RT reports:
Masoud Barzani, the president of the Iraqi Kurdistan region, has said that he will use “all capabilities” to defend Kurdish civilians who are under threat by Al-Qaeda-linked fighters involved in the Syrian civil war.
The statement comes days after reports of a possible massacre in Syria.
Barzani said that he wants a committee to be formed to look into reports of violence, and has hinted that the autonomous region of northern Iraq, which has a well-equipped army, would intervene militarily to defend Syrian Kurds.
In a letter which he posted online Saturday on the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) website, he said that he told Kurdish representatives to go to Syria and investigate reports that “terrorists of Al-Qaeda are attacking the civilian population and slaughtering innocent Kurdish women and children.”
“If the reports are true, showing that citizens, women and children of innocent Kurds are under threat from murder and terrorism, Iraq’s Kurdistan region will make use of all its capabilities to defend women and children and innocent civilians,” the letter continued.
As well as being posted online Saturday, the letter was sent on Thursday to the preparatory committee for a Kurdish National Conference to be held later this month in Arbil – located in the far north of Iraqi Kurdistan.
The statement referred to the area of Syria where Kurds live as ‘Western Kurdistan.’ The Kurdish people are spread over adjoining parts of Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran, and are the largest ethnic group in the world without their own state.
Iraqi Kurds have already sent food, medical supplies, and fuel to their Kurdish brethren in Syria but Barzani’s statement is the first time that intervention has been suggested.
There were unconfirmed reports of a massacre earlier this week, in which 450 Kurds were allegedly murdered by Al-Qaeda-linked rebels. According to IranianTV channel Al-Alam, militants from the Jabat Al-Nusra Front attacked the town of Tal Abyad near the Turkish border on Monday, killing 120 children and 330 women. Neither the Syrian government nor the Syrian opposition has confirmed the report.
However, RT managed to get in contact with Kurdish sources who said that increased fighting had taken place in the area.
“The Al-Nusra militants and other rebel forces surrounded the village. They started going door to door, entering every house. If there were any men they killed them and took the women and children hostage,” said the source.
These latest reports follow a statement last month from the Russian Foreign Ministry that Al-Qaeda-linked extremists were holding 200 Kurdish civilians as hostages. The militants were apparently taking revenge for the capture by the Kurds of rebel leader Abu Musab. Five hundred civilians were initially abducted but some were released in agreement with the Kurds, who also released Musab. Around 200 people are believed to still be the hands of the Jihadists.
“In these areas, there has long been confrontation between the troops of the international extremists affiliated with Al-Qaeda and local Kurdish militias who stood up to protect their homes from attacks by radical Islamists,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a July statement.
The Kurds are the main obstacle to the Islamists declaring a de facto state of their own in the northeast of Syria – an area which Syrian President Bashar Assad has little control over.
Barzani’s comments are further proof of how Syria’s two-year conflict is spilling over into neighboring countries.
The northern Iraqi region of Kurdistan - which already has its own government and armed forces - has also begun to pursue independent energy and foreign policies, which has infuriated the Shi’ite government of Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad. Northern Iraq is the only area of the country which has seen peace and a semblance of stability since American troops left in 2011.
Showing posts with label Kurdistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kurdistan. Show all posts
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
According to the Russian Foreign Ministrey Al-Qaeda-linked extremists hold 200 Kurdish civilians hostage as ‘live shield’ in Syria
RT reports that, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, Al-Qaeda-linked extremists hold 200 Kurdish civilians hostage as ‘live shield’ in Syria:
Civilians remain hostage after Syrian Kurds clashed with Al-Qaeda linked militants in the north-eastern Syrian towns of Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ain, along the Syrian-Turkish border over the weekend.
"In these areas, there has long been confrontation between the troops of the international extremists affiliated with al-Qaeda and local Kurdish militias who stood up to protect their homes from attacks by radical Islamists," Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement published on its website.
Syrian Kurd fighters captured a rebel leader, or emir, identified as Abu Musab. In response, Al-Qaeda extremists abducted 500 civilians, including woman and children.
“They started to kill innocent people by cutting off their heads,” the statement read. “Kurds had to free Abu Musab in exchange for an agreement to release hostages.”
Despite the Kurdish fighters agreed to release Abu Musab in exchange for people, about 200 people are still in the hands of extremists. The commander was freed as agreed.
The Kurdish gunmen have been fighting to expel al-Qaeda militants from the northeastern province of Hassakeh over the past week, with the battle significantly intensifying over the weekend.
The clashes between the Kurdish People’s Defense Units (YPG) and the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jahbat al-Nusra erupted in the city of Ras al-Ain in the northern province of Hasakeh on July 16, when at least four militants were killed.
The Kurds issued a “victory message,” celebrating the “liberation” of Ras al-Ain, claiming to hold control over the entire city as well as the headquarters of the Islamist combatant groups there.
On Saturday evening, the fighting spread to the city of Tal Abyad.
"Moscow strongly condemns the atrocities of international terrorists in northeastern Syria and the excesses and abuses perpetrated by extremists against a peaceful Kurdish population which is not involved in the ongoing political and military conflict in Syria," the Ministry said.
The city of Ras al-Ain is home to some 50,000 people including a mix of Kurds, Arabs, Christians, and Yezidis – a Kurdish religious minority.
London-based RT contributor Afshin Rattansi says Western powers supporting organizations like al-Qaeda-linked Jahbat al-Nusra are to be blamed for the situation in northern Syria.
“There has been a discrimination of Kurds in that region, but now we have a situation where the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Britain are actively supporting al-Qaeda-linked organizations that are ransacking and murdering women and children - certainly over the past 48 hours,” he said. “All we are hearing from London and Washington are talks about a no-fly zone and arming the very people who are killing women and children there. And from Turkey, certainly the Turkish right wing has brought ideas of invading Syria from the north to kill more Kurdish people.”
Rattansi says the UN Security Council (UNSC) should look closely at the situation there. “Russia and China should bring this up at the UNSC. Otherwise, the prospect for these 200 hostages is pretty grim,” he said.
-------
Commentary:
I have to admit that I am rather confused about the role the Kurds play in this struggle. To me it has always been self-evident that the Kurds cannot fight everybody everywhere and that they should enter into a strategic partnership with a major regional power (and no, I don't mean Israel). Likewise, it is rather obvious to me that the natural allies of the Kurds would be Iran and the Iraqi Shia, provided the Kurds did not insist on secession from these countries. Instead it appears that most Kurdish politicians are quietly negotiating with the US and Israel even though the latter clearly are the most unreliable allies imaginable. Finally, it seems rather self-evident to me that Islamists a la al-Qaeda are an intolerable threat to the Kurds, one which they should engage with everything they have, yet it was Hezbollah who came to help the Syrian government while the Kurds only seem to take action when they are directly threatened.
I would be deeply grateful to any Kurdish reader who would help me to make sense of a stance which, frankly, looks totally nearsighted and self-defeating to me.
Many thanks in advance, kind regards,
The Saker
Civilians remain hostage after Syrian Kurds clashed with Al-Qaeda linked militants in the north-eastern Syrian towns of Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ain, along the Syrian-Turkish border over the weekend.
"In these areas, there has long been confrontation between the troops of the international extremists affiliated with al-Qaeda and local Kurdish militias who stood up to protect their homes from attacks by radical Islamists," Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement published on its website.
Syrian Kurd fighters captured a rebel leader, or emir, identified as Abu Musab. In response, Al-Qaeda extremists abducted 500 civilians, including woman and children.
“They started to kill innocent people by cutting off their heads,” the statement read. “Kurds had to free Abu Musab in exchange for an agreement to release hostages.”
Despite the Kurdish fighters agreed to release Abu Musab in exchange for people, about 200 people are still in the hands of extremists. The commander was freed as agreed. The Kurdish gunmen have been fighting to expel al-Qaeda militants from the northeastern province of Hassakeh over the past week, with the battle significantly intensifying over the weekend.
The clashes between the Kurdish People’s Defense Units (YPG) and the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jahbat al-Nusra erupted in the city of Ras al-Ain in the northern province of Hasakeh on July 16, when at least four militants were killed.
The Kurds issued a “victory message,” celebrating the “liberation” of Ras al-Ain, claiming to hold control over the entire city as well as the headquarters of the Islamist combatant groups there.
On Saturday evening, the fighting spread to the city of Tal Abyad.
"Moscow strongly condemns the atrocities of international terrorists in northeastern Syria and the excesses and abuses perpetrated by extremists against a peaceful Kurdish population which is not involved in the ongoing political and military conflict in Syria," the Ministry said.
The city of Ras al-Ain is home to some 50,000 people including a mix of Kurds, Arabs, Christians, and Yezidis – a Kurdish religious minority.
London-based RT contributor Afshin Rattansi says Western powers supporting organizations like al-Qaeda-linked Jahbat al-Nusra are to be blamed for the situation in northern Syria.
“There has been a discrimination of Kurds in that region, but now we have a situation where the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Britain are actively supporting al-Qaeda-linked organizations that are ransacking and murdering women and children - certainly over the past 48 hours,” he said. “All we are hearing from London and Washington are talks about a no-fly zone and arming the very people who are killing women and children there. And from Turkey, certainly the Turkish right wing has brought ideas of invading Syria from the north to kill more Kurdish people.”
Rattansi says the UN Security Council (UNSC) should look closely at the situation there. “Russia and China should bring this up at the UNSC. Otherwise, the prospect for these 200 hostages is pretty grim,” he said.
-------
Commentary:
I have to admit that I am rather confused about the role the Kurds play in this struggle. To me it has always been self-evident that the Kurds cannot fight everybody everywhere and that they should enter into a strategic partnership with a major regional power (and no, I don't mean Israel). Likewise, it is rather obvious to me that the natural allies of the Kurds would be Iran and the Iraqi Shia, provided the Kurds did not insist on secession from these countries. Instead it appears that most Kurdish politicians are quietly negotiating with the US and Israel even though the latter clearly are the most unreliable allies imaginable. Finally, it seems rather self-evident to me that Islamists a la al-Qaeda are an intolerable threat to the Kurds, one which they should engage with everything they have, yet it was Hezbollah who came to help the Syrian government while the Kurds only seem to take action when they are directly threatened.
I would be deeply grateful to any Kurdish reader who would help me to make sense of a stance which, frankly, looks totally nearsighted and self-defeating to me.
Many thanks in advance, kind regards,
The Saker
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
No friends but the mountains - The Saker interviews Zerkes from Kurdistan
It has been three years now since I interviewed Mizgin, a pro-PKK Kurdish blogger who very kindly introduced me to the topic of the struggle of the Kurds for self-determination and my interview with her was mostly about the 'inner' aspects of the Kurdish struggle. Today, I am publishing another interview with a Kurd - Zerkes - but this time the interview deals mostly with the "regional picture". The regions inhabited by Kurds include areas of Turkey, of course, but also Iraq, Iran and Syria and there are substantial pockets of Kurdish population in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan (while the Kurdish diaspora covers the entire planet). Kurds therefore often have a uniquely well-informed insight into what is happening in the Middle-East and Caucasus region. In addition, Turkey is clearly a major player and some of my questions for Zerkes dealt with what is happening inside this country about which so little information reaches me.
I am very grateful to Zerkes for taking the time to answer my questions. For more info on these and other topics, make sure to visit Zerkes' blog.
