Scholars of nationalism have generally assumed that nationalist movements are solidary. This has not always been the case. The Kurds of Iraq have always seen themselves as members of a distinct ethnic group, with shared myths and memories, a shared territory and history. They have also struggled relentlessly for Kurdish autonomy. However, they have remained divided throughout their modern history, fighting each other almost as often and as ruthlessly as they have fought the Iraqi state. Most scholars who recognize these internal divisions fail to problematize them. Those who do offer explanations that are either unlikely or inadequately specified. I offer a more formal theoretical argument that what exists thus far. I posit that the type of direct rule – not the degree of direct rule – determines the extent to which the Iraqi Kurdish nationalist movement has been internally divided. Where the state provides Kurds goods more than it controls them, internal divisions are likely. Where the state withholds goods but harshly controls the Kurds, a unified movement is more likely. I conduct a comparative-historical study of the internally divided nationalism of Kurdish Iraq and the unified nationalism of Kurdish Turkey. I find that the Iraqi state has primarily offered goods (such as arms) to its Kurds while pitting them against each other; Kurds controlled one another and internal divisions persisted. In Turkey, the state controlled its Kurds oppressively, breaking existing tribal ties and creating an opportunity for ethnic unity to emerge.