqi central government tightens its grip on its northern provinces and Turkey launches a largely nationalist-driven campaign into Syria, it’s important for Americans to realize just who is the victim here.
The Kurds, a prominent ethnic group spanning the Middle East from Turkey to Iran, have absorbed much of the fighting against the Islamic State since the terrorist organization’s regional surge commenced in 2014 and have been mostly successful in holding ISIS at bay. Even as the Iraqi military suffered loss after loss and Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad mainly ignored the jihadist threat to focus on local rebels, the Kurds maintained stern control of their ancestral territory, to the extent they actually expanded their area of influence.
And yet, now that ISIS is weakened and on the verge of collapse, the Kurds’ neighbors have turned on them. Iraq recaptured the oil-rich city of Kirkuk from Iraqi Kurdish forces in November, and in January, Turkey’s increasingly authoritarian president Recep Erdogan began shelling the Kurds’ Syrian stronghold of Afrin.
The public goals of Iraq and Turkey are, of course, noble. Turkey claims its offensive is a preventive action that will dissuade the Kurds from conducting attacks across its southern border, while Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi insists his army is merely imposing security.
But as you can imagine, in reality it is greed motivating Erdogan and al-Abadi’s activities. Turkey isn’t happy about the Kurds’ recent gains and wants to again disempower them. Baghdad has long tolerated Kurdish autonomy, but with ISIS gone, seeks to solidify its dominance over the rest of the country.
All of this has put the United States in an awkward position. On the one hand, the U.S. has a NATO ally and a government it helped set up telling it to stay out of the way. On the other, the Kurds have been one of Washington’s most reliable partners against radicalism, and abandoning them practically guarantees decades more of oppression.
If President Trump has a conscience, he will side with the Kurds.
True, the move could push Turkey closer to Russia and Iraq closer to Iran, but such a trend is already happening. Erdogan’s far-right militaristic regime has much more in common with Moscow than it does with with the U.S., and Iraq’s Shiite population has preferred better ties with Tehran since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Further, it’s wrong to think either of those scenarios present a serious challenge to American global hegemony. Turkey, tough as it may be, is not enough to tip the scales in favor of Vladimir Putin, and Iraq, unless another conflict breaks out soon, simply won’t be a major player in the years to come.
Basically, the U.S. is bound to lose some friends in the near future, but those friends are less than vital anyhow. Saving the Kurds is a morally-just operation America can afford to undertake.
At the Palace of Versailles, Woodrow Wilson made clear to the world what the U.S. stands for: self-determination for all peoples. In the century following, the Kurds have been subjected to exploitation, marginalization and even genocide by their nations of birth. The U.S. can either sit back and watch the latest episode of the story unfold or provide hope to the Kurds with minimal effort.