Recent events have given some indication as to how US President Donald Trump will handle future international relations. These indicators are so different from how the world perceives the way it should be done as to cause fear and anger amongst many. It is important however to understand what is happening and how it will impact the changing face of the world, especially in the Middle East, more specifically to Kurdish independence.
The United States has always looked at political solutions to world problems, likely because most of the people working on the problems are politicians. Today however there has been a sea change in Washington, coming in the form of a businessman named Donald J. Trump and others without political backgrounds. This, in and of itself, is producing a great deal of angst among the professionals who have been predicting current events for years. A new way of dealing with the world is emerging because we are looking at it from a different perspective.
To put it into perspective we should look at the evolution of political/military strategy. In most historical writings such as Sun Tzu, Carl Von Clausewitz and Erwin Rommel, these all attempted to teach strategy and tactics from the view of military commanders and how to organize and maneuver armies. While Clausewitz spoke of the military as an extension of foreign policy it was in the contexts of compelling a resolution.
This changed in the 1950’s and 60’s with the introduction of strategic thinking from non-traditional sources, most notably by Dr. Thomas Schelling and his work titled “Arms and Influence.” What makes this and his other works different is that Dr. Schelling was an economist and framed much of his work in economic terms and concepts. One of his greater contributions was to reframe the use of force into two potentials. One the traditional use of force to compel the other side; the other and more nuanced was the existence of a viable force to coerce an outcome without actual fighting.
How does this relate to the emerging or evolving Trump doctrine and its impact on Kurdish independence?
Kurdish independence is not sustainable without an outside force to ensure and protect the new nation. Turkey and Iran view a Kurdish state as a threat and will do everything in their power to stop Kurdistan from coming into existence or to destroy it once it begins. Unfortunately, the last eight years have proven to the world that the US will do nothing to enforce its desires.
Today we have seen a difference in response to provocation as evidenced by the US attack on the Syrian airbase after a chemical attack, the challenge to China in freedom of navigation runs in the disputed South China Sea, the movement of military equipment toward North Korea, and the recent joint missile drill between South Korea and the US. Following the detection of preparations to launch another chemical attack in Syria, the threat of US intervention was enough to, if not stop, at least delay the attack. Of course, having shot down a Syrian jet helps solidify that the US was able and willing to use force.
These actions should serve as a deterrent to physical attacks on Kurdistan provided the US makes the acceptance of independence a forgone conclusion. Recent statements from both the State Department and the Defense Department indicate the US government is moving in that direction.
The Trump Doctrine will work provided the aggressor parties understand that military action is on the table. This goes back to the concept of coercion versus compelling. For the threat of military action to be coercive, it must first be believed. This is the current problem Trump is having. Will the US use military force to protect Kurdistan against Turkey, a NATO ally, or Iran, supported by Russia? It would help if the US forces currently assisting in Syria as well as those forces in Kurdistan are made more visible and moved into position along both the Turkish and Iranian borders. While these troops are in no way large enough to hold back an attack, they can act as a trip wire which would cause a full response by the US.
As pointed out, the Trump Doctrine is evolving, and with it comes the question of how long it will take the world to come to the realization of its impact.
The US commitment to Turkey is shredding at the hands of Erdogan, and Iran is a perceived threat with no leverage. The uncompromising US State Department position on One Iraq is also being replaced with the knowledge that it is an unworkable position.
None of this means smooth sailing for an independent Kurdistan with many roadblocks to overcome. It can only be hoped that the US government will do the right thing and that if there is a fight, it be short.
Donald Trump values loyalty and the Kurds are the most loyal ally we have in the region. This must be pointed out over and over, and perhaps it will trigger a warning that the US will support and protect Kurdistan without question.
The United States has always looked at political solutions to world problems, likely because most of the people working on the problems are politicians. Today however there has been a sea change in Washington, coming in the form of a businessman named Donald J. Trump and others without political backgrounds. This, in and of itself, is producing a great deal of angst among the professionals who have been predicting current events for years. A new way of dealing with the world is emerging because we are looking at it from a different perspective.
To put it into perspective we should look at the evolution of political/military strategy. In most historical writings such as Sun Tzu, Carl Von Clausewitz and Erwin Rommel, these all attempted to teach strategy and tactics from the view of military commanders and how to organize and maneuver armies. While Clausewitz spoke of the military as an extension of foreign policy it was in the contexts of compelling a resolution.
This changed in the 1950’s and 60’s with the introduction of strategic thinking from non-traditional sources, most notably by Dr. Thomas Schelling and his work titled “Arms and Influence.” What makes this and his other works different is that Dr. Schelling was an economist and framed much of his work in economic terms and concepts. One of his greater contributions was to reframe the use of force into two potentials. One the traditional use of force to compel the other side; the other and more nuanced was the existence of a viable force to coerce an outcome without actual fighting.
How does this relate to the emerging or evolving Trump doctrine and its impact on Kurdish independence?
Kurdish independence is not sustainable without an outside force to ensure and protect the new nation. Turkey and Iran view a Kurdish state as a threat and will do everything in their power to stop Kurdistan from coming into existence or to destroy it once it begins. Unfortunately, the last eight years have proven to the world that the US will do nothing to enforce its desires.
Today we have seen a difference in response to provocation as evidenced by the US attack on the Syrian airbase after a chemical attack, the challenge to China in freedom of navigation runs in the disputed South China Sea, the movement of military equipment toward North Korea, and the recent joint missile drill between South Korea and the US. Following the detection of preparations to launch another chemical attack in Syria, the threat of US intervention was enough to, if not stop, at least delay the attack. Of course, having shot down a Syrian jet helps solidify that the US was able and willing to use force.
These actions should serve as a deterrent to physical attacks on Kurdistan provided the US makes the acceptance of independence a forgone conclusion. Recent statements from both the State Department and the Defense Department indicate the US government is moving in that direction.
The Trump Doctrine will work provided the aggressor parties understand that military action is on the table. This goes back to the concept of coercion versus compelling. For the threat of military action to be coercive, it must first be believed. This is the current problem Trump is having. Will the US use military force to protect Kurdistan against Turkey, a NATO ally, or Iran, supported by Russia? It would help if the US forces currently assisting in Syria as well as those forces in Kurdistan are made more visible and moved into position along both the Turkish and Iranian borders. While these troops are in no way large enough to hold back an attack, they can act as a trip wire which would cause a full response by the US.
As pointed out, the Trump Doctrine is evolving, and with it comes the question of how long it will take the world to come to the realization of its impact.
The US commitment to Turkey is shredding at the hands of Erdogan, and Iran is a perceived threat with no leverage. The uncompromising US State Department position on One Iraq is also being replaced with the knowledge that it is an unworkable position.
None of this means smooth sailing for an independent Kurdistan with many roadblocks to overcome. It can only be hoped that the US government will do the right thing and that if there is a fight, it be short.
Donald Trump values loyalty and the Kurds are the most loyal ally we have in the region. This must be pointed out over and over, and perhaps it will trigger a warning that the US will support and protect Kurdistan without question.
Paul Davis is a retired US Army military intelligence and former Soviet analyst. He is a consultant to the American intelligence community specializing in the Middle East with a concentration on Kurdish affairs. Currently he is the president of the consulting firm JANUS Think in Washington D.C.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment