Best to grab the Kurds as our client-state *now*, what-what?

Ross Douthat makes a decent case for formalizing the Kurds’ status as an American client state* – basically, he’s arguing that the combination of supporting an existing relationship dovetails neatly with our instinctive dislike of seeing people being eaten by monsters** – but there’s a practical reason for doing so as well.  Basically, if we don’t do it, somebody else will.  Most likely, Turkey.

And Turkey is… a special situation right now.  The guy running it is a bit… well.  Erm.  He’s the kind of guy that, if he was running the place back when I was a kid, the best that we*** could have said about him would have been Well, at least Edrogan’s not a Commie. I don’t think that we want him to be the Kurds’ quartermaster.  It would be… contraindicated.

Moe Lane

PS: The Turks would totally make that deal.  This isn’t the old days.  Even Turkish Kurdish independence/terrorist (pick one) groups are telling people to go fight in Iraq against ISIS.

*I should note that this is not actually an insult. There are far worse things in the world for a country or people than be the intermediary agent for a hegemonic power, particularly if the the hegemony in question has no real desire to directly rule the area in question and just wants some peace and quiet.

**We have had, historically speaking, an ongoing problem with that sort of thing.  As most of our enemies would attest, if only necromancy actually worked.

***Yes, even the kids talked like this, back in the day.  It is hard to explain to the younger generations sometimes just how much Soviet Communism loomed over us. We weren’t expecting to die in a nuclear fire, per se, but we wouldn’t have been surprised if it had happened.  This Chinese Commie stuff, in contrast, is nothing.

10 thoughts on “Best to grab the Kurds as our client-state *now*, what-what?”

  1. Concur.
    .
    Note that a *competent* president would lean on the Frogs and the Germans to offer Turkey a spoonful of sugar in trade deals to help this go down.
    .
    Of course, we don’t have one of those…
    .
    Mew

    1. Just to argue counterpoint .. having the Kurds as a Russian client state would – logistically – work better .. wouldn’t have to trans-ship our support through .. where, exactly?
      .
      Also, it’d absorb some of Putin’s megalomaniacal energy as well as re-establishing the “Soviet Empire”.
      .
      Might also help focus Erdogan’s attention on reality a bit more …
      .
      Mew

      1. I have to note that Russia is a much more reliable ally. As of late, it’s been much safer to be our enemy than to be our friend.
        Also, it is easier for Russia to get supplies into Kurdistan than for us to do so. (Not to mention the self-imposed diplomatic quagmire we’ve imposed on ourselves with respect to the Iraqi government.)
        Also, Russia has a vested interest in controlling pipelines that could supply Europe.
        Also, Putin has done more to stabilize the situation in the Middle East than the rest of the world combined.

  2. Right now I think Turkey is looking at two factors.
    1. A Kurdistan allied with Turkey would probably settle down their own Kurdish population, because there is no point in rebelling to try to become a part of Kurdistan if Kurdistan is on good terms with Turkey.
    2. This would could on the other hand cause Iran quite a few issues, and the Turks aren’t exactly on good terms with Iran.
    3. Turkey would probably much rather have a newly formed Kurdistan as a neighbor, than ISIS. (The Kurds aren’t a bunch of fanatical lunatics, they’ve shown a willingness to conduct trade with Turkey, and they wouldn’t be wanting to alienate Turkey, because they would probably need the military support of Turkey to keep Iran from trying to invade).
    –
    Also there is the fact that Turkey running to the rescue of the newly formed Kurdistan would probably generate a lot of support from the Turkish Kurds, and normalized relations with a newly formed Kurdistan would probably put a stop to Kurds trying to split off from Turkey.

  3. The problem is the Kurds have no coastline. Even the bit they could claim in their wildest fantasies is, a) in Turkey, and b) on the Black Sea.

    1. Yes, but having a seaport is only necessary to be a U.S. client state .. and then it isn’t strictly *necessary* .. if we’re in a very giving mood. (see also Berlin Airlift)
      .
      That said, to be a Turkish client state is a cakewalk for ’em .. and being a Russian client state is nearly as simple…
      .
      Mew

      1. We could give them a huge slice of Syria and a port there ( granted that would include a bunch of non-Kurdish territory)

        In any event having them become a Russian client state doesn’t seem to be in our best interests.

        1. We could airlift in a couple dozen cargo containers full of weapons (including whatever the latest M-1 killer is) and let the Kurds pick and hold their own coastline…
          .
          My point above was that letting them become a Russian client would tie down some Russian resources as well as giving Putin a nice ego-boo, and that – given the insanity of the anti-war Democrat party – these might be the best that could be made of the situation.
          .
          Mew

Comments are closed.