This week U.S. President Obama attempted to rebut criticisms of his administration’s campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS). The Obama administration has come under fire for not doing enough against the Jihadis, training only some 60 Syrian opposition fighters and standing by as ISIS takes more territory in central Iraq and Syria.
The President nonetheless defended his administration’s record against ISIS, stating that “Altogether, ISIL [ISIS] has lost over a quarter of the populated areas it had seized in Iraq,” and that “Over the past year, we’ve seen that when we have an effective partner on the ground, [ISIS] can be pushed back.” The U.S. president cited battlefield successes against the Islamic State in Mosul Dam, Mount Shingar, Kirkuk, Kobani, Tal Abyad and Tikrit to bolster his argument. Six of these seven victories came with the help of Kurdish forces in Iraq and Syria, while only Tikrit remains as an example of Iraqi army success.
Yet somehow Mr. Obama could not bring himself to name the Americans’ effective partner on the ground. The same President who saw fit to send Newroz greetings to the Iranians but no words for the Kurds sounds a bit like Turkish leaders of the twentieth century, refusing to pronounce the word “Kurd” or “Kurdistan.” Would the Middle East go crazy if Mr. Obama said out loud what everyone knows? This seems a strange way to thank a people that has been desperate for national recognition these past one hundred years.
While the United States has been helping the Kurds via air strikes against ISIS and some supplies (an air drop of supplies and weapons to Kobane last year and light weapons and munitions sent via Baghdad to the Iraqi Kurds), others recognize the best antidote to ISIS more clearly. Yet Washington is apparently busily preventing even Arab countries from directly supplying the Kurds with military aid, insisting that everything go through Baghdad. That some Arab countries are willing to supply such aid, and directly at that, speaks volumes about how much the world’s views of the Kurds have evolved – except within the Obama administration, it seems.
Mr. Obama apparently thinks a different emphasis in the fight against ISIS is warranted: “This is not simply a military effort,” he said. “Ideologies are not defeated by guns. They're defeated with better ideas.” He added that “In order for us to defeat terrorist groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda, we must discredit their ideology….This larger battle for hearts and minds is going to be a generational struggle.” Perhaps U.S. officials citing the right suras from the Quran will cause a revolutionary shift within ISIS?
Someone needs to remind the U.S. president that fascism in Europe was not defeated with a more convincing argument. On the contrary, the NAZIs and their ideological kin were crushed with military force. After that task was complete, former fascists cast about for a new ideology. The likes of West Germany found liberal democracy and capitalism with generous financial aid in the form of the Marshall Plan. East Germany and others found Soviet Communism (in many cases, such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia, Soviet tanks helped people find the new ideology). Some fifty years later, the Soviet Union collapsed not because of a more convincing argument, but rather due to the failure of its economy.
The logical conclusion would be to therefore first focus on the most effective way to crush ISIS militarily and economically. If Western countries are not willing to send their own soldiers to fight, that means relying on the Kurds even more. Arming them much better would be a good start. If the West arms the Kurds so well that neither Baghdad nor Damascus can ever again forcefully impose themselves upon Kurdistan, so much the better. For the people outside of Kurdistan (both Rojava and Bashur), the defeat of ISIS will force them to look for another ideology. That is when humanitarian and financial assistance from the West, along with some good advice, could help.
Of course, some radical Jihadis will always remain unconvinced. With their movements crushed one after another, they will hopefully become as marginal as European fascists today.
David Romano has been a Rudaw columnist since 2010. He is the Thomas G. Strong Professor of Middle East Politics at Missouri State University and author of The Kurdish Nationalist Movement (2006, Cambridge University Press) and co-editor (with Mehmet Gurses) of Conflict, Democratization and the Kurds in the Middle East (2014, Palgrave Macmillan).
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
