The United States Should Arm the Kurds

Con starts off with rebuttals, arguing that the greater American *interest* is in toppling Assad, rather than defeating ISIL, in the end goal of countering Russian influence in the region. But the only actual material rebuttals Con provides is that the Kurds are not militarily or politically unified. Thus it would be difficult to actually back the Kurds, as there is no central funding. This is a very valid issue, as there are many separate Kurdish fighting forces, such as the YPG, the Peshmerga, the KDP, among others. But as Aliza Marcus and Andrew Apostolou explain perfectly in the NY Times [1], the US can solve this issue by helping Kurdistan develop and train a nonpolitical Kurdish army. They can do this by supporting the Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs program, whose purpose is to unify all Kurdish forces. Supporting the Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs would allow the ministry to enact certain changes that would unify the Kurdish forces, and thus solve this problem and defeat ISIL. The ministry would be able to require that all new Kurdish recruits join the a nonpartisan army as an individual instead of as a political party member, thus eliminating the party influence on the militia. If the US arms these non partisan militias, they can become the heart of the Kurdish front, thus incentivising further recruitment. Support would also allow the ministry to disband private militias of certain groups such as the KDP and PUK units, such as the Zerevani, the Emergency Force, and Units 70 and 80 [2]. The ministry could also cut the inflated salaries of KDP and PUK commanders, and integrate police and intelligence agencies. But most importantly, the US could establish a nonpartisan military academy thus abolishing the separated, politically led academies in Zakho and Qalasholan [2]. Salaries could also be payed through the Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs which would eliminate the ability of commanders to buy support. Furthermore, involvement in the Kurdish army would ensure that the Kurds are focused on fighting ISIL rather than Assad, or any other political agenda. Having the US support the Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs would make it possible to integrate armies such as the YPG with the already unified KDP and PUK. This would result in the largest unified Kurdish army, and the most effective fighting force against ISIL. Thus, the Con's proposed problem is resolved by directly supporting the Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs. Con then brings up his own offensive argument against the motion: that arming the Kurds would result in damaged US relations in Turkey, Russia, and the European Union. This would be because arming the Kurds would *have* to result in arming the PKK, or the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which is a labeled terrorist organization and enemy of Turkey. It then follows that arming the PKK would damage relations with Turkey as we would be helping their enemy, as well as other nations and organizations who label them as terrorists (European Union.) The problem with this argument is that it assumes that we *have* to arm the PKK since they are the most unified and powerful Kurdish fighting group, but they aren't, the PKK is a relatively insignificant force. Their current size is 5,000 soldiers [3], compared to the almost 190,000 total Kurdish troops [4]. The PKK also has scarce weapons and badly trained [5]. Thus, the US has no need to arm the PKK, or include them in unifying Kurdish armies. It wouldn't pose a substantial detriment to our goals. Thus the argument is negated.Con's final contention of a different method to combat ISIL isn't relevant to whether we should arm the Kurds, so I won't respond to it. That's all I've gotta say, thanks for reading! Peace and Love[1] http://www.nytimes.com...[2] http://carnegieendowment.org...[3] http://archive.adl.org...[4] http://www.bbc.com...[5] http://www.institutkurde.org...