Why Should We Help the Kurds?

Why should we help the Kurds?   Because the Kurds could easily become another democratic island of stability in the Middle East, like Israel.  The Kurds are a group of people united by their own separate language and culture, split between Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran. The Kurds are definitely not trying to turn the clock back to the 7^th century. The Kurds are mostly secular Sunni Muslims who believe in religious tolerance.  They also include Kurdish speaking Yazidis, Shiites and Christians.  During the ISIS advances, they took in Arab refugees without regard for religion, Christians, Shiites and Sunnis.  They helped organize, train and arm Yazidis and Arab Christian militias.  They have women fighters in their militia units, some trained as snipers.  The Kurds even have regular commercial flights from the Kurdish Regional Capital, Erbil, Iraq, to Tel Aviv, Israel.  The Kurds are as close as you can get to democratic tolerant folks outside of Israel.  Iraqi Kurds are extremely pro American.  They believe the US saved them from annihilation when Saddam Hussein was lashing out after the first Gulf War.  They are trying to get as close to us as they can.  

The Kurds have been the most effective military units fighting ISIS.  In Syria, they are so reliable that it’s an embarrassment.  The Kurds have to recruit and train Sunni Arab defense forces to control the Arab villages they capture from ISIS.  While the villagers are happy ISIS is gone, they will not accept a Kurdish occupation.  To keep the villages free of ISIS, the villagers need weapons and training.   ISIS never captured any Kurdish weapons in working condition during their original advances.  When Kurdish militia retreats it's because they're out of ammo or taking horrendous casualties. 

Original Article (May require subscription):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/syrian-kurds-deserve-a-seat-at-the-negotiating-table-1483914439#lf_comment=181780162:632979006

Kurds Get Close Air Support, Promise of Direct US Aid

 Kurdish forces, along with ethnic allies, recently seized the town of Sinjar in a 48 hour battle.  Very efficiently done.  The report I read says that the vast majority of ISIS casualties were the result of coalition air strikes.  The results described mean that someone was calling in close air support very effectively.  It could be US, Canadian or British Special Forces.  It could be Peshmerga trained to do the job for themselves.  But the big difference from earlier battles is how close the air support is.  Previously, we were hitting ISIS targets that were a distance away from any ground contact with friendly forces.  We wanted to avoid "friendly fire" accidents like the one reported December 17, where 10 Iraqi Army soldiers were reported killed by a coalition air strike near Fallujah.  There seems to have been much tighter coordination with the Peshmerga.

The other part of the announcement is also startling.  It seems to say the US is going to deliver a lot of heavy equipment directly to Iraqi Kurdistan.  Up to now, US policy was that all arms deliveries had to be physically delivered or at least authorized by the Baghdad government.  The quoted statement does not seem to have any such qualification.  However, Secretary of State Ash Carter included enough obscurity in his statement that it will not be taken as a new beginning for US military aid policy until the weapons actually are delivered in Erbil.

Article I reacted to:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-routed-in-iraq-battle-u-s-officials-say-1450404452#lf_comment=431282008

(Subscription may be required)