Kurdistan is about getting more bang for your buck

Contrary to what I overheard someone in the office hysterically shouting the other day Barack Obama has not "sent troops into Iraq" but the US military has started doing two things in Iraq.

One is to start dropping food, water and other emergency supplies to the Yazidi refugees who are trapped on the Sinjar mountains with the possibility of a full-scale rescue being considered.

The other is to start carrying out airstrikes on the Islamic State militants attacking Iraqi Kurdistan and who are currently threatening the Kurdish capital of Erbil.

Technically it counts as "going back into Iraq" but nowhere near the scale that the excitable person in my office thinks. What's interesting is why Mr Obama chose to help the Kurds defend Erbil but seems more hesitant when the Islamic State was threatening Baghdad.

Kevin Drum highlights an interesting interpretation of this from Max Fisher at Vox basically saying that Obama has intervened in Iraq only when Iraqi Kurdistan was threatened by the Islamic State and that this amounts to telling the militants that they can do whatever they want in the rest of Iraq as long as they don't touch Kurdistan. The theory is that Kurdistan is a better governed and more dependable US ally than the "volatile, unstable, deeply corrupt, and increasingly authoritarian" government of Nouri al-Malaki in Baghdad (update - Malaki was replaced by Haider al-Abadi as I was writing this but it's relevant).

I think what's actually happening is that the cost/benefit analysis of the likely effectiveness of US airstrikes was significantly more favourable for helping the Kurds than helping the Iraqi national army in Baghdad. Boots on the ground were never going to be an option for a president elected in part by his opposition to the 2003 invasion so drone and airstrikes (as well as non-combat military advisors) were always going to be the military options of choice and they are only effective, in the long term, when there are troops to take and hold territory. In contrast to the Iraqi national army who, despite superior numbers, downed tools and deserted in the face of ISIS, the Kurdish militia - the Peshmerga - has been somewhat more effective and reliable.

Obama's foreign policy has generally been described as "don't do stupid stuff", which is certainly underrated as a principle given the failings of his predecessor, and he's tended to be pragmatic more than anything else, seeking to apply American force where it's able to have the biggest impact. Yes Kurdistan is a more reliable and US-friendly place than Iraq more generally but protecting the Kurds has a far higher probability of success than becoming the unofficial airforce for the Iraqi government and so that's where Obama is putting his resources.