Kurdish independence - the time is now

In 1967 the nation of Israel was facing invasion from every direction. The Egyptian led United Arab Republic had united the entire Middle East with promises of destroying Israel.

Much was at stake. The most obvious being the welfare of the State of Israel. Just as important however was the hegemony of Nasser’s UAR and what he had planned for all of Arabia. Nasser was also fully in bed with the Soviet Union. A middle east under the control of the UAR was a middle east under the control of the USSR.

The tiny nation of Israel provided the perfect regional power check to multiple enemies. Despite their size they were able to counter Nasser’s Arab socialist plans and ultimately Soviet designs and aspirations for the entire Middle East.

2014 Kurdistan has the opportunity to become 1967 Israel. Israel provided a power check to the UAR and socialism while also countering Soviet interests. Kurdistan has the opportunity to counter militant Islamists, Syria, Iran, and Turkey. Why are we not pushing for Kurdistan to claim self determination? Why are we not capitalizing on the historic cooperation between the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds at the defense of Kobane? The Syrian/Iraqi border in the North is already non existent. Now is the time for the Kurds to take what is theirs.

What’s standing in the way? Iran and Turkey have been using the Kurds as leverage against each other for quite some time. Before we get into that let’s take a look at the Kurdish players involved in both Iraq and Syria.

In Iraq - Iraq has a federalized system of government. Each region assumes governmental responsibilities for their territory but are ultimately subservient to Baghdad. Baghdad also handles all international affairs.

The KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government) is the governing body of Kurdistan. It has two main political parties that dominate the government. The KDP (Kurdistan Democratic Party) and the PUK (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan). The Peshmerga are the national defense force of Kurdistan...the army. They’re under the direct control of the KRG.

In Syria - The PYD (Democratic Union Party) is the dominant Kurdish governing force in Kurdish Syria. Their power grew during the Syrian civil war. As Assad struggled to contain the Sunni rebels in the south the PYD seized control of Kurdish lands in the North. The YPG (People’s Protection Units) is the PYD’s defense force...their army.

The PYD, and by extension the YPG, is an affiliate of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party). The PKK is a militant group that has been engaged in armed conflict with Turkey. They’re also designated as a terrorist group.

Looking at all of those political divisions spread across multiple countries it’s easy to see how the Kurds are manipulated and divided. The PUK in Iraq was actually first started in Damascus, Syria. Hafiz al-Assad personally supported both the PUK and the PKK. It’s of no surprise at all that Iran has a relationship with both the PUK and PKK. They use that relationship as leverage against Turkey. To counter that the Turks have cultivated a strong relationship with the KDP in Iraq. They in turn use that relationship to pressure both Iran and Iraq. This foreign coercion needs to be stopped.

If the United States and the west truly want to change the region for the better they need to pursue a strategy that actually makes sense. A strategy that doesn’t involve arming or training our enemies. We don’t have to choose between evils. Why are we training Iraqis and arming “moderate” rebels in Syria? Increasing the capability of the Iraqi army helps Iran. Arming the Islamists in Syria increases the likelihood that radical groups will get more sophisticated weaponry. Iran gains on one end and anarchy looms on the other.

There is no outside military solution here. The only strategy should be to redirect United States influence toward encouraging full Kurdish independence. Once that happens we can deal with the Kurds directly. Supplying them with arms, training, and economic support. An independent Kurdistan with the full backing of the United States government could provide the regional power check in 2014 that Israel provided in 1967.

Defeating ISIS - Is that the goal?

Why does everyone assume the current strategy regarding ISIS is to destroy them? I’ve heard “analysts” that are shocked that Turkey won’t get more involved in defending Kobani. Others, whether they be politicians or more “analysts”, declaring that the current U.S. air campaign will never fully defeat ISIS. “We simply must commit boots on the ground!” they say.

Geopolitics is cold and pragmatic. It’s never emotional. To quote Robert Strausz-Hupe, nation states are interested in “space and power”. As the German inventors of Geopolitik believed, a nation is either expanding or dying.  It’s a very imperialistic ethos but it’s a game that most of the world’s powers are engaged in. Yes, this includes the largest and most powerful empire the world has ever known...the United States.

So what then is the United States' ISIS strategy? If it’s not to defeat them outright what ulterior motives might be in play here?

