The Kurds didn’t fight at Normandy as it is well known they have bone spurs.
The Kurds didn’t fight at Normandy as it is well known they have bone spurs.
It would be nice to think that, but the Kurds are mostly a light infantry force with some lightly armored vehicles. The Turks are going to roll heavy and they've got Leapord 2s as well as their own home grown heavy tank. Infantry can fight armor, but only if they can afford to spend anti-tank missles like machine gun rounds, and I don't know if the Kurds have that kind of logistics.
As much as I'd like to be on the general incompetence of the Turkish army against a battled hardened Kurdish resistance, the maths don't add up to well for the Kurds.
When I interviewed for a job in International Affairs awhile ago, there were two points relevant to this discussion that I used.
One: The broader situation with the Turkey as a NATO ally, who is in direct conflict with a group who shares some of our national interests because of article 5 of the NATO charter. This case, the Kurds (it developed into a conversation on the feasibility of an independent Kurdish state and what were the good, short-term decisions that were made with significant long term consequences.) The prompt was for a critique of foreign policy, but it became a discussion of long term decisions vs short term ones (the US tends to be driven by the short term process, but historically we then hold onto those decisions/allies - frequently long after they are no longer influential or have utility.
Two: Every Foreign Affairs issue is a domestic political issue in two+ countries first. It is always interesting to see people hold firm opinions on complex issues that they were not aware of before the issues became a political football in domestic politics.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
For those interested in learning more about who the Kurds are and their different factions as well as some history, Breitbart has a decent article here: https://www.breitbart.com/national-s...out-the-kurds/
For those who praised OrangeManBad for pulling out troops (granted it was just a few) from a region not worth fighting for (not really our allies anyway), how about this one:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...-arabia-044502
The Saudis are certainly our friends. However, IIRC, stationing troops there after GW1 was a major motivator for Osama. Also, yes - we know that the Saudis are incapable of using all the crap they bought - but is that our problem? Protect them from Iran. We don't give a crap that the moves in Syria enhance Iranian threats to Israel - seethe Friedman article in this thread. Why do we give a crap about Iran threatening Saudi Arabia? Who is getting the oil money?
I wait for Lindsey Graham to explain this.
The subject of supporting “allies” is a thorny one for the US. We obviously want to support a group which shares our values . Sometimes we get that luxury.
Other times we are put in a corner. Occasionally the options are Bad vs Worse. Saudi Arabia is a good example of this. I’m sure most rational Americans dislike the notion of people - even bad actors like Khashoggi- being dismembered in an embassy. But the alternative is regional instability and a Muslim shine falling into an unfriendly government. ISIL controlling Mecca and the national assets of Saudi Arabia is Not Good for the United States and a lot of other folks.
The choices always look easy when you’re not in the Big Chair. They rarely are in practice. Vietnam came from a no win choice between backing the French (against the then-idealogically aligned insurgency) or supporting the insurgency and seeing France turn to Soviet Russia.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.