Aid not arms is lower-risk option

ARMING Kurdish fighters to ensure they have sufficient firepower to repel the murderous Islamic State (IS) militants threatening five million Kurds living in north-west Iraq seems sensible. Not only would it preserve their people, but it would also create a safe haven for the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing there.

But history says it is impossible to be sure that such weaponry will not end up in malevolent hands. Had the West rushed to arm rebels battling president Bashar al-Assad in Syria, a lot of those guns would be now be being used by the IS, which mostly originated in Syria. As it is, the IS fanatics are using American weapons originally supplied to the Iraqi army but which were abandoned as Iraq’s soldiers fled the IS onslaught.

Admittedly, Kurdish-controlled Iraq is not torn by the same kind of strife as Syria. It seems relatively unified, and the Kurds do not aim to occupy land where there is no Kurdish population. Still, these are unpredictable times in an unpredictable part of the world.

A better option looks to be to give every assistance to new Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi to reform Iraq’s military into a force capable of engaging and defeating the IS, while piling as much humanitarian aid to the Kurds as is necessary to cope with the flood of refugees.

There are signs that Mr Abadi is already drawing support from Sunni leaders ostracised by his predecessor. Bringing Sunnis and Shias together will not only unify Iraq, but should end Sunni disaffection on which the IS militants have been feeding. Nothing in Iraq is risk-free, but this looks the least risky course of action in the long term.