Does history provide any kind of reference that we can gain insight from?

As I looked for a historical reference that might help us understand the current ongoing conflict with ISIS I decided to look for other ISIS like groups in the past. I didn’t want to focus on their obsession with establishing a caliphate. Instead I looked throughout history for smaller groups that employed similar tactics in the midst of larger more powerful empires. The use of extreme terror, beheadings, ideological, well funded, etc.

I came across a book of United States diplomatic correspondence from the 1700’s and 1800’s. Thomas Jefferson said this:

“That it was a law, that the first who boarded an enemy’s vessel should have one slave more than his share with the rest, which operated as an incentive to the most desperate valor and enterprise; that it was the practice of their corsairs to bear down upon a ship, for each sailor to take a dagger in each hand and another in his mouth, and leap on board, which so terrified their enemies that very few ever stood against them; that he verily believed the devil assisted his countrymen, for they were almost always successful.”

It was the bolded portion that got my attention the most - “which so terrified their enemies that very few ever stood against them”.

Thomas Jefferson was talking about the Barbary Pirates. They were radical Islamists who attacked merchant vessels along the North African Barbary Coast. Today this area encompasses the modern states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya. Piracy was the main source of income for these nations...and business was good. North Africa sat on the busiest trade route in the world at the time. The Mediterranean Sea trade route saw commerce from every major player in the world. The newest of which was the United States who, after losing protection from The British Navy and later the French Navy, began to see ship after ship fall to the Barbary Pirates. Not only were the U.S. ships and their cargo being seized but their crews were being enslaved as well. Keep in mind that, while this was going on, British and French ships were sailing through the Med unmolested.

Jefferson traveled to London and called an official meeting with the Tripoli Ambassador. He asked him point blank why the Barbary people waged warfare on them. Why did they hate a nation and people that had done nothing to provoke such a reaction? The Ambassador from Tripoli didn’t hesitate in his response:

“The Ambassador answered us, that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet; that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority, were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

You can find similar quotes today from ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. ISIS and the Barbary Pirates have so much more in common than people realize. From a geopolitical perspective their goals are/were to dominate a geographic location using terror and ideology as their foreign policy. The Barbary Pirates were operating in between a host of larger more powerful regional players. They played it safe and chose not to attack British and French ships.

From the U.S. State Department:

“The two major European powers, Great Britain and France, found it expedient to encourage the Barbary States’ policy and pay tribute to them, as it allowed their merchant shipping an increased share of the Mediterranean trade, and Barbary leaders chose not to challenge the superior British or French navies.

Prior to independence, American colonists had enjoyed the protection of the British Navy. However, once the United States declared independence, British diplomats were quick to inform the Barbary States that U.S. ships were open to attack. In 1785, Dey Muhammad of Algiers declared war on the United States and captured several American ships. The financially troubled Confederation Government of the United States was unable to raise a navy or the tribute that would protect U.S. ships.”

It wasn’t like there was any secret on the radical ideology that the Barbary Pirates followed. It was widely and publicly known. The British Navy was the most powerful naval force in the history of mankind. Why wouldn’t it eliminate a clearly defined evil threat? Likewise, the French had their own impressive navy. Why did they stand by and watch the Barbary butchery in the most profitable trade zone in the world?

George Washington contemplated the same in a letter he penned from Mount Vernon:

“Mount Vernon, October 10, 1796.

Sir: Your letter of the 5th instant with its enclosure, came to hand by friday's post.

The extracts therein produced both pleasure and pain: the former, at hearing that our citizens are at length released from their unfortunate confinement in Algiers, the latter, to find that others of them have fallen into a similar situation at Tunis, contrary to the truce, and to the arrangement made with Mr. Donaldson.

'Tis difficult to understand precisely what the French government design relative to this Country, from the accounts given by Mr. Monroe.”

Washington’s confusion mirrors that to the confusion the media has regarding ISIS today. Why didn’t the world’s powers of the time (Great Britain and France) simply just remove the threat?

The answer is that the Barbary Pirates were useful. They kept emerging powers in check. That included the United States whose merchant vessels were in direct competition with those from Great Britain and France. The Barbary pirates were a means to an end. Even though they represented an extreme, evil and dangerous ideology. It didn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. 

