And the lesson is?

 

Let me help you out... you drew the wrong lesson.

 

The Kurds lacked support and the means but at least they still fought and they do fight now. The ARVN had the means and they QUIT.

 

So no the Kurds are NOT the ARVN. They are worth the risk. And we are the difference. So let's make that difference.     

"This is one of several operations in the last month where the Kurds have shown that, with the help of American air support, they are nearly invincible against ISIL forces."

If I recall correctly the ARVN was nearly invincible too when backed by US Airpower. Witness the Spring Offensive in 1972. Of course without it, the same nearly invincible army folded like a house of cards when the airpower was withdrawn.

I figure the Kurds have a greater motivation to fight ISIL than the Iraqis, but still their showing was pretty dismal up until the resumption of air strikes.

And it is a very valid opinion. 

 

The only argument I make here is that in that rotten neighborhood, where most of the denizens keep learning the wrong life lessons from their basically superstitious culture, the Kurds seem to me to be a semi-legitimate case to invest the effort.

 

They fight back. They have a sense of 'national' and 'cultural' identity. Maybe that makes them a rather large Iraqi tribe in some quarters, but I would point out that if the various Kurd nationalist movements came together to get along with each other (to oppose Malaki and his crooks and now to fight ISIS) and seem to function as an organic political unit, then that kind of screams 'nation-state' to me.      

 

That's more than the ARVN or the Iraqi army and militias ever did or Iraq as a whole for that matter.

 

Don't they at least deserve a supportive bombing campaign and some light arms assistance to see if they can stand up?

 

On the ARVN front - I'd also argue that ISIL is NOT the NVA.. or even the VietCong for that matter...  Their great claim to martial capabilities, seem to be they are less incompetent than the nearly complete incompetent (and or completely demoralized) forces they are facing.. oh, and women, children, old folks.. and clergy.. don't typically put up a huge fight..

 

Now, am I happy the Kurds are fighting? sure.  That we are killing the SOBs with air strikes.. sure. great.

That said, I'm not really on board with transferring any further significant military weapons or knowledge.. to the indigenous folks of that region of the planet.

 

We want the ISIS barbarians dead, it's well within our own means to make that happen.  Whether we we have the political will to implement it.. seems doubtful in the extreme..

 

My opinion.. anyhow..

"Don't they at least deserve a supportive bombing campaign and some light arms assistance to see if they can stand up?"

 

I have no issue with the supportive bombing. We'd likely be doing that regardless.. with or without the Kurds.

 

On the light arms..  I'd "prefer" that some of our supposed "allies" in the region, provided any light arms. (After all, they seem to have a never ending supply of Soviet surplus..)   Why you might ask? - I'd like to prevent some of our "special needs" politicians from getting involved.. and turning "light arms".. into much bigger stuff..

 

I've read commentary and watched interviews with a number of "high ranking" Kurds..  They are not making much of a secret that they are aspiring to raise an army.. not a counter terrorism force.  They want heavy artillery, armor, missiles.. you name it.    

 

So.. in my perhaps 6pack addled imagination.. I look down the road a few years..  ISIS / ISIL has come and gone (or mostly so).. the Iraqi government (such that it is..) has all but fallen apart due to corruption and incompetence.. Syria still a mess..  And the Kurds have one of the better equipped and trained forces in the area.. and their neighbors have historically treated them poorly..  and oh by the way.. significant portions of the Kurdish armed forces are classified as terrorists by U.S. allies..  With all that Iraqi oil just there for the taking.. (considering it seems impossible that the Iraqi "army" (cough..sputter).. could defend it)..    Who knows.. maybe it works out for the better...

 

That said, our history of picking "friends" and "king making" in the middle east... really hasn't inspired much confidence. 

 

Joe's guide to middle east foreign policy would read something like..

page 1:

We tried, we really, really tried.. but most #&*@ d *(@&t up..  

 

Therefore.. we leave it to the barbarians to sort each other out.. they seem content to do so.     If a particular group, tribe, nation, etc.. causes us grief, declares war on us.. etc.. etc.. as they are want to do..  We will oblige them.. by killing as many of them as possible and wrecking as much of there stuff.. as quickly as possible.. and will continue to do so.. until they think better of their  position, or are rendered more or less incapable of causing us further grief.  There will be no nation building, no humanitarian mission and God have mercy on them if we have to revisit the issue.. for we shall have none.

 

OK.. far more of a rant than I originally intended.. but we've spent entirely too much blood and treasure in this region.. for too little result.   We need to take it as a sunk cost and move on to other things.. If they choose to cause trouble for us.. more the fools them.. 

"..I believe you are absolutely right."

 

Not something I hear from "leftwinger"s very often