Perhaps correct politically (since we are managing our relationship with Iraq and Turkey), but not correct ethically. The Kurdish people deserve a state of their own. I also believe that a Kurdish state is best for the US from a long term perspective.
If a Kurdish State is better for the US long term, than isn't it better politically too? Or do you mean short term? If so, how short is this term?
I assume you are worried that the referendum will impact the war against ISIS negatively?
Perhaps not, since the Kurds have always been acting independently from the Iraq armed forces in the fight. . However it should be noted that Kurds have supplied the most reliable ground forces fighting ISIS. And their commitment to independence would include independence from ISIS...SO I doubt they stop their contribution in this fight.
I think this situation is complex because the referendum doesn't include Rojava - which is the Kurdish part of Syria. And which, although radically socialist at the moment, might well be part of greater Kurdistan when all is resolved.
And the referendum does
include parts of Iraq that are not constitutionally part of Kurdish Iraq. But these areas are occupied by Kurds now, and are majority ethnic Kurd.(Kirkuk. Which is also an oil rich region).
I think Iraq is coming to terms with their own break up. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi had said in April that he respected the Kurdish right to vote on independence, but he did not think the timing was right for the move.Lets remember that Iraq is a greater friend to Iran then the US. While Kurdistan would be a more reliable western ally.
And breaking a part of Syria away, will probably be an acceptable out come to everyone but Assad.
Turkey has been less than committed to battling ISIS, instead focusing on Kurds in their country,
I'm not sure how concerned the west should be about them right now.
In brief, I think acting ethically would also be politically correct.