The United States was backed into a corner. They either went to war to eliminate the threat or they suffered the losses and risked bankrupting their new nation. They would end up going to war, and the Marines would add a new line to their hymn.

So again, why is it assumed that the overall strategy is to destroy ISIS?

First of all from the Turkish perspective.

The Turks have been heavily criticized throughout the entire conflict. For not providing military bases to assist coalition strike aircraft, to not defending Kobani, etc.

Turkey is in a very awkward position. They have two immediate geopolitical goals that ISIS helps them achieve. The destruction of the Assad regime in Syria and the degradation of militant Kurds. The latter of which Turkey believes provide assistance to the PKK whom the Turks have labeled a terrorist organization.

The bigger picture reveals a much larger competition between Turkey and the Iranians. The ISIS threat to Assad is also a direct threat to Iranian influence. If Assad was no longer in power Syrian influence could be turned away from Tehran and toward Ankara. For this same reason, you’ll likely never see the other Arab nations fully commit to any kind of meaningful large scale assault.

Even though ISIS poses an eventual threat to Turkey and the rest of the Arab monarchies ISIS provides them all an immediate means to an end.

From the U.S. perspective.

Like Turkey and the Arab monarchies, the United States wants the eventual downfall of the Assad regime. In extension that leads to a smaller sphere of influence for the Iranians.

It’s obvious to everyone that airstrikes alone won’t stop ISIS. That’s not their goal. The airstrikes have two main goals.

1. The first is to limit and specifically target radical groups that are looking to export terrorism. Groups such as al qaeda or groups within ISIS that want to take jihad away from the Levant region and go global. The United States is hoping to manage the growth of these cells and not allow the region to become a safe haven for terrorist groups to recruit and train in.

2. The second is to make sure ISIS is pointed in the right direction. That means that they’re attacking Assad, Iranian assets, etc.

Also, like Turkey, the United States is in an awkward position. Taking sides is harder than it appears. Attacking ISIS leads to a stronger Assad which in turn strengthens Iran. Similarly, if the U.S. were to commit to fully supporting Iraq against ISIS the eventual outcome is familiar. A stronger Iranian influence in Iraq. All the current roads lead to a stronger Iran if ISIS were suddenly out of the picture.

Conclusion

Like the Barbary Pirates, ISIS today is a means to an end.The British and French couldn’t endorse the Barbary Pirates and openly support their behavior. To do so would be an endorsement for their radical and evil ideology. However, they had a problem with increased competition in the Mediterranean trade route. The United States was up and coming and their navy may one day be a potential threat. The British and French decided to let the Barbary Pirates operate as long as their geopolitical goals aligned.

ISIS is brutal, horrific and evil. They are the personification of everything we would rise up against to stop. However, we find ourselves in the same position that the British and French were in 1800. With our geopolitical goals aligning along with an extremist group. 

The world’s powers are trying to balance geopolitical motives against morality. Every time ISIS broadcasts another beheading that balance shifts. Eventually society will demand moral action from their governments. Until then, expect the players involved to milk this for all it’s worth.

Arming the Syrian Rebels - A bad idea

Last week the United States Senate voted to arm and train the Syrian rebels. It’s amazing to me how such an awful idea can appear the absolute right choice to policy makers. I think it’s important for not only Americans but the majority of the West to realize what it is we’re supporting here.

The Middle East and Western manipulation.

Ever since the end of WW1 Western governments have been putting their fingers in the Sykes-Picot damn hoping it won’t burst. For nearly 100 years the Middle East has been on fire moving from one war or conflict to another. It’s of no surprise that the people living in the west have rationalized this areas constant state of warfare as being due to it just simply being a highly volatile place. Western societies are so far removed from the Middle East that understanding the “Why” of the problem was never considered important.

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire T.E. Lawrence suggested the Middle East be split up like so:

Lawrence’s main dealings were with the Hashemite family who were the rulers of the Hejaz. The Hejaz is in present day Saudi Arabia and contains the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Lawrence wanted to give the majority of the land to the Hashemites, but he made sure and allocated mandates for both the British and the French. You can see he was conflicted on what to do with the Kurdish lands. He marks those simply as question marks.