The Saker: how would you assess the socio-political climate in Turkey? How are the military and the Islamic parties balancing each other out and what do you see is the general "mood" of the "street" so to speak?
Zerkes: I will answer this question in two parts. First by focusing on the people on the street and then by focusing on the political dynamics.
First, it's for sure that Turkey is changing rapidly these days. For the first time since the beginning of the republic some people started questioning the military. These people would have never imagined the beloved military could be corrupt, its members involved in thousands of disappearances, kidnapping, prostitution, arm and drug trade, etc. This is extremely confusing for Turkish people who are willing to open their eyes, listen, and think. Kurdish people already knew all of these since they were the victim but nobody listened to them for so long which is why they ended up starting their armed struggle. When Kurds look deep into what's happening now, the whole operation feels like "giving the state a face lift" without honestly facing the problem and curing it. A number of retired colonels have started committing suicide recently and Kurds somehow don't believe these thugs all of a sudden developed some morals and started feeling guilty all together.
Not too long ago some of military's projects to pay for making movies and tv series with explicit company/person names leaked to the media. The societal manipulation tools that were only available to the military and the deep state (forming secret organizations, making of movies and series such as "Breath/Nefes", "Valley of the Wolves", etc.) are now available to the current government too. These projects are really bad imitations of "loyalty building projects" you can see in the USA. The people (some of whom are "reporters") who make these and/or direct these media projects are closely affiliated with the military or Turkish Secret Service (MIT). Some progressive Turkish writers have started writing about these projects.
If I were to try to put the mood for non-Kurds in one word, I would call it schizophrenia. Turkish people, for the first time are hearing some of the atrocities their security forces have committed against Kurds and other people but they have extreme difficulty with coming to terms so a lot of them are going back to extreme nationalism/racism and attack anything that challenges their belief. Such people are demonstrating hatred against anyone who is different (they recently attacked gypsies in a town and made the gypsies leave the town and their reasoning was because gypsies lived better). Lynching moves toward Kurds in western part of Turkey are on the rise. Kurds get attacked simply because they speak Kurdish or sing a Kurdish song. The police just watches and then arrests the people who get attacked while those who attack are praised by being sensitive and loyal citizens.
The word I would use for the Kurdish side is disappointment. The state and the government want to make sure everyone knows who the boss is. Turkish state and government repeat at every chance that their main goal is annihilation of the PKK, there cannot be education in mother language and things a like. The state and government's main goal seems to be to disarm Kurds, divide them, and then consume the natural resources and make sure that no Kurdish identity is left. You can see this mindset in some rhetoric used against assimilated Kurds already. Since Kurdish was banned for such a long time and people couldn't get educated in their own language some of them cannot speak Kurdish. The rhetoric used against them is that they have no right to ask for anything since they cannot even speak their own language.
The closure of main Kurdish political party DTP and arrests of Kurdish politicians (and those that also got banned from participating in politics) is nothing but response to local elections of 2009 in which Kurds won big time against the current government despite all the support the government received from the police, military, governors etc in Kurdistan. Heck, the government offices were acting like election bureaus of AK Party. If the goal of Turkish side was to end armed clashes and encourage Kurds to participate in political process, Turkey wouldn't have arrested all the Kurdish politicians, handcuff them, and escort them in a single line to the prison while serving its pictures to the press. These politicians have never ever took part in any armed resistance. They did speak for Kurdish rights though. In fact these have been the people who never backed down despite all the threats they received and had their friends or family members assassinated. There is actually something depressingly funny. When DTP was closed, among people who were banned from politics because they were DTP administrators was a shepherd who wasn't a politician. Gordon Taylor, a blogger has published about it. The question is if cows will get banned from voting!
Politically (the state and government), what you are seeing in Turkey now is balancing of the current government's strength with that of the military's. This is being supported (and engineered) by the USA and help comes through providing intelligence to the current government on the Ergenekon case and similar issues. This is not to say the current government and the military hate one another. They are actually in agreement. The biggest project they have is to suffocate the Kurdish question by removing any defense Kurds may have (currently the PKK/HPG) and then force them into submission.
We should ask then. Why should PKK cease to exist? Let's look at the big picture first. US and EU have a Greater Middle East Project (GMEP) and the planned oil and gas pipelines extending from South Kurdistan (North Iraq) all the way to Europe, running through Turkey necessitates Kurds not disrupting the oil and gas flow (there is flow of another merchandise but we will come to that later). This means solving the Kurdish question or pacifying it. The other face of the medallion is that the GMEP requires Turkey be a regional power, much stronger than Iran and with much influence. So, in a nutshell, US will be playing it's cards in the region through a Muslim country which is Sunni.
Can a country which is constantly losing blood and is distracted by its internal issues be a regional power? Hardly. So the Kurdish issue has to be "resolved" one way or another. From what I can see so far, Turkey doesn't want a solution that would result in say autonomy for Kurds or even mention of the words Kurd or Kurdistan in the constitution. Education in mother tongue is strongly opposed as well. To be able to dictate its terms on Kurds freely, Turkey is trying to annihilate the PKK by collaborating with US, EU, and other countries in the region. Everyone pretty much seems on board. PKK hasn't killed even an American chicken and yet it's being declared as common enemy by the USA.
The Saker: what do you make of the Turkey-Israel alliance? Is that something imposed by the USA, or do Turkey and Israel work directly together, and sometimes even against the USA as is strongly suggested by Sibel Edmonds?
Zerkes: Turkey and Israel go way back and they are allies. It wouldn't surprise me if Israel and Turkey formed alliances which would be against US interests because Israel and Turkey both need one another desperately. Israel needs Turkey because it's the only country in the region that Israel can rely on, train its military with, get water and crops from, etc. Turkey needs Israel because it constantly balances out Arabs and Iran. It's no secret that Israel is the biggest supporter of Kemalism which is the official ideology of the state and its military. Israel has very strong ties to Turkish military.
I have to make a statement on the current rifts between Israel and Turkey. My opinion is that these are carefully crafted shows to strengthen Turkey's position in the Middle East so it can safely reduce Iran's effect. Arab countries already started gravitating toward Turkey and forming alliances with Turkey. This is exactly what US and EU want. While these small crises seem to be harmful for Israel they only do minor short term harm to its reputation. In the long term, Israel actually wins because if the plans go well, in the long run, Iran's influence will be weaker and Arabic states will be under Turkey's hand and we all know Turkey in the NATO and will probably be a EU member or will be given a special status.
The Saker: what can you tell us about the role and objectives of Turkey towards the Caucasus in general and Russia, Chechnia and Georgia specifically. The Chechen insurgents used to see Turkey as a friendly "rear-base", what has happened since the (relative) defeat of the Chechen insurgency in the 2nd Chechen war?
Zerkes: I am not very knowledgeable on the Caucasus but from what I hear and read, I can tell you that most of the right wing criminals go to Azerbaijan or other Turkic states in the Caucasus to have more training and continue their activities such as drug and arms trading. Turkey is trying to have serious influence in the region especially through Gulen movement. Gulen movement was founded and is lead by an imam named Fethullah Gulen who currently lives in the USA.It's basically promoting Turkish-Islam synthesis. The movement is big all over the world, particularly strong in Turkey. The current government is basically composed of Gulen's followers. Who is Fethullah Gulen? I quote from Rasti:
The full article can be read here
You can also read about Gulen movement, CIA, and turkish deep state ties here
There is actually a nice article titled "Uighur Nationalism, Turkey and the CIA" at Terrorism-illuminati.com summarizing Gulen movement, it's ties to CIA, and use of Gulen movement on Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard, specifically Central Asia. The full article can be read here and I think it's a must read:
To wrap this question up, the Chechens are still well-organized and well-supported in Turkey. I haven't kept up with the details though.
The Saker: I hear a lot of rumors about the Turkish deep state being heavily involved in drug trafficking. How much of a factor in the Turkish deep state's decision-making process towards, say, Afghanistan or the Caucasus is the drug trade?
Zerkes: they are not rumors. It was just a few weeks ago that a drug ring composed of some high level police officers were arrested. A few days ago, it was another ring lead by a retired colonel. While most Turks like to blame PKK for the drug trade (without even thinking how in the earth PKK network could extend all the way to Afghanistan and be sustainable). It's a known fact that the Turkish army tanks, helicopters, and armored vehicles have been used to transport heroin within Turkey.
Recently, one of the Drug lords (a Kurdish person but one of the Kurds who is a model for what kind of Kurds the state has been wanting) Baybasin who is in prison in the Netherlands spoke from the prison to Taraf daily (a Turkish news paper) and revealed some of his ties with high level military personnel (generals) and high level politicians such as ex prime minister Suleyman Demirel and other people deeply involved in the deep state like Mehmet Agar (he is said to have conducted over thousands of operations against Kurdish civilians). Baybasin also revealed the fact that he received counter guerrilla training (Baybasin is referring to training by Ergenekon which is the Turkish Gladio) and talked how they were taking arms to Afghanistan and bringing Heroin in return. Baybasin also mentioned a few of the presents he gave to some high level generals which can be easily verified. One of them was a villa to a general's wife. Baybasin also mentioned something interesting that one of his ships, loaded with heroin, was sank after the drugs were emptied. That heroin was never accounted for (this is not the first time). My guess is that this attitude become a habit at the Turkish side and hence we have the Ergenekon operations today. Bosses never like it when you steal from them. So, if anything, I think the whole operation is to show what happens to those who steal from the bossmen.
Sibel Edmonds also has some great analysis on Turkish state's involvement in drug trade. There is also an article by Kendal Nezan published in Le Monde Diplomatique.
Finally, since US, EU, and Turkey love to blame PKK with drug trade, I do have to state that not one single member of the PKK has been actually tried and found guilty of drug trade. PKK has also offered review of its accounts. Head of KCK Murat Karayilan offered this to USA and EU when USA Dept of Treasury froze the PKK funds in the USA which doesn't exist and also assets of Murat Karayilan which he doesn't have. Karayilan stated that his daily expense is under a dollar. The PKK also constantly makes calls and publicizes names of those who are trying to sell drugs in Kurdistan. If anything, PKK is really becoming a problem for marketing heroin in Kurdistan. Now that US is allowing "farmers" in Afghanistan to start "farming" again, I suppose it would make the flow much easier if PKK didn't exist and there would be more customers too. Also, given the fact that the shady characters associated with the deep state are almost always are linked to the Caucasus, I suspect marketing there and making the Caucasus an alternate or a second route for drug trade is an option. I do believe that would be a safe option for them if they can really secure enough ground. After all Turkic republics will be friendlier to Turks. Having a second line is simple redundancy rule in supply chain management.
It has been well publicized that Heroin trade keeps banks and governments afloat. My guess is that the big boys are desperate for the heroin trade even more today especially given the the current global economic crisis. More drug trade and more oil are needed to keep gears turning but there is a problem. The Kurds and their armed resistance happens to be strategically positioned to disrupt flow of both of them at least on one front and Russia can disrupt it on the other front. We'll wait and see how Russia will play it's cards about this.
The Saker: which political forces do you see as the main allies of Turkey in the region, both as actual allies and as potential allies?
