The Kurds rose as Syria and Iraq collapsed. Now their fortunes are reversing

A decade ago, Kurdish forces controlled a nearly continuous stretch from the Iraq-Iran border to Afrin in Syria, just 65 kilometers from the Mediterranean coast. Today, the dissolution of the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria has become the latest sign that those gains are being reversed.

The two developments, both dated in the article to Aug. 25, follow a series of setbacks for Kurdish political fortunes over the past half-decade. Kurdish power was never unified. Three rival movements divided the territory: the PKK and its Syrian affiliate, the Kurdistan Democratic Party led by the Barzani family in the western part of Iraq’s Kurdistan Region, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan led by the Talabani family in the east.

Despite their political divisions, the authorities created by those organizations controlled a contiguous area containing oil resources, productive farmland and important water sources. Their rise came as central governments lost or abandoned authority across broad areas of Syria and Iraq, creating an environment in which ethnic, religious and tribal militias expanded.

Kurdish forces stood out to Western countries because of their secular and pro-Western orientation, centralized organization and willingness to fight for the territories they controlled. Those qualities mattered as Sunni jihadi groups and Iran-linked Shiite militias advanced through the fragmented region. YPG fighters became the main infantry force in the US-led campaign that rolled back Islamic State’s self-declared caliphate in Syria, while Iraq’s long-established Kurdistan Regional Government served as a center of stability and security.

Kurdish fortunes reached their high point around 2016. The article attributes the subsequent decline to external events combined with problems in Kurdish governance and management. In September 2017, the KDP leadership in Iraqi Kurdistan held an independence referendum that the article describes as premature and inadequately prepared. The vote strongly endorsed independence, with 92% supporting secession, but the diplomatic groundwork and military preparation needed to sustain a sovereignty bid had not been completed. The supplied text ends as it begins discussing the lack of practical support from the United States and regional countries.