I truly think that Lawrence loved the Arabian lands. He really wanted to give the Arabs a kingdom that ruled over the former Ottoman areas in the Middle East. Dealing with the Hashemites seemed like the best way to go. They had direct lineage to Muhammad and were influential during the Umayyad Caliphate. Their King was ruler over the Hejaz which gave them credibility all over Islamic lands.

However, Arab tribes were highly competitive. The Sykes-Picot Agreement played off of Arab rivalries. The S/P map looked like this:

The al Saud’s would immediately rebel against the Hashemites attacking and conquering the Hejaz. As a consolation prize the British would create TransJordan to give to the Hashemites. The Hashemites were also given the Kingdom of Syria but France would renege on that deal. Again, as a consolation prize the Hashemites would be given Iraq. Syria, Iraq, and Jordan were all made up countries with made up borders. Half of them given away as consolation prizes. The Saudis would maintain their border and respect the new nation states as part of a British treaty.

A natural regional evolution.

The following map is what we’ve had since. It should be very recognizable:

This entire area should hold new meaning now. It should be of no surprise why after 100 years we are still seeing such turmoil. The governments of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan are all Western creations. The Middle East should have gone through a natural evolution after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Instead, Imperialistic tampering stunted their growth.

I believe what we’re seeing now in the MIddle East is the progression that would have taken place back in 1918 if Sykes-Picot would have never happened. I think the U.S. invasion of Iraq created a power vacuum that jump started this process. Then came the Arab Spring...then came a power vacuum in Syria.

ISIS has now carved a path through the Middle East that looks very similar to what T.E. Lawrence originally promised to the Hashemites. Lets be very blunt here. We currently don’t have operational governments in Syria and Iraq. They lack the ability to project power within their own borders.

Basically you have a Middle East that is being fought over by warlords and tribes. Assad in Syria is no more than a warlord that governs the city of Damascus. Likewise the government in Iraq doesn’t govern much outside the boundaries of Baghdad.

In contrast, the Islamic State governs and projects power throughout the borders of two separate states. They have instituted Sharia law in their controlled cities. Most people don’t know this but ISIS controls oil fields that used to belong to both Damascus and Baghdad. The Islamic State sells that oil to neighboring countries….just like a typical nation state.

The Middle East now looks more like this:

The only border lines that actually mean anything are the Israeli, Jordanian, and Saudi lines. Everything else is about to go through significant change. It’s reverting back to not only tribal but clan rivalries. The Sunni/Shia differences are only a fraction of the problem. In some tribes/clans Sunni/Shia inter marry.

Arm the Syrian Rebels?

Now back to the point of arming the Syrian rebels to fight off ISIS. Does that make sense now? Do the rebels in Syria have more conflict with ISIS or with the Western created government of Bashar al Assad? Most people haven’t heard that the American and British journalists beheaded by ISIS were sold to them from a rebel group in Syria.

It is not in the National Interest of the American people to support the rebels in Syria. In the end, this will only increase ISIS’s influence not deter it. More weapons and soldiers will flip and join ISIS. Those that don’t will turn to Damascus and re-engage Assad. Eventually, the power vacuum that widens will open a door for ISIS to move further into Syria.

We have to support a policy that treats the Islamic State as an actual nation state. Now, I don’t support granting it any independant recognized status, but to fight them we have to stop treating them like Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is more like an international espionage group. They work in the shadows training “agents” to attack targets all over the world. The Islamic State is an army that is trying to influence power in a specific space. That right there, in the words of Robert Strausz Hupe, is the definition of geopolitics.

What should U.S. policy be?

To fight any other state abroad we would seek a reliable counter or check to their power. Now is the time to erase Lawrence’s question marks on his map and define the borders of Independent Kurdistan. The Kurds shouldn’t be used as bargaining chips and levers between Iran and Turkey. A strong Independent western backed Kurdistan could be the regional counter that we’re looking for. They could push on the IS from the North and diminish their foothold in both Northern Iraq and Syria. You don’t have to worry about them defecting to ISIS or turning and fighting against Assad. They’ll be defending their homeland.

We would seek to build a coalition. Not just any coalition, but a coalition of nations that have a reason to fight the Islamic State. There is absolutely no reason why French or U.S. aircraft should be bombing ISIS right now. Especially not when Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey could be doing it instead. U.S. and western direct support should be held back as a guarantee. It should not be the first strike option.

Before the President goes to war with ISIS he needs to clearly define our National Interest in doing so. There’s no question whether ISIS should be defeated or not….they should be. The question is how do we manage the situation in a way that improves the overall situation in the Middle East and aligns with the nations national interest.

We simply must reconcile the past. The West is directly responsible for the current turmoil in the Middle East. There’s no denying it. We must now admit that yes we are an empire but there are ways to fix the mistakes of the past. We can’t continue to put our fingers in the dam. We have to let the dam come down and build new infrastructure that’s not founded in deceit.

Syria, Iraq, and the Kurds - Correcting their destiny

It's times like now that I think we really feel the sting of not having General Petraeus around anymore. Say what you want about the man's extracurricular activities, he knew how to deal with an insurgency. He knew how to deal with the various clans and tribes in Syria/Iraq. My guess is that he would see exactly what I'm seeing right now, and that is the Kurds are at a major turning point in their existence.

The Kurds in Syria are in the North East of the country. The very top corner. They are represented by the DBK (Kurdish Supreme Committee). The Kurds in Iraq are in the North and Northeast and are represented by the KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government).
Kurdish organizations get confusing and it's easy to get lost in the sea of acronyms. Just know that the DBK govern the Kurds in Syria and the KRG govern the Kurds in Iraq. The YPG (People's Protection Units) are the soldiers of the DBK and the Peshmerga are the soldiers for the KRG. Whew!

The border between Iraq and Syria has already dissolved. We don't even have legitimate governments in Syria and Iraq anymore. The Levant and Mesopotamia are governed more on the clan and tribal level now. It's time to forget the Sykes-Picot governments of Syria and Iraq and deal with the clans/tribes that will rule this region going forward.

As of now we have Kurds in the north battling the Islamic State and Arabs in the west and south battling the Islamic State. What's the common denominator? They all have a common enemy in the Islamic State.
If the United States truly wants to get involved and see true positive change they need to enable/encourage Arab tribes to unite versus the Islamic State in the west and south (like the Anbar Awakening). They also need to arm and build the Kurds. Relations between the DBK and the KRG are crucial. If they're united under the banner of a Kurdistan that spans from Northeastern Syria to Northeastern Iraq they would be a formidable force.

The famous diplomat Robert Strausz Hupe said that geopolitics is about space and peoples struggle for influence over that space.
The struggle for Syria and Iraq is about geopolitically dominated space. The struggle we're seeing now would've happened after the fall of the Ottoman Empire if the UK and French hadn't intervened. The Turks, Kurds, and Arabs all would have sought to dominate the space that is currently called Iraq and Syria (and Lebanon). European and Western influence stunted the transformation.

I see 3 things that need to happen:

1. Arab tribes in Syria and Iraq need work together to encourage the formal dissolution of the Syrian Iraqi border. It's already dissolved informally. The "governments" of Baghdad and Damascus need to be seen as separate tribes or warlord factions. All part of greater Syria.

2. The DBK and KRG need to unite and establish their borders within Syria and Iraq. The United States and the West need to make this their number one priority going forward. Arming and training a professional Kurdish fighting force should happen immediately.

3. The United States would increase military assistance and be the guarantee that Kurdish forces would defeat the Islamic State only if Damascus and Baghdad agree to accept Independent Kurdistan.

Two players (beyond Baghdad and Damascus) would have issues with this. Those being Turkey and Iran. Strengthening the Kurds could endanger them both. But there are levers to be pulled that may be able to see this through.
The Turks are looking to become a major regional player with influence. To do that they need to fix their domestic Kurd problem. This could be the solution they're looking for.
The Iranians are on the verge of having their oil/gas stockpiles unleashed on the world market. To do that they need a reliable and safe pipeline to Western Europe. Through independent Kurdistan sounds like an enticing proposition.

The rebellion of the Assad regime in Syria, the Kurdish awakening, and the tribal rejection of the Iraqi government are all part of a natural progression that was going to happen eventually. It should have been a prophetic fact when the Ottomans fell. Regardless of which outside entity attempts to hold them together the blunt fact is that these map lines don't belong there. We can either continue the madness of trying to patch things up a little while longer, or we can push for an actual solution.

Defeating the Islamic State - Evolving the Middle East

The Islamic State continues to spread their Caliphate throughout the Levant into Mesopotamia. Along their road of plunder and devastation they've begun an ethnic and religious cleansing of Kurds, Christians, and anyone else not willing to convert. The U.S. has begun airstrikes on IS positions, and U.S. lawmakers have encouraged even more extensive military action.

Is this the right action?

The question shouldn't be "How do we destroy the Islamic State" but rather "How do we use this to make the region a better place". My fear is that the Obama Administration isn't thinking along these lines.

The hard truth is that if the United States intervenes too forcefully with the Islamic State Iran stands to benefit the most from the aftershock. The Iraqi government is already borderline proxy status to their neighbor Iran. A quick victory against the IS will help Baghdad consolidate their power base which in turn helps Iran consolidate theirs. Iranian influence would be uncontested from Tehran, to Baghdad, to Damascus. There would be no real change in the region. Just more of the same dysfunction they've seen since after WW1.

What's the solution?

We're now seeing an area (Iraq and Syria) that is battling border lines that should never have been drawn. The Sykes/Picot Agreement was a solution brought forth by outsiders looking down on a foreign land. Sooner or later geography and the people that reside on that geography are going to revolt.
Over the years through shear brutality and force warlords such as Assad and ruthless dictators like Saddam have ensured these border lines have remained intact. However, the U.S. led invasion of Iraq and the Arab Spring have both served as a catalyst to enable the Levant and Mesopotamia to draw their own borders along a more natural progression.

You'll often here of Iraq as being divided between 3 areas: Sunni, Shia, Kurd

(map via stratfor.com)

The above map illustrates the Sunni, Shia, and Kurd divisions. It's easy to see this and think that Iraq's problems are a religious war with a minor Kurdish dilemma. This is far from the truth. Iraq's problems go much deeper. They involve tribal, clan, religious....a full spectrum of issues from people that have lived in the area for a thousand years.

Take for instance during the Anbar Awakening. Sunni tribes joined forces with Shia to oppose Sunni jihadists. If it were merely a religious dispute this type of union would have never happened. Even today Sunni tribes in Iraq are joining forces with Shia militias and Iraqi military to battle the Islamic State.

Yes religious differences play a role, but it's only one of their problems.

Quite bluntly, Iraq is not governed anymore from Baghdad. The Baghdad based Iraqi government is only legitimate in that it is recognized by the UN. In country, however, things are quite different. Tribal leaders in Iraq, be they Sunni or Shia, see themselves as Mesopotamian rather than Iraqi. They govern their lands independently. The Iraqi government governs Baghdad and that's about it.

The Middle East evolved.

As of the writing of this blog entry we've been arming and assisting the Kurds in Northern Iraq to fight off the Islamic State. I think this is a fantastic move and we should take it further. It is now time to push for a National Home for The Kurds. More than just an autonomous region in Northern Iraq. An independent Kurdistan where Kurds from the entire region can call home. Be they in Turkey, Iran, etc they would all be motivated to make Arbil their new capital.

Kurdistan would become the "Israel" for the Kurds. A bastion that they could feel safe in and that they would all be willing to die for to defend. Arming the Kurds would be not just a short term project to help them against the Islamic State but a long term strategy. They would be a viable check to the Iranians and radical jihadists.

The right for self-determination (supported by the UN) would be infectious in the region. The fact that tribal leaders in Iraq are willing to cross Sunni/Shia barriers for overall stability is a good sign. It's not too difficult to imagine a new nation state evolving that encompasses both the Levant and Mesopotamia. It also wouldn't be a stretch for it to be named "Greater Syria" or al Sham. Historically that would make since to the residents that live within those current borders. A federalized government that recognizes the differences (cultural, sectarian, religious, etc) in each "state" within Greater Syria.

The moderate Sunni's would eventually overwhelm the radicals. A strong Kurdish nation state in the north and a Greater Syria at peace would transform the Middle East.

Yes, IS must be put down...but the Kurds need to be the ones to do it. They need to use that as leverage to finally make independent  Kurdistan a reality. Syria and Iraq's destiny is joined. A federalized Greater Syria has the chance to erase the sins of post WW1 and evolve the Middle East.