Zerkes: the one and true ally in the region for Turkey will be Israel. Iraq, Iran, and Syria are allies with Turkey against Kurds. Turkey will make Arabic countries allies if it can really pull off the regional leader role given by the US. That will mean savor grapes with Iran. Iran and Turkey are actually competing right now in South Kurdistan. I heard somewhere that Iran has banned/limited activities of Gulen movement in Iran (Russia banned them sometime ago). Turkey is also trying to cut deals with Ukraine to make sure no Kurdish organization supporting Kurdish cause can exist there (same thing it's going in US and EU). Turkey was using the votes of the Chechen population in Ukraine as a bargaining chip.
The Saker: which political forces or countries in the region do the Kurds see as a potential ally? What do the Kurdish political parties make of Russia, Armenia, Greece or Serbia all of which are historically in conflict with Turkey and its Western allies?
Zerkes: I am not really sure if Kurds see any of these countries as an ally. I personally don't. In Middle East the only way you can have true allies is that you are strong. Countries like Greece and Serbia will be allies with Turkey for the future pipelines so I don't think they will really be allies for Kurds. Iran may turn out to be an ally for Kurds in the long run but it will be a while before Kurds can trust any of the counties among which Kurdistan is divided. As for Russia, I am sure Kurds know that Russia would turn its back to them for the right price which happened before and more than once. The most recent one was because of the Blue Stream project where Russia made a deal with Turkey and US the agreement resulted in capture of Ocalan. Having said that, I do believe temporary alliances with Iran and Russia would be possible. This is because these two countries would be getting the short end the stick if the GMEP were to materialize. Given the situation with imperial plans on heroin and oil and gas flow, Russia and Iran should waste no time to ally with Kurds. Only then all three of them can win. The alternative is bigger losses for both Iran and Russia. This time, it's not Kurds who have much to lose. Russia and Iran becoming allies with Kurds makes long term strategical sense too since Kurdistan has abundance of water and he who holds water will be the power in the Middle East in the long run.
I have a feeling Armenia wants the GMEP to materialize and they want the border with Turkey open so they can have more trade. Armenians will need this more and more as Turkey increases its influence on countries neighboring Armenia.
While talking about allies in the region, I need to state a less known historical anecdote. Back in the 80ies, a few PKK guerrillas actually fought against IDF. I may be wrong about the exact figure but I think about 11 PKK guerrillas were killed by the IDF and several were captured alive. Israel had asked why the PKK guerrillas were in this fight and the guerrillas had said because what IDF was doing was wrong. The PKK was training alongside with Palestinians at the time. The real reason doesn't matter much since it was only a handful of them but that was enough for Israel. The point is that the Israeli military help for Turkey to fight against Kurds started back then and grew larger every year.
Kurds have realized long ago that they are alone in their struggle for their basic human rights and started relying on themselves. PKK did state many times that they are not in love with guns and they are ready to drop them if Kurds are given their cultural rights and guarantees for their basic rights in the constitution.
For now, the status quo still hasn't changed: no friends but the mountains.
I am very grateful to Zerkes for taking the time to answer my questions. For more info on these and other topics, make sure to visit Zerkes' blog.
The Saker: how would you assess the socio-political climate in Turkey? How are the military and the Islamic parties balancing each other out and what do you see is the general "mood" of the "street" so to speak?
Zerkes: I will answer this question in two parts. First by focusing on the people on the street and then by focusing on the political dynamics.
First, it's for sure that Turkey is changing rapidly these days. For the first time since the beginning of the republic some people started questioning the military. These people would have never imagined the beloved military could be corrupt, its members involved in thousands of disappearances, kidnapping, prostitution, arm and drug trade, etc. This is extremely confusing for Turkish people who are willing to open their eyes, listen, and think. Kurdish people already knew all of these since they were the victim but nobody listened to them for so long which is why they ended up starting their armed struggle. When Kurds look deep into what's happening now, the whole operation feels like "giving the state a face lift" without honestly facing the problem and curing it. A number of retired colonels have started committing suicide recently and Kurds somehow don't believe these thugs all of a sudden developed some morals and started feeling guilty all together.
Not too long ago some of military's projects to pay for making movies and tv series with explicit company/person names leaked to the media. The societal manipulation tools that were only available to the military and the deep state (forming secret organizations, making of movies and series such as "Breath/Nefes", "Valley of the Wolves", etc.) are now available to the current government too. These projects are really bad imitations of "loyalty building projects" you can see in the USA. The people (some of whom are "reporters") who make these and/or direct these media projects are closely affiliated with the military or Turkish Secret Service (MIT). Some progressive Turkish writers have started writing about these projects.
If I were to try to put the mood for non-Kurds in one word, I would call it schizophrenia. Turkish people, for the first time are hearing some of the atrocities their security forces have committed against Kurds and other people but they have extreme difficulty with coming to terms so a lot of them are going back to extreme nationalism/racism and attack anything that challenges their belief. Such people are demonstrating hatred against anyone who is different (they recently attacked gypsies in a town and made the gypsies leave the town and their reasoning was because gypsies lived better). Lynching moves toward Kurds in western part of Turkey are on the rise. Kurds get attacked simply because they speak Kurdish or sing a Kurdish song. The police just watches and then arrests the people who get attacked while those who attack are praised by being sensitive and loyal citizens.
The word I would use for the Kurdish side is disappointment. The state and the government want to make sure everyone knows who the boss is. Turkish state and government repeat at every chance that their main goal is annihilation of the PKK, there cannot be education in mother language and things a like. The state and government's main goal seems to be to disarm Kurds, divide them, and then consume the natural resources and make sure that no Kurdish identity is left. You can see this mindset in some rhetoric used against assimilated Kurds already. Since Kurdish was banned for such a long time and people couldn't get educated in their own language some of them cannot speak Kurdish. The rhetoric used against them is that they have no right to ask for anything since they cannot even speak their own language.
The closure of main Kurdish political party DTP and arrests of Kurdish politicians (and those that also got banned from participating in politics) is nothing but response to local elections of 2009 in which Kurds won big time against the current government despite all the support the government received from the police, military, governors etc in Kurdistan. Heck, the government offices were acting like election bureaus of AK Party. If the goal of Turkish side was to end armed clashes and encourage Kurds to participate in political process, Turkey wouldn't have arrested all the Kurdish politicians, handcuff them, and escort them in a single line to the prison while serving its pictures to the press. These politicians have never ever took part in any armed resistance. They did speak for Kurdish rights though. In fact these have been the people who never backed down despite all the threats they received and had their friends or family members assassinated. There is actually something depressingly funny. When DTP was closed, among people who were banned from politics because they were DTP administrators was a shepherd who wasn't a politician. Gordon Taylor, a blogger has published about it. The question is if cows will get banned from voting!
Politically (the state and government), what you are seeing in Turkey now is balancing of the current government's strength with that of the military's. This is being supported (and engineered) by the USA and help comes through providing intelligence to the current government on the Ergenekon case and similar issues. This is not to say the current government and the military hate one another. They are actually in agreement. The biggest project they have is to suffocate the Kurdish question by removing any defense Kurds may have (currently the PKK/HPG) and then force them into submission.
We should ask then. Why should PKK cease to exist? Let's look at the big picture first. US and EU have a Greater Middle East Project (GMEP) and the planned oil and gas pipelines extending from South Kurdistan (North Iraq) all the way to Europe, running through Turkey necessitates Kurds not disrupting the oil and gas flow (there is flow of another merchandise but we will come to that later). This means solving the Kurdish question or pacifying it. The other face of the medallion is that the GMEP requires Turkey be a regional power, much stronger than Iran and with much influence. So, in a nutshell, US will be playing it's cards in the region through a Muslim country which is Sunni.
Can a country which is constantly losing blood and is distracted by its internal issues be a regional power? Hardly. So the Kurdish issue has to be "resolved" one way or another. From what I can see so far, Turkey doesn't want a solution that would result in say autonomy for Kurds or even mention of the words Kurd or Kurdistan in the constitution. Education in mother tongue is strongly opposed as well. To be able to dictate its terms on Kurds freely, Turkey is trying to annihilate the PKK by collaborating with US, EU, and other countries in the region. Everyone pretty much seems on board. PKK hasn't killed even an American chicken and yet it's being declared as common enemy by the USA.
The Saker: what do you make of the Turkey-Israel alliance? Is that something imposed by the USA, or do Turkey and Israel work directly together, and sometimes even against the USA as is strongly suggested by Sibel Edmonds?
Zerkes: Turkey and Israel go way back and they are allies. It wouldn't surprise me if Israel and Turkey formed alliances which would be against US interests because Israel and Turkey both need one another desperately. Israel needs Turkey because it's the only country in the region that Israel can rely on, train its military with, get water and crops from, etc. Turkey needs Israel because it constantly balances out Arabs and Iran. It's no secret that Israel is the biggest supporter of Kemalism which is the official ideology of the state and its military. Israel has very strong ties to Turkish military.
I have to make a statement on the current rifts between Israel and Turkey. My opinion is that these are carefully crafted shows to strengthen Turkey's position in the Middle East so it can safely reduce Iran's effect. Arab countries already started gravitating toward Turkey and forming alliances with Turkey. This is exactly what US and EU want. While these small crises seem to be harmful for Israel they only do minor short term harm to its reputation. In the long term, Israel actually wins because if the plans go well, in the long run, Iran's influence will be weaker and Arabic states will be under Turkey's hand and we all know Turkey in the NATO and will probably be a EU member or will be given a special status.
The Saker: what can you tell us about the role and objectives of Turkey towards the Caucasus in general and Russia, Chechnia and Georgia specifically. The Chechen insurgents used to see Turkey as a friendly "rear-base", what has happened since the (relative) defeat of the Chechen insurgency in the 2nd Chechen war?
Zerkes: I am not very knowledgeable on the Caucasus but from what I hear and read, I can tell you that most of the right wing criminals go to Azerbaijan or other Turkic states in the Caucasus to have more training and continue their activities such as drug and arms trading. Turkey is trying to have serious influence in the region especially through Gulen movement. Gulen movement was founded and is lead by an imam named Fethullah Gulen who currently lives in the USA.It's basically promoting Turkish-Islam synthesis. The movement is big all over the world, particularly strong in Turkey. The current government is basically composed of Gulen's followers. Who is Fethullah Gulen? I quote from Rasti:
Who is Gulen?
Fetullah Gulen is "a 67-year-old Turkish Sufi cleric, author and theoretician," according to a recent profile in the UK's Prospect magazine. Prospect ran a public poll last month to find the world's greatest living intellectual. Gulen 'won' the poll after his newspapers alerted readers to the poll's existence. Gulen is also the leader of the so-called 'Gulen Movement' which claims to have seven million followers worldwide. The Gulen Movement has extensive business interests, including "publishing activities (books, newspapers, and magazines), construction, healthcare, and education."
The full article can be read here
You can also read about Gulen movement, CIA, and turkish deep state ties here
There is actually a nice article titled "Uighur Nationalism, Turkey and the CIA" at Terrorism-illuminati.com summarizing Gulen movement, it's ties to CIA, and use of Gulen movement on Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard, specifically Central Asia. The full article can be read here and I think it's a must read:
To wrap this question up, the Chechens are still well-organized and well-supported in Turkey. I haven't kept up with the details though.
The Saker: I hear a lot of rumors about the Turkish deep state being heavily involved in drug trafficking. How much of a factor in the Turkish deep state's decision-making process towards, say, Afghanistan or the Caucasus is the drug trade?
Zerkes: they are not rumors. It was just a few weeks ago that a drug ring composed of some high level police officers were arrested. A few days ago, it was another ring lead by a retired colonel. While most Turks like to blame PKK for the drug trade (without even thinking how in the earth PKK network could extend all the way to Afghanistan and be sustainable). It's a known fact that the Turkish army tanks, helicopters, and armored vehicles have been used to transport heroin within Turkey.
Recently, one of the Drug lords (a Kurdish person but one of the Kurds who is a model for what kind of Kurds the state has been wanting) Baybasin who is in prison in the Netherlands spoke from the prison to Taraf daily (a Turkish news paper) and revealed some of his ties with high level military personnel (generals) and high level politicians such as ex prime minister Suleyman Demirel and other people deeply involved in the deep state like Mehmet Agar (he is said to have conducted over thousands of operations against Kurdish civilians). Baybasin also revealed the fact that he received counter guerrilla training (Baybasin is referring to training by Ergenekon which is the Turkish Gladio) and talked how they were taking arms to Afghanistan and bringing Heroin in return. Baybasin also mentioned a few of the presents he gave to some high level generals which can be easily verified. One of them was a villa to a general's wife. Baybasin also mentioned something interesting that one of his ships, loaded with heroin, was sank after the drugs were emptied. That heroin was never accounted for (this is not the first time). My guess is that this attitude become a habit at the Turkish side and hence we have the Ergenekon operations today. Bosses never like it when you steal from them. So, if anything, I think the whole operation is to show what happens to those who steal from the bossmen.
Sibel Edmonds also has some great analysis on Turkish state's involvement in drug trade. There is also an article by Kendal Nezan published in Le Monde Diplomatique.
Finally, since US, EU, and Turkey love to blame PKK with drug trade, I do have to state that not one single member of the PKK has been actually tried and found guilty of drug trade. PKK has also offered review of its accounts. Head of KCK Murat Karayilan offered this to USA and EU when USA Dept of Treasury froze the PKK funds in the USA which doesn't exist and also assets of Murat Karayilan which he doesn't have. Karayilan stated that his daily expense is under a dollar. The PKK also constantly makes calls and publicizes names of those who are trying to sell drugs in Kurdistan. If anything, PKK is really becoming a problem for marketing heroin in Kurdistan. Now that US is allowing "farmers" in Afghanistan to start "farming" again, I suppose it would make the flow much easier if PKK didn't exist and there would be more customers too. Also, given the fact that the shady characters associated with the deep state are almost always are linked to the Caucasus, I suspect marketing there and making the Caucasus an alternate or a second route for drug trade is an option. I do believe that would be a safe option for them if they can really secure enough ground. After all Turkic republics will be friendlier to Turks. Having a second line is simple redundancy rule in supply chain management.
It has been well publicized that Heroin trade keeps banks and governments afloat. My guess is that the big boys are desperate for the heroin trade even more today especially given the the current global economic crisis. More drug trade and more oil are needed to keep gears turning but there is a problem. The Kurds and their armed resistance happens to be strategically positioned to disrupt flow of both of them at least on one front and Russia can disrupt it on the other front. We'll wait and see how Russia will play it's cards about this.
The Saker: which political forces do you see as the main allies of Turkey in the region, both as actual allies and as potential allies?
Zerkes: the one and true ally in the region for Turkey will be Israel. Iraq, Iran, and Syria are allies with Turkey against Kurds. Turkey will make Arabic countries allies if it can really pull off the regional leader role given by the US. That will mean savor grapes with Iran. Iran and Turkey are actually competing right now in South Kurdistan. I heard somewhere that Iran has banned/limited activities of Gulen movement in Iran (Russia banned them sometime ago). Turkey is also trying to cut deals with Ukraine to make sure no Kurdish organization supporting Kurdish cause can exist there (same thing it's going in US and EU). Turkey was using the votes of the Chechen population in Ukraine as a bargaining chip.
The Saker: which political forces or countries in the region do the Kurds see as a potential ally? What do the Kurdish political parties make of Russia, Armenia, Greece or Serbia all of which are historically in conflict with Turkey and its Western allies?
Zerkes: I am not really sure if Kurds see any of these countries as an ally. I personally don't. In Middle East the only way you can have true allies is that you are strong. Countries like Greece and Serbia will be allies with Turkey for the future pipelines so I don't think they will really be allies for Kurds. Iran may turn out to be an ally for Kurds in the long run but it will be a while before Kurds can trust any of the counties among which Kurdistan is divided. As for Russia, I am sure Kurds know that Russia would turn its back to them for the right price which happened before and more than once. The most recent one was because of the Blue Stream project where Russia made a deal with Turkey and US the agreement resulted in capture of Ocalan. Having said that, I do believe temporary alliances with Iran and Russia would be possible. This is because these two countries would be getting the short end the stick if the GMEP were to materialize. Given the situation with imperial plans on heroin and oil and gas flow, Russia and Iran should waste no time to ally with Kurds. Only then all three of them can win. The alternative is bigger losses for both Iran and Russia. This time, it's not Kurds who have much to lose. Russia and Iran becoming allies with Kurds makes long term strategical sense too since Kurdistan has abundance of water and he who holds water will be the power in the Middle East in the long run.
I have a feeling Armenia wants the GMEP to materialize and they want the border with Turkey open so they can have more trade. Armenians will need this more and more as Turkey increases its influence on countries neighboring Armenia.
While talking about allies in the region, I need to state a less known historical anecdote. Back in the 80ies, a few PKK guerrillas actually fought against IDF. I may be wrong about the exact figure but I think about 11 PKK guerrillas were killed by the IDF and several were captured alive. Israel had asked why the PKK guerrillas were in this fight and the guerrillas had said because what IDF was doing was wrong. The PKK was training alongside with Palestinians at the time. The real reason doesn't matter much since it was only a handful of them but that was enough for Israel. The point is that the Israeli military help for Turkey to fight against Kurds started back then and grew larger every year.
Kurds have realized long ago that they are alone in their struggle for their basic human rights and started relying on themselves. PKK did state many times that they are not in love with guns and they are ready to drop them if Kurds are given their cultural rights and guarantees for their basic rights in the constitution.
For now, the status quo still hasn't changed: no friends but the mountains.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The President of Iraq's Kurdistan local government threatens a 'civil war' if SOFA not signed
Press TV reports: The President of Iraq's Kurdistan local government has warned of a 'civil war' if Baghdad refuses to sign a security agreement with the US.
"If the pact is not signed, the situation in the country may deteriorate to the point of a civil war," Voices of Iraq news agency quoted Masoud Barzani as saying at a press conference on Wednesday.
Barzani had earlier said his region will provide the US with military bases if the Iraqi government refuses to sign the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
Baghdad and Washington are negotiating the deal to provide a legal basis for the presence of US troops in Iraq after their UN mandate expires in December 2008.
Based on the agreement's provisions, the US would be granted the permission to build military bases, camps and prisons inside Iraq.
The deal, however, has met fierce opposition from the country's political and religious leaders who are concerned about those SOFA provisions which would "violate Iraq's sovereignty".
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has also declared that any agreement with the United States should consider the country's sovereignty and national interests.
-------
Comment: If this report is correct it appears that the Iraqi Kurds are picking the worst possible position which will alienate both the Iraqis and the Iranians who are vehemently opposed to the US imposed SOFA. There will be hell to pay for the Iraqi Kurds if they persist in this kind of political myopia.
"If the pact is not signed, the situation in the country may deteriorate to the point of a civil war," Voices of Iraq news agency quoted Masoud Barzani as saying at a press conference on Wednesday.
Barzani had earlier said his region will provide the US with military bases if the Iraqi government refuses to sign the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
Baghdad and Washington are negotiating the deal to provide a legal basis for the presence of US troops in Iraq after their UN mandate expires in December 2008.
Based on the agreement's provisions, the US would be granted the permission to build military bases, camps and prisons inside Iraq.
The deal, however, has met fierce opposition from the country's political and religious leaders who are concerned about those SOFA provisions which would "violate Iraq's sovereignty".
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has also declared that any agreement with the United States should consider the country's sovereignty and national interests.
-------
Comment: If this report is correct it appears that the Iraqi Kurds are picking the worst possible position which will alienate both the Iraqis and the Iranians who are vehemently opposed to the US imposed SOFA. There will be hell to pay for the Iraqi Kurds if they persist in this kind of political myopia.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
US, anti-Iran groups hold secret meeting
Press TV reports:
US officials and heads of four Kurdish anti-Iran groups have held a secret meeting in the Iraqi city of Sulaimaniyah, a Kurdish website says.
The two-day meeting was aimed at coordination of the US and the anti-Iran groups on mounting more pressure on the Islamic Republic.
Ten American military officers and leaders of four Kurdish terrorist groups attended the meeting in the Palace Hotel in Sulaimaniyah, northern Iraq, the website said.
During the meeting, the Kurdish leaders called on the US officials to pursue the same policies, which led to fall of the Iraqi Baath regime, in a bid to overthrow the Iranian government.
The latest developments within the anti-revolutionary groups indicate that winning the US cooperation and support is the groups' objective.
Kurdistan Democratic Party's former Secretary Mostafa Hejri, had reportedly underlined cooperation with the US against Iran as a "necessity", in a meeting he held with students of Arbil University last year.
General Secretary of Komala terrorist group, Abdulah Mohtadi had also officially affirmed the need of monetary and arms support from the US.
Mostafa Hejri, Abdulah Mohtadi, secretary-general of a faction of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, Abdullah Hassanzadeh, and the general secretary of the Revolutionary Union of Kurdistan, Hussein Yazdanpanah were the four Kurdish leaders attending the meeting.
US officials and heads of four Kurdish anti-Iran groups have held a secret meeting in the Iraqi city of Sulaimaniyah, a Kurdish website says.
The two-day meeting was aimed at coordination of the US and the anti-Iran groups on mounting more pressure on the Islamic Republic.
Ten American military officers and leaders of four Kurdish terrorist groups attended the meeting in the Palace Hotel in Sulaimaniyah, northern Iraq, the website said.
During the meeting, the Kurdish leaders called on the US officials to pursue the same policies, which led to fall of the Iraqi Baath regime, in a bid to overthrow the Iranian government.
The latest developments within the anti-revolutionary groups indicate that winning the US cooperation and support is the groups' objective.
Kurdistan Democratic Party's former Secretary Mostafa Hejri, had reportedly underlined cooperation with the US against Iran as a "necessity", in a meeting he held with students of Arbil University last year.
General Secretary of Komala terrorist group, Abdulah Mohtadi had also officially affirmed the need of monetary and arms support from the US.
Mostafa Hejri, Abdulah Mohtadi, secretary-general of a faction of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, Abdullah Hassanzadeh, and the general secretary of the Revolutionary Union of Kurdistan, Hussein Yazdanpanah were the four Kurdish leaders attending the meeting.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
US and Turkish Generals to discuss anti-Kurdish cooperation
(The following was sent to me by a reader to whom I am most grateful. VS)
source: http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=94893
"Turkey, US to discuss anti-PKK work, defense ties"
by Umit Enginsoy, Turkish Daily News, 29 January 2008
source: http://www.turkishdailynews
"Turkey, US to discuss anti-PKK work, defense ties"
by Umit Enginsoy, Turkish Daily News, 29 January 2008
[emphasis added]
A top Turkish general will meet with his U.S. counterparts in Washington this week to review the military cooperation against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and to discuss bilateral defense matters.
Gen. Ergin Saygun, deputy chief of the Turkish General Staff, will hold talks with Gen. James Cartwrigtht, vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, later this week mainly to discuss intelligence sharing between the United States and the Turkish Armed Forces in the fight against PKK terrorists, officials said. Saygun is also expected to meet U.S. Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman and Gen. John Craddock, commander of U.S. forces in Europe (EUCOM) and supreme commander of NATO Allied Forces in Europe, as part of anti-PKK talks. EUCOM coordinates the U.S. military's intelligence-sharing mechanism with its Turkish counterparts.In the wake of the PKK's attacks on Turkish targets that escalated in September and early October, Ankara warned that it might send its army into neighboring northern Iraq where the PKK has bases. Opposing a unilateral and large-scale Turkish incursion into Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush pledged at a meeting with visiting Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in early November last year to provide the Turkish military with actionable intelligence to conduct limited operations against specific PKK targets inside Iraqi territory.Since then Turkish fighter aircraft have repeatedly struck PKK positions in Iraq, including the terrorist group's headquarters on the Kandil mountain range, more than 100 kilometers (60 miles) south of the two countries' border. The Turkish air strikes were conducted with the apparent blessing of Washington and Turkey's civilian and military leaders have praised "the United States' help against terrorism."
Defense cooperation:
Saygun, Cartwright and Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the coalition forces in Iraq, have been designated as point men in coordinating the U.S. and Turkish armed forces' anti-PKK work.Today and Wednesday, Saygun and Mary Beth Long, U.S. assistant secretary of defense for international security, will co-chair the annual meetings of the U.S.-Turkish High-Level Defense Group, a mechanism used by senior officials and generals to review the military and defense relationship of the two countries. The last round of talks was held in Ankara last year.The High-Level Defense Group's subcommittees discuss cooperation in the defense industry, regional issues and other defense matters. Amid disputes over Iraq's U.S.-led invasion in 2003, those meetings were put on hold for a few years but resumed in 2007. Saygun is scheduled to return to Turkey on Feb. 7 after visiting several U.S. bases throughout the country.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Blood Price For The US Support To Turkey's PKK Operation: A Military Base Against Iran
by Mehmet Yaman (source: ANF Fırat News Agency)
Editor's note: This was translated from Turkish by Cem Ertür from CASMII.
Having given no support to Turkey's struggle against the PKK for a long time, the US supported the Turkish army's recent bombing of the Qandil Mountain.
The reason behind this support is becoming clear now: An agreement made between the US, Turkey and the Federal Administration of South Kurdistan for the construction in South and North Kurdistan [i.e. Northern Iraq and Southeastern Turkey respectively] of two strategic US military bases targeting Iran.
According to a military specialist who trained Kurdish Special Security Forces in Salahaddin, a military base has already been established on the strategically important Korek Mountain in the Diyana (Soran) district of South Kurdistan. A specialist team consisting of seven US and Israeli staff members set up the connection of new satellite systems and powerful radar receptors and dealt with technical organisation.
The US dispatched the equipment for this base via Turkish territory. Entry to and exit from the Korek mountain area was banned before the launch of the construction work, with the exception of US and Israeli specialists and the special teams that support them. A US-trained 1,500-strong red beret Peshmerga force was deployed in the area surrounding the high-security base.
Before the US intervention on Iraq, the Turkish intelligence agency MIT was operating in the region to collect intelligence by intercepting communication between guerillas. An Israeli newspaper has previously reported that the US was establishing a military base a few kilometers from the Iraq- Iran border.
The Wall Street Journal came up with a similar news item on September 11, 2007. Images of the base are being published for the first time by the ANF Fırat News Agency. A second team reportedly began its activities for setting up, with Turkey's approval, a similar military base in the Yüksekova district (province of Hakkari, Turkey) near the Iranian border. Although the technical devices aren't installed yet, similar work is being carried out there as well. Sepelke region is also being used for the two bases. According to the political analysts in the region, if the ongoing US-Israeli intelligence and reconnaissance work on the PKK will be successful, then this will also be applied to Iran in different ways. For that reason, the phase that began with the provision to Turkey of intelligence on PKK seeks to achieve strategically important results in the medium- and long-term. The first step in that direction was made during a meeting at the Khanzad Hotel which is located between Hewler [Arbil] and Salahaddin. In that meeting, it was agreed that in return for receiving intelligence on the Qandil area, Turkey would refrain from harsh statements and threats against the Kurdish administration and provide support for the construction of the military bases targeting Iran and Syria.
original link: http://www.firatnews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=35165
-------
Commentary by a Kurdish friend:
Salahaddin is a short drive outside of Hewler (Irbil) and the Khanzad Hotel sits on a small hill about halfway between the two, overlooking the road that links Salahaddin and Hewler. Salahaddin is basically a Barzani family personal stronghold. If the Israelis are truly involved with this (and I have no reason to doubt that they are), then it is logical they would have worked through the Barzanis given the old history between the two.
Hakkari-Yuksekova is right on the border with Iran and it's pretty close to the Iraqi (S. Kurdistan) border as well.
Editor's note: This was translated from Turkish by Cem Ertür from CASMII.
Having given no support to Turkey's struggle against the PKK for a long time, the US supported the Turkish army's recent bombing of the Qandil Mountain.
The reason behind this support is becoming clear now: An agreement made between the US, Turkey and the Federal Administration of South Kurdistan for the construction in South and North Kurdistan [i.e. Northern Iraq and Southeastern Turkey respectively] of two strategic US military bases targeting Iran.
According to a military specialist who trained Kurdish Special Security Forces in Salahaddin, a military base has already been established on the strategically important Korek Mountain in the Diyana (Soran) district of South Kurdistan. A specialist team consisting of seven US and Israeli staff members set up the connection of new satellite systems and powerful radar receptors and dealt with technical organisation.
The US dispatched the equipment for this base via Turkish territory. Entry to and exit from the Korek mountain area was banned before the launch of the construction work, with the exception of US and Israeli specialists and the special teams that support them. A US-trained 1,500-strong red beret Peshmerga force was deployed in the area surrounding the high-security base.
Before the US intervention on Iraq, the Turkish intelligence agency MIT was operating in the region to collect intelligence by intercepting communication between guerillas. An Israeli newspaper has previously reported that the US was establishing a military base a few kilometers from the Iraq- Iran border.
The Wall Street Journal came up with a similar news item on September 11, 2007. Images of the base are being published for the first time by the ANF Fırat News Agency. A second team reportedly began its activities for setting up, with Turkey's approval, a similar military base in the Yüksekova district (province of Hakkari, Turkey) near the Iranian border. Although the technical devices aren't installed yet, similar work is being carried out there as well. Sepelke region is also being used for the two bases. According to the political analysts in the region, if the ongoing US-Israeli intelligence and reconnaissance work on the PKK will be successful, then this will also be applied to Iran in different ways. For that reason, the phase that began with the provision to Turkey of intelligence on PKK seeks to achieve strategically important results in the medium- and long-term. The first step in that direction was made during a meeting at the Khanzad Hotel which is located between Hewler [Arbil] and Salahaddin. In that meeting, it was agreed that in return for receiving intelligence on the Qandil area, Turkey would refrain from harsh statements and threats against the Kurdish administration and provide support for the construction of the military bases targeting Iran and Syria.
original link: http://www.firatnews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=35165
-------
Commentary by a Kurdish friend:
Salahaddin is a short drive outside of Hewler (Irbil) and the Khanzad Hotel sits on a small hill about halfway between the two, overlooking the road that links Salahaddin and Hewler. Salahaddin is basically a Barzani family personal stronghold. If the Israelis are truly involved with this (and I have no reason to doubt that they are), then it is logical they would have worked through the Barzanis given the old history between the two.
Hakkari-Yuksekova is right on the border with Iran and it's pretty close to the Iraqi (S. Kurdistan) border as well.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Israeli UAV support Turkish strikes on Kurdistan
Ha'aretz reports the following:
Crews from Israel Aerospace Industries, operating unmanned aerial vehicles, are participating in Turkish military operations against PKK militants in northern Iraq, according to Turkish reports to be published today in the Turkish Daily News.
Ten days ago, the Turkish television station Star reported that IAI Heron UAVs are being used in the offensive against the Kurds.
The same report stated that Turkey's Chief of Staff, General Yasar Buyukanit, had observed the UAVs' operations in real time, in the operations room of the Batman air force base near the border with Iraq. The intelligence relayed by the UAVs was used by the Turkish Air Force in targeting the Kurdish militants.
However, in the Turkish Daily News report, a Turkish military source is quoted expressing criticism that the IAI and Elbit, which is also part of the Heron program, have failed to meet their contractual obligations and have delayed the supply of UAVs ordered for the Turkish Air Force in 2005.
"The delays have left the TuAF critically short of UAVs when intelligence input from those valuable reconnaissance assets are exceedingly required," the Turkish military official was quoted as saying.
According to the Turkish newspaper, the presence of the Israeli crews is an interim solution that was offered following the delay in the delivery of the UAVs.
So here we have yet another example of Israeli support for Turkey and of the long term 'cozy relationship' between these two countries. For an interesting analysis of the current development see Mizgin's excellent blog.
Crews from Israel Aerospace Industries, operating unmanned aerial vehicles, are participating in Turkish military operations against PKK militants in northern Iraq, according to Turkish reports to be published today in the Turkish Daily News.
Ten days ago, the Turkish television station Star reported that IAI Heron UAVs are being used in the offensive against the Kurds.
The same report stated that Turkey's Chief of Staff, General Yasar Buyukanit, had observed the UAVs' operations in real time, in the operations room of the Batman air force base near the border with Iraq. The intelligence relayed by the UAVs was used by the Turkish Air Force in targeting the Kurdish militants.
However, in the Turkish Daily News report, a Turkish military source is quoted expressing criticism that the IAI and Elbit, which is also part of the Heron program, have failed to meet their contractual obligations and have delayed the supply of UAVs ordered for the Turkish Air Force in 2005.
"The delays have left the TuAF critically short of UAVs when intelligence input from those valuable reconnaissance assets are exceedingly required," the Turkish military official was quoted as saying.
According to the Turkish newspaper, the presence of the Israeli crews is an interim solution that was offered following the delay in the delivery of the UAVs.
So here we have yet another example of Israeli support for Turkey and of the long term 'cozy relationship' between these two countries. For an interesting analysis of the current development see Mizgin's excellent blog.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
US occupation forces open a new front in their war against the people of Iraq (updates 1 and 2)
I just saw this really interesting piece of news from Reuters. Reporting about the air and artillery strikes in Iraqi Kurdistan Reuters wrote:
Dismissing reports the raids hit villages, Turkey's General Staff said its targets were fixed "after it was established that they were definitely not civilian residential areas." The three-hour offensive, reported to involve 50 fighter jets, also included ground forces shelling suspected positions of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in northern Iraq. "According to initial valuations, all the planned targets were hit accurately," the General Staff said on its Web site. The Turkish army has massed up to 100,000 troops near the border, raising fears that a major cross-border operation could further destabilise Iraq and fuel ethnic and sectarian tensions. However, initial responses to the weekend raids from Turkey's main allies stopped well short of condemnation. The United States, Turkey's main military ally, has said it was informed of the raids in advance but did not authorise them. A Pentagon spokesman also said Washington had given Turkey intelligence to track Kurdish fighters hiding in Iraq, but would not say whether it gave precise targets used in the raids.
Here is another Reuters piece, this time via Yahoo News:
The United States has given Turkey intelligence to track Kurdish fighters hiding in Iraq, a Pentagon spokesman said on Monday, but he would not say whether Washington gave Ankara precise targets used in weekend raids. Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman also would not say whether the United States gave Turkey prior approval to use Iraqi air space to conduct the strikes. "The United States continues to assist with information to the Turkish government that will help them deal with the insurgent situation that they have up there," Whitman said.
The Pentagon had said it was helping Turkey gain the "actionable" intelligence needed for a strike against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militants. Actionable intelligence refers to information that can be acted upon, such as data that pinpoints the location of a target for a military strike. Asked specifically whether the United States gave Turkey targets used in weekend raids, Whitman said he would not "get into details like that." He said the Pentagon was providing information that would be "helpful in dealing with this insurgent terrorist threat." When told by reporters that his answer implied the Pentagon had indeed provided such "actionable intelligence," Whitman said, "That's probably OK."
Is there any possible way to conclude from all that doublespeak that the USA was *not* involved in the preparation and execution of these strikes? The airspace over Iraq is under US control, and the Pentagon actually admits giving 'actionable intelligence' about the PKK in Iraqi Kurdistan to the Turks.
There is no possible doubt that by providing the Turks with 'actionable intelligence' the Pentagon provided Ankara with targeting information crucial to the execution of these strikes. It would also appear that the USA could be held at least partially responsible for designating the targets as "definitely not civilian residential areas". The inescapable conclusion from all this is that the PKK guerrillas would be certainly justified in considering the US forces in Iraqi Kurdistan has an hostile enemy force.
One can only wonder at what was going through the minds of the Pentagon spokesman when he volunteered the information that the USA had given the Turks 'actionable intelligence': did he pause to think for one second that this kind of irresponsible (and useless) admission was putting all the US forces in Kurdistan at risk?
From the point of view of the PKK it would make perfect sense to blow up some valuable US military target (remember the Marine barracks in Beirut?) to teach the Americans a simple lesson: that the Kurdish fighters can turn Kurdistan into another nightmare for the US occupation forces if they proactively assist the Turks in their military operations.
By siding with Turkey the USA is risking opening yet another front in its war against the Iraqi people. US commanders, with their legendary short-term memory, seem to have forgotten that Kurdistan is no safe haven for US troops. Sure, for the time being the Kurds are tolerating the US occupation forces, just like the Shias have generally done so far. But the 'redirection' is already deeply alienating the Shias and the latest developments in Kurdistan indicate that with its typical imperial hubris the USA thinks that it can also afford to alienate the Kurds.
One can only wonder - are the Americans simply out of their minds?!
-------
Update 1: according to the BBC Massoud Barzani, head of the Iraqi Kurdish regional government, has refused to meet with Secretary Rice. Keep in mind that Barzani represents, at least in the minds of the Administration, the 'good Kurds', in contrast to the 'bad Kurds' of the PKK.
In the meantime, a small Turkish troops have made in incursion into Iraqi Kurdistan.
So far the Turkish actions are rather symbolic in nature (December is just not a good time for a ground invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan) and they are probably designed to please the public opinion in Turkey. Such 'armed PR' can end up having very serious consequences for the US occupation forces throughout Iraq.
Update 2: more details from the DemocracyNow website: U.S. Military Sharing Intelligence on Iraq With Turkey. Meanwhile Pentagon officials have revealed the U.S. is providing the Turkish military with real-time intelligence on northern Iraq. The Washington Post reports U.S. military personnel have set up a center for sharing intelligence in Ankara providing imagery and other immediate information gathered from U.S. aircraft and unmanned drones flying over Northern Iraq. One U.S. military official said the United States is “essentially handing them their targets.”
Dismissing reports the raids hit villages, Turkey's General Staff said its targets were fixed "after it was established that they were definitely not civilian residential areas." The three-hour offensive, reported to involve 50 fighter jets, also included ground forces shelling suspected positions of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in northern Iraq. "According to initial valuations, all the planned targets were hit accurately," the General Staff said on its Web site. The Turkish army has massed up to 100,000 troops near the border, raising fears that a major cross-border operation could further destabilise Iraq and fuel ethnic and sectarian tensions. However, initial responses to the weekend raids from Turkey's main allies stopped well short of condemnation. The United States, Turkey's main military ally, has said it was informed of the raids in advance but did not authorise them. A Pentagon spokesman also said Washington had given Turkey intelligence to track Kurdish fighters hiding in Iraq, but would not say whether it gave precise targets used in the raids.
Here is another Reuters piece, this time via Yahoo News:
The United States has given Turkey intelligence to track Kurdish fighters hiding in Iraq, a Pentagon spokesman said on Monday, but he would not say whether Washington gave Ankara precise targets used in weekend raids. Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman also would not say whether the United States gave Turkey prior approval to use Iraqi air space to conduct the strikes. "The United States continues to assist with information to the Turkish government that will help them deal with the insurgent situation that they have up there," Whitman said.
The Pentagon had said it was helping Turkey gain the "actionable" intelligence needed for a strike against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militants. Actionable intelligence refers to information that can be acted upon, such as data that pinpoints the location of a target for a military strike. Asked specifically whether the United States gave Turkey targets used in weekend raids, Whitman said he would not "get into details like that." He said the Pentagon was providing information that would be "helpful in dealing with this insurgent terrorist threat." When told by reporters that his answer implied the Pentagon had indeed provided such "actionable intelligence," Whitman said, "That's probably OK."
Is there any possible way to conclude from all that doublespeak that the USA was *not* involved in the preparation and execution of these strikes? The airspace over Iraq is under US control, and the Pentagon actually admits giving 'actionable intelligence' about the PKK in Iraqi Kurdistan to the Turks.
There is no possible doubt that by providing the Turks with 'actionable intelligence' the Pentagon provided Ankara with targeting information crucial to the execution of these strikes. It would also appear that the USA could be held at least partially responsible for designating the targets as "definitely not civilian residential areas". The inescapable conclusion from all this is that the PKK guerrillas would be certainly justified in considering the US forces in Iraqi Kurdistan has an hostile enemy force.
One can only wonder at what was going through the minds of the Pentagon spokesman when he volunteered the information that the USA had given the Turks 'actionable intelligence': did he pause to think for one second that this kind of irresponsible (and useless) admission was putting all the US forces in Kurdistan at risk?
From the point of view of the PKK it would make perfect sense to blow up some valuable US military target (remember the Marine barracks in Beirut?) to teach the Americans a simple lesson: that the Kurdish fighters can turn Kurdistan into another nightmare for the US occupation forces if they proactively assist the Turks in their military operations.
By siding with Turkey the USA is risking opening yet another front in its war against the Iraqi people. US commanders, with their legendary short-term memory, seem to have forgotten that Kurdistan is no safe haven for US troops. Sure, for the time being the Kurds are tolerating the US occupation forces, just like the Shias have generally done so far. But the 'redirection' is already deeply alienating the Shias and the latest developments in Kurdistan indicate that with its typical imperial hubris the USA thinks that it can also afford to alienate the Kurds.
One can only wonder - are the Americans simply out of their minds?!
-------
Update 1: according to the BBC Massoud Barzani, head of the Iraqi Kurdish regional government, has refused to meet with Secretary Rice. Keep in mind that Barzani represents, at least in the minds of the Administration, the 'good Kurds', in contrast to the 'bad Kurds' of the PKK.
In the meantime, a small Turkish troops have made in incursion into Iraqi Kurdistan.
So far the Turkish actions are rather symbolic in nature (December is just not a good time for a ground invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan) and they are probably designed to please the public opinion in Turkey. Such 'armed PR' can end up having very serious consequences for the US occupation forces throughout Iraq.
Update 2: more details from the DemocracyNow website: U.S. Military Sharing Intelligence on Iraq With Turkey. Meanwhile Pentagon officials have revealed the U.S. is providing the Turkish military with real-time intelligence on northern Iraq. The Washington Post reports U.S. military personnel have set up a center for sharing intelligence in Ankara providing imagery and other immediate information gathered from U.S. aircraft and unmanned drones flying over Northern Iraq. One U.S. military official said the United States is “essentially handing them their targets.”
Sunday, December 16, 2007
The USA have betrayed the Kurds (yet again)
According to the BBC: "Turkey's air strikes against Kurdish rebels in Iraq on Sunday were approved by the United States in advance, the Turkish military says. The country's top general, Yasar Buyukanit, said the US opened northern Iraqi airspace for the operation. Jets targeted the Kurdish rebel PKK in areas near the border. The Turkish media said up to 50 planes were used. Iraqi officials say bombs hit 10 villages, killing one woman, while the PKK reported seven deaths. Iraq has summoned the Turkish ambassador in Baghdad and demanded a halt to the strikes"
Fascinating, isn't it? The USA has, presumably, returned its sovereignty to Iraq. Yet it enables an attack on Iraqi soil by one of its neighbors. The occupation forces have, of course, already kidnapped Iranian diplomats in Iraq against the will of the legal government of Iraq, but actually assisting an external power to conduct airstrikes on targets in Iraq is something of a different order of magnitude.
So much for the issue of whether one should speak of a sovereign Iraq or not. Ditto for whether the Imperial forces should be called 'coalition forces' or 'occupation forces' (not to mention that there still is no SOFA agreement in Iraq).
These airstrikes also settle the issue of whether the USA supports the Kurds or not: while having to deal with the 'good' Iraq Kurds who are needed as a showcase for the 'stable Iraq' Washington is more than willing to assist Turkey to attack the 'bad' Turkish Kurds even if that means carrying out strikes inside the territory controlled by the 'good Kurds'. Washington's "good Kurds, bad Kurds" policy is yet another monument to the phenomenal hypocrisy of the Neocons whose entire Middle-East policy is defined by one and only overwhelming goal: to please the Israeli Likudniks, hence the support for Turkey against the "bad Kurds" and AIPAC's support of Turkey in Congress (talk about an 'axis of evil'!).
What will the effects of these strikes be? Beyond stroking the ruffled feathers of the Turkish population and killing a number of (mostly civilian) Kurds - nothing. If there is one thing which military history has proven beyond the slightest doubts is that air and artillery strikes do not work in mountains.
There is, of course, the remote possibility that these strikes are just part of a preparation for a larger ground invasion by the Turkish military. I personally doubt that the Turks could actually be stupid enough to try something like that, but then I would never have thought that Olmert would be stupid enough to launch a ground invasion of Lebanon last year. So maybe the Turks need a good whopping by the PKK to come back to their senses.
The only certain effect of the US support for these strikes is that it will show, yet again, to the Kurds and the Iraqis that they are dealing with one common enemy who hypocrisy truly know no bounds. But they already knew that, of course.
Fascinating, isn't it? The USA has, presumably, returned its sovereignty to Iraq. Yet it enables an attack on Iraqi soil by one of its neighbors. The occupation forces have, of course, already kidnapped Iranian diplomats in Iraq against the will of the legal government of Iraq, but actually assisting an external power to conduct airstrikes on targets in Iraq is something of a different order of magnitude.
So much for the issue of whether one should speak of a sovereign Iraq or not. Ditto for whether the Imperial forces should be called 'coalition forces' or 'occupation forces' (not to mention that there still is no SOFA agreement in Iraq).
These airstrikes also settle the issue of whether the USA supports the Kurds or not: while having to deal with the 'good' Iraq Kurds who are needed as a showcase for the 'stable Iraq' Washington is more than willing to assist Turkey to attack the 'bad' Turkish Kurds even if that means carrying out strikes inside the territory controlled by the 'good Kurds'. Washington's "good Kurds, bad Kurds" policy is yet another monument to the phenomenal hypocrisy of the Neocons whose entire Middle-East policy is defined by one and only overwhelming goal: to please the Israeli Likudniks, hence the support for Turkey against the "bad Kurds" and AIPAC's support of Turkey in Congress (talk about an 'axis of evil'!).
What will the effects of these strikes be? Beyond stroking the ruffled feathers of the Turkish population and killing a number of (mostly civilian) Kurds - nothing. If there is one thing which military history has proven beyond the slightest doubts is that air and artillery strikes do not work in mountains.
There is, of course, the remote possibility that these strikes are just part of a preparation for a larger ground invasion by the Turkish military. I personally doubt that the Turks could actually be stupid enough to try something like that, but then I would never have thought that Olmert would be stupid enough to launch a ground invasion of Lebanon last year. So maybe the Turks need a good whopping by the PKK to come back to their senses.
The only certain effect of the US support for these strikes is that it will show, yet again, to the Kurds and the Iraqis that they are dealing with one common enemy who hypocrisy truly know no bounds. But they already knew that, of course.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Hezbollah, PKK and American Hypocrisy
Gwynne Dyer
Fifteen months ago, the armed wing of Lebanon’s Hezbollah party, listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and most other Western countries, attacked Israel’s northern border, capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing eight more. Israel replied with a month of massive air attacks all across Lebanon that destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure, leveled a good deal of south Beirut, and killed around a thousand Lebanese civilians.
Washington, London, Ottawa and some other Western capitals insisted that this was a reasonable and proportionate response, and shielded Israel from intense diplomatic pressure to stop the attacks even when Israel launched a land invasion of southern Lebanon in early August, 2006. The operation only ended when Israeli casualties on the ground mounted rapidly and the Israeli government pulled its troops back.
So what would be a reasonable and proportionate Turkish response to the recent attacks by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and most other Western countries, from northern Iraq into southeastern Turkey? More than forty Turkish civilians and soldiers have been killed in these attacks over the past two weeks, and a further eight Turkish soldiers were captured.
Well, it would be unreasonable for Turkey to bomb Iraq, where the PKK’s bases are, for any more than one month. It would be quite disproportionate for the Turkish Air Force to level more than a small part of Baghdad — say, 15,000 homes. Ideally, it should leave Baghdad alone and restrict itself to destroying some Kurdish-populated city in northern Iraq near Turkey’s own border. Moreover, when the Turks do invade Iraq on the ground, they should restrict themselves to the northern border strip where the PKK’s bases are.
What’s that? Washington is asking Turkey to show restraint and not attack Iraq at all? Even after the Kurdish terrorists killed or kidnapped all those Turkish people? Could it be that Turkish lives are worth less than Israeli lives?
Never mind. At least the United States officially classes the PKK as a terrorist organization and refuses to let its officials have any contact with it. But what’s this? There is a parallel terrorist organization called the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), essentially a branch office of the PKK, also based in northern Iraq, which carries out attacks into the adjacent Kurdish-populated region of Iran, and the United States does not condemn the PJAK? It even sends its officials to have friendly chats with the PJAK terrorists? How odd!
The PJAK’s leader, Rahman Haj-Ahmadi, paid an unofficial visit to Washington last summer. One of his close associates, Biryar Gabar, claims to have “normal dialogue” with US officials, according to a report last Tuesday in the New York Times — and the American military spokesman in Baghdad, Cmdr. Scott Rye, issued a carefully structured nondenial saying that “The consensus is that US forces are not working with or advising the PJAK.”
Biryar Gabar also said that PJAK fighters have killed at least 150 Iranian soldiers and officials in the past three months. That’s a lot more people than the PKK have killed in Turkey in the same time, and yet neither Washington nor any other Western country has expressed sympathy for Iran. Could it be that Iranian lives are worth even less than Turkish lives?
And here’s something even more peculiar. Iran, like Turkey, is already shelling Kurdish villages on the Iraqi side of the frontier that it suspects of sheltering or supplying the PKK/PJAK. How come President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney simply ignore these actions, when they have been working hard for the past year to build a case for attacking Iran? As Pat Buchanan noted on MSNBC’s “Hardball” last week: “Cheney and Bush are laying down markers for themselves which they’re going to have to meet. I don’t see how.”
The US military “assets” for an attack on Iran are all in place, so it can’t be that. Maybe the delay means that Bush and Cheney are having difficulty in persuading the military professionals to go along with this hare-brained scheme. Most senior American military officers see an attack on Iran as leading to inevitable failure and humiliation for the United States, and the last thing the White House wants is a rash of US generals resigning in protest when it orders the attack.
On the other hand, Bush is still the commander-in-chief, and how many American generals resigned when he committed the somewhat lesser folly of invading Iraq? Only one, and he did it very quietly.
-------
Note: I have yet to see any logical and fact-based argument which would justify the label "terrorist" for either Hezbollah or the PKK. However, setting aside the issue of whether the PKK and Hezbollah deserve to be called "terrorist" or not, this article does raise the pertinent issue of the double standards systematically applied by the Imperial High Command. One could also note here that the IRA did bomb the UK on many occasions and kidnap British citizens without the UK ever carpet-bombing or invading Ulster or the Irish Republic. Israeli and Turkish responses to the attacks on their soldiers are totally out of any reasonable proportion and the label "terrorist" is far more appropriate to the regimes in Jerusalem and Ankara then to any of their opponents.
Fifteen months ago, the armed wing of Lebanon’s Hezbollah party, listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and most other Western countries, attacked Israel’s northern border, capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing eight more. Israel replied with a month of massive air attacks all across Lebanon that destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure, leveled a good deal of south Beirut, and killed around a thousand Lebanese civilians.
Washington, London, Ottawa and some other Western capitals insisted that this was a reasonable and proportionate response, and shielded Israel from intense diplomatic pressure to stop the attacks even when Israel launched a land invasion of southern Lebanon in early August, 2006. The operation only ended when Israeli casualties on the ground mounted rapidly and the Israeli government pulled its troops back.
So what would be a reasonable and proportionate Turkish response to the recent attacks by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and most other Western countries, from northern Iraq into southeastern Turkey? More than forty Turkish civilians and soldiers have been killed in these attacks over the past two weeks, and a further eight Turkish soldiers were captured.
Well, it would be unreasonable for Turkey to bomb Iraq, where the PKK’s bases are, for any more than one month. It would be quite disproportionate for the Turkish Air Force to level more than a small part of Baghdad — say, 15,000 homes. Ideally, it should leave Baghdad alone and restrict itself to destroying some Kurdish-populated city in northern Iraq near Turkey’s own border. Moreover, when the Turks do invade Iraq on the ground, they should restrict themselves to the northern border strip where the PKK’s bases are.What’s that? Washington is asking Turkey to show restraint and not attack Iraq at all? Even after the Kurdish terrorists killed or kidnapped all those Turkish people? Could it be that Turkish lives are worth less than Israeli lives?
Never mind. At least the United States officially classes the PKK as a terrorist organization and refuses to let its officials have any contact with it. But what’s this? There is a parallel terrorist organization called the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), essentially a branch office of the PKK, also based in northern Iraq, which carries out attacks into the adjacent Kurdish-populated region of Iran, and the United States does not condemn the PJAK? It even sends its officials to have friendly chats with the PJAK terrorists? How odd!
The PJAK’s leader, Rahman Haj-Ahmadi, paid an unofficial visit to Washington last summer. One of his close associates, Biryar Gabar, claims to have “normal dialogue” with US officials, according to a report last Tuesday in the New York Times — and the American military spokesman in Baghdad, Cmdr. Scott Rye, issued a carefully structured nondenial saying that “The consensus is that US forces are not working with or advising the PJAK.”
Biryar Gabar also said that PJAK fighters have killed at least 150 Iranian soldiers and officials in the past three months. That’s a lot more people than the PKK have killed in Turkey in the same time, and yet neither Washington nor any other Western country has expressed sympathy for Iran. Could it be that Iranian lives are worth even less than Turkish lives?
And here’s something even more peculiar. Iran, like Turkey, is already shelling Kurdish villages on the Iraqi side of the frontier that it suspects of sheltering or supplying the PKK/PJAK. How come President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney simply ignore these actions, when they have been working hard for the past year to build a case for attacking Iran? As Pat Buchanan noted on MSNBC’s “Hardball” last week: “Cheney and Bush are laying down markers for themselves which they’re going to have to meet. I don’t see how.”
The US military “assets” for an attack on Iran are all in place, so it can’t be that. Maybe the delay means that Bush and Cheney are having difficulty in persuading the military professionals to go along with this hare-brained scheme. Most senior American military officers see an attack on Iran as leading to inevitable failure and humiliation for the United States, and the last thing the White House wants is a rash of US generals resigning in protest when it orders the attack.
On the other hand, Bush is still the commander-in-chief, and how many American generals resigned when he committed the somewhat lesser folly of invading Iraq? Only one, and he did it very quietly.
-------
Note: I have yet to see any logical and fact-based argument which would justify the label "terrorist" for either Hezbollah or the PKK. However, setting aside the issue of whether the PKK and Hezbollah deserve to be called "terrorist" or not, this article does raise the pertinent issue of the double standards systematically applied by the Imperial High Command. One could also note here that the IRA did bomb the UK on many occasions and kidnap British citizens without the UK ever carpet-bombing or invading Ulster or the Irish Republic. Israeli and Turkish responses to the attacks on their soldiers are totally out of any reasonable proportion and the label "terrorist" is far more appropriate to the regimes in Jerusalem and Ankara then to any of their opponents.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Turkish Foreign Minister meets with Iranian President
(Iran Daily) President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday the fate of regional nations are interlinked and they should safeguard one another’s interests.
In a meeting with visiting Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, Ahmadinejad also said that the Iranian, Iraqi and Turkish nations have friendly and brotherly relations, IRNA reported.
He added that enemies are bent on dominating the region and that they are against regional countries, including Iran, Turkey and Iraq, living in peace and security.
Referring to the presence of occupiers in the Middle East as a cause of instability, the president said they endanger the security of the whole region.
“The Iraqi president and prime minister are opposed to terrorist acts and will spare no efforts to suppress terrorism in northern Iraq,“ he said.
Babacan, for his part, outlined the latest regional developments, particularly in Iraq, and underscored the necessity of preserving the country’s stability and territorial integrity.
He further assessed Iran-Turkey ties as historical, friendly and brotherly, calling for expanding cooperation with Iran in all fields.
Referring to the fact that the campaign against terrorism is the absolute right of every country, he praised efforts by Iran to fight terrorist groups.
In a telephone conversation with President Ahmadinejad late Saturday, Turkish President Abdullah Gul informed him of the latest developments on Turkey-Iraq borders.
Both Ahmadinejad and Gul underlined the necessity of maintaining Iraqi unity and territorial integrity.
The two presidents agreed that “occupiers have prepared the ground for disunity and are supporting terrorists with their double standards“, adding that terrorists are not friends of any nations in the region, including Turkey, Iran and Iraq.
In separate telephone conversations with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki late Saturday, Ahmadinejad discussed the latest developments on Iraq-Turkey border.
The two sides underlined the importance of continuing consultations over the current situation along Iraqi border areas.
Also on Sunday, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki met with his Turkish counterpart Ali Babacan and called for intensifying the campaign against terrorism and condemned terrorist acts from Iraqi soil against the regional countries.
Mottaki added that Iran believes in campaign against terrorism.
Babacan, for his part, pointed to consolidated relations between Iran and Turkey, which date back to 400 years ago, saying that Ankara prioritizes ties with Tehran.
Pointing to his country’s campaign against terrorists who attack the Turkish people and soldiers from the Iraqi soil, he noted that confronting PKK does not mean confronting Iraq.
“Ankara seriously opposes the intervention of foreign powers in northern Iraq,“ he said.
In a meeting with visiting Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, Ahmadinejad also said that the Iranian, Iraqi and Turkish nations have friendly and brotherly relations, IRNA reported.He added that enemies are bent on dominating the region and that they are against regional countries, including Iran, Turkey and Iraq, living in peace and security.
Referring to the presence of occupiers in the Middle East as a cause of instability, the president said they endanger the security of the whole region.
“The Iraqi president and prime minister are opposed to terrorist acts and will spare no efforts to suppress terrorism in northern Iraq,“ he said.
Babacan, for his part, outlined the latest regional developments, particularly in Iraq, and underscored the necessity of preserving the country’s stability and territorial integrity.
He further assessed Iran-Turkey ties as historical, friendly and brotherly, calling for expanding cooperation with Iran in all fields.
Referring to the fact that the campaign against terrorism is the absolute right of every country, he praised efforts by Iran to fight terrorist groups.
In a telephone conversation with President Ahmadinejad late Saturday, Turkish President Abdullah Gul informed him of the latest developments on Turkey-Iraq borders.
Both Ahmadinejad and Gul underlined the necessity of maintaining Iraqi unity and territorial integrity.
The two presidents agreed that “occupiers have prepared the ground for disunity and are supporting terrorists with their double standards“, adding that terrorists are not friends of any nations in the region, including Turkey, Iran and Iraq.
In separate telephone conversations with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki late Saturday, Ahmadinejad discussed the latest developments on Iraq-Turkey border.
The two sides underlined the importance of continuing consultations over the current situation along Iraqi border areas.
Also on Sunday, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki met with his Turkish counterpart Ali Babacan and called for intensifying the campaign against terrorism and condemned terrorist acts from Iraqi soil against the regional countries.
Mottaki added that Iran believes in campaign against terrorism.
Babacan, for his part, pointed to consolidated relations between Iran and Turkey, which date back to 400 years ago, saying that Ankara prioritizes ties with Tehran.
Pointing to his country’s campaign against terrorists who attack the Turkish people and soldiers from the Iraqi soil, he noted that confronting PKK does not mean confronting Iraq.
“Ankara seriously opposes the intervention of foreign powers in northern Iraq,“ he said.
Who's Behind the PKK? In a word: Washington
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN REMOVED UNDER THE THREAT OF A DMCA COMPLAINT MADE BY ANTIWAR.COM AGAINST THIS BLOG FOR ALLEGED COPYRIGHT VIOLATION
THE SAKER
THE SAKER
Barzani Defies Turkish Invasion Plans
The High Stakes in Iraqi Kurdistan
By Patrick Cockburn in Iraqi Kurdistan
Masoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurds of northern Iraq, expressed defiance yesterday in the face of a threatened invasion by 100,00 Turkish troops, and was scornful of Turkey's claim that it wants only to pursue Turkish-Kurd rebels.
"We are not a threat to Turkey and I do not accept the language of threatening and blackmailing from the government of Turkey," he said from his mountain fortress of Salahudin 10 miles north of Arbil. "If they invade there will be war."
Mr Barzani is President of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the autonomous Kurdish area in northern Iraq which enjoys quasi-independence from Baghdad and has stronger military forces than half of the members of the UN.
He was in no mood to buckle under Turkish pressure to take military action against the guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) who have their hideouts in the mountain ranges along Iraqi Kurdistan's borders with Iran and Turkey. "My main mission would be not to allow a Kurdish-Kurdish fight to happen within the Kurdish liberation movement," he declared.
Mr Barzani said Turkey's attempt to solve its Kurdish problem by military means alone had not worked in the past 23 years and would not work now. It was in 1984 that the PKK took up arms, seeking independence or autonomy from theTurkish state that refused to admit that it had a Kurdish minority of 15 million.
Mr Barzani also said that he was increasingly convinced that the Turkish objective was not the PKK but Iraqi Kurdistan, which has achieved near-independence since 2003. He said he was convinced Turkey's claim that its target was the PKK "is only an excuse and the target is the Kurdistan region itself". When the KRG put its peshmerga (soldiers) on the border with Turkey to control the areas where the PKK has sought refuge, Turkish artillery had shelled them, he said.
Mr Barzani appears to believe there is no concession he could offer to Turkey which would defuse the crisis because he himself and the KRG are the true target of Ankara.
Turkish military action might be largely symbolic with ground troops not advancing very far, but even this would have a serious impact on the economy of the KRG. The Iraqi Kurds would also be badly hurt if Turkey closed the Habur Bridge, the crossing point near Zakho through which passes much of Kurdistan's trade. Some 825,000 trucks crossed the bridge in both directions last year. Asked what the impact of the closure of Habur Bridge would be on Iraqi Kurdistan, Mr Barzani said determinedly: "We would not starve."
Turkish artillery is already firing shells across the border in the high mountains around Kani Masi, a well-watered border village in western Kurdistan, famous for its apple orchards. The shelling is persistent and is evidently designed as warning to the Iraqi Kurds. "We are afraid but we have nowhere else to go," said Mohammed Mustafa, an elderly farmer.
For the moment, the villagers are staying put. Many of them in this area are Syriac Christians whose parents or grandparents emigrated to Baghdad but had returned recently because of fear of sectarian killing in the capital. Omar Mai, the local head of Mr Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party in Kani Masi, said that seven villages in the area had recently been shelled.
He said that there were no PKK in the villages and that they stayed permanently in the high mountains. Another reason for the PKK guerrillas making themselves scarce in this area is that there are Turkish outposts and garrisons already inside Iraq, set up during previous incursions. At one point near the village of Begova the snouts of Turkish tanks point menacingly down the road.
Driving to the top of a mountain where peshmerga were dug in, Mr Mai explained with some pride the intricate geography of the frontier. On one hilltop below us was the Turkish army, identifiable by the red Turkish flag, while a few hundred yards below the hill, separated by a flimsy fence, were Iraqi Kurdish frontier guards living in a long white barracks. In a grove of trees behind this building was a villa that was also occupied by Turkish troops.
Further north, hidden by folds in the mountains, are the Turkish guns that intermittently bombard this area. If the Turkish army does want to advance here there is not much to stop them, but it is unlikely that they would find any PKK, scanty in number and well-hidden in caves, in this vast range of mountains and valleys.
Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq', a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006.
By Patrick Cockburn in Iraqi Kurdistan
Masoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurds of northern Iraq, expressed defiance yesterday in the face of a threatened invasion by 100,00 Turkish troops, and was scornful of Turkey's claim that it wants only to pursue Turkish-Kurd rebels.
"We are not a threat to Turkey and I do not accept the language of threatening and blackmailing from the government of Turkey," he said from his mountain fortress of Salahudin 10 miles north of Arbil. "If they invade there will be war."
Mr Barzani is President of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the autonomous Kurdish area in northern Iraq which enjoys quasi-independence from Baghdad and has stronger military forces than half of the members of the UN.He was in no mood to buckle under Turkish pressure to take military action against the guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) who have their hideouts in the mountain ranges along Iraqi Kurdistan's borders with Iran and Turkey. "My main mission would be not to allow a Kurdish-Kurdish fight to happen within the Kurdish liberation movement," he declared.
Mr Barzani said Turkey's attempt to solve its Kurdish problem by military means alone had not worked in the past 23 years and would not work now. It was in 1984 that the PKK took up arms, seeking independence or autonomy from theTurkish state that refused to admit that it had a Kurdish minority of 15 million.
Mr Barzani also said that he was increasingly convinced that the Turkish objective was not the PKK but Iraqi Kurdistan, which has achieved near-independence since 2003. He said he was convinced Turkey's claim that its target was the PKK "is only an excuse and the target is the Kurdistan region itself". When the KRG put its peshmerga (soldiers) on the border with Turkey to control the areas where the PKK has sought refuge, Turkish artillery had shelled them, he said.
Mr Barzani appears to believe there is no concession he could offer to Turkey which would defuse the crisis because he himself and the KRG are the true target of Ankara.
Turkish military action might be largely symbolic with ground troops not advancing very far, but even this would have a serious impact on the economy of the KRG. The Iraqi Kurds would also be badly hurt if Turkey closed the Habur Bridge, the crossing point near Zakho through which passes much of Kurdistan's trade. Some 825,000 trucks crossed the bridge in both directions last year. Asked what the impact of the closure of Habur Bridge would be on Iraqi Kurdistan, Mr Barzani said determinedly: "We would not starve."
Turkish artillery is already firing shells across the border in the high mountains around Kani Masi, a well-watered border village in western Kurdistan, famous for its apple orchards. The shelling is persistent and is evidently designed as warning to the Iraqi Kurds. "We are afraid but we have nowhere else to go," said Mohammed Mustafa, an elderly farmer.
For the moment, the villagers are staying put. Many of them in this area are Syriac Christians whose parents or grandparents emigrated to Baghdad but had returned recently because of fear of sectarian killing in the capital. Omar Mai, the local head of Mr Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party in Kani Masi, said that seven villages in the area had recently been shelled.
He said that there were no PKK in the villages and that they stayed permanently in the high mountains. Another reason for the PKK guerrillas making themselves scarce in this area is that there are Turkish outposts and garrisons already inside Iraq, set up during previous incursions. At one point near the village of Begova the snouts of Turkish tanks point menacingly down the road.
Driving to the top of a mountain where peshmerga were dug in, Mr Mai explained with some pride the intricate geography of the frontier. On one hilltop below us was the Turkish army, identifiable by the red Turkish flag, while a few hundred yards below the hill, separated by a flimsy fence, were Iraqi Kurdish frontier guards living in a long white barracks. In a grove of trees behind this building was a villa that was also occupied by Turkish troops.
Further north, hidden by folds in the mountains, are the Turkish guns that intermittently bombard this area. If the Turkish army does want to advance here there is not much to stop them, but it is unlikely that they would find any PKK, scanty in number and well-hidden in caves, in this vast range of mountains and valleys.
