Once again the Kurds become everybody's whipping boy.
You could argue that they have played their cards badly during the Syrian war. But they were dealt a lousy hand. They have always been dealt a lousy hand. This goes back to the carve up by the British and French following the Ottoman defeat in WWI.
The whole of the middle east from the Maghreb to Iran had been incorporated into the Ottoman Empire. Defeat left the allies in charge of the land and the allies, especially Britain were deadly when it came to administering any land or nation they controlled. For Britain, having such a vast prize falling into its hands gave it a power and influence over resources and events that it would only use as part of its geopolitical game- for its own ends. Or to be precise, the ends of the super elite that ran Britain - and still does.
How different things would have been if the Ottomans had gone into WWI on the side of the allies, Britain, France and Russia or remained neutral. But they were fixated on restoring their declining influence in the Balkans and ignored the much more valuable part of their Empire in the Middle East.
Once in control the British began their game plan of destroying any chance of Arab unity, by creating one new state and making clear that another had their approval to begin establishing itself. The first was Saudi Arabia. This was conceived as a phoney monarchy which having the royal status could be friendly with Britain's own monarchy. This closeness of the two "monarchies" continues in full force as indicated by the Queen of England's flying her flag at half mast when the last Saudi "King" died. In reality the new "monarchy" were made up of a tribe that Britain had found trustworthy in its imperial pursuits and they had one big asset. They were adherents of the extreme form of Islam known as Wahabbi-ism.
The British like extremists as allies as they most easily serve British plans.
Meme of the day
The second new promised state was Israel. This was founded by Zionists an extreme form of Judaism nurtured in Europe, that had no place in the Middle East. Saudi and Israel would become the two main allies of Britain and the west in the Middle East and through them the west has been able to wreak havoc and war in the region.
Alongside the creation of these two new nations, neither of which had any significant historical base or justification, the British and French drew lines in the sand to create the new nations. albeit under their control, across the region - Syria, Palestine, Iraq and Jordan. Each was centred around a major historic city - Damascus, Jerusalem, Baghdad and Amman, respectively. All were predominantly Arab. But there was one prominent group that had no state awarded to it.
This group, unlike the Arabs, whose presence dated from the seventh century, were native to the area. They were spread out across the new territories of Syria and Iraq and the older ones of Armenia and Turkey. Their presence in the area also preceded that of Turks , who had arrived in Turkey only in the eleventh century from their homeland in Turkistan. The Armenians, of course, had always been there. These were the Kurds.
So why were the Kurds not awarded a territory upon which to create the state that they had always desired when the opportunity was plainly there with the carve up of old Ottoman Empire? Because if they had their own territory they could have settled down peacefully to build a Kurdish nation. It would have included non-Kurds, of course. Kurdish populations would have remained in Armenia and, more importantly, Turkey, but the fact that these could view the new Kurdish state as a homeland would have reduced problems. As it is the Kurds in Turkey formed a virulent, terrorist separation movement - the PKK.
The problem for the British of having a peaceful self-contained Kurdish state is that it would have not been helpful for their plans to have an unstable Middle East, in which they and their allies, the Americans, could intervene and manipulate and control the huge oil wealth.
The predicament that the Kurds find themselves in is the direct result of the malign intentions of British, French and American neo-imperialism. In the Arab lands the latter have two states run by religious fanatics that are under their control and are dependent on them for their very survival, and then a further ancient people without a state. The latter are always going to try to assert their right to have their own land under their own control, but this land is going to have to be taken from the existing states established after WWI. So they represent a permanent source of strife and instability and this plays to neo-imperial western interests.
Any war that happens in states where they are Kurdish populations, is going to provide an opportunity for the Kurds to assert themselves and try to secure territory they can control. The two wars of this century created by the western powers, in Iraq and Syria, thus have given them this opportunity. Iraq has given them a fragile accommodation by allowing them some autonomy in the north of that country. In Syria the horrific war allowed the Kurds to gain control of a substantial area in its north-east, which is where we are now.
This was an area where ISIS made gains during the war and so the Kurds had to fight ISIS to gain control - not so much the Syrian government forces. Turkey viewed the Kurdish gains with alarm and so made some interventions in the area. Turkey's domestic experience is of the terrorist PKK and so tends to view all Kurds as terrorists - or at least on the side of PKK terrorists.
Here we come to the role of the US in Syria which is characterised by duplicity, subversion, financing of Islamist terrorists and a desire to create anarchy and dictatorships. The British Government under PM Cameron was completely on board with these aims but was famously limited from overt intervention by parliament.
The Kurds naturally were not on the side of the Syrian government as they sought to appropriate Syrian territory and, as we have seen, they were also up against the ISIS caliphate. So the US wavered in its support for the Kurds. The US wanted to destroy the Assad government as they frankly stated (supported by Britain and France) and to this end they financed and armed ISIS, either directly or through their proxies in the region, the created states of Israel and Saudi. However, once the war started to turn against ISIS and the Islamists, the US saw advantage in backing the Kurds.
The Kurds were and are a thorn in the side of Syria and so the US decided to openly back them and help them defend their territorial gains. The Kurds had largely defeated ISIS in the area they controlled and so the US could claim by proxy that it had defeated ISIS - the very terrorists it had armed and financed. This is their duplicity which they can rely on the western media to not mention. But now the war has been settled almost completely in favour of Assad and the Syrian government, future support for the Kurds by the west serves no geopolitical purpose they can recognise. So once again the Kurds are being betrayed and left to the mercies of a determined Turkey to step in and manage the Kurds as it sees fit.
One can sympathise with Turkey. The Kurdish problem is not of its making. The Kurdish problem was deliberated created by Britain and France by not awarding the Kurds territory post-WWI. Those who have suffered the consequences are the regional powers. For Turkey, the Kurdish presence on their southern border, now unmediated by a US force, provides a base for PKK activity within Turkey. From their perspective, they cannot refrain from acting.
The whole point of this piece is that the Kurdish problem is part of the whole strategy of the western powers to control and destabilise the Middle East. As with Israel and Saudi, the problems the west so carefully manufactured look almost insoluble. The Israelis continue to menace all Middle East nations [except Saudi]. The Saudis provide terrorists funding from the Levant to Pakistan and make war on Yemen. The Kurds in their desperation to achieve a homeland engage in armed struggle and disruption.
This was the plan set out in the 1920s by Britain with its ally France and it has been unfailingly successful. Millions have died, nations have been destroyed and others all but destroyed, millions are reduced to poverty and homelessness. Stability remains a dream for most people of the Middle East.
The only nation that has survived intact, in spite of a vicious and unnecessary war with Iraq that the west instigated, is Iran. But any strong, prosperous, peaceful and,above all, independent, nation in the Middle and Near East does not accord with the western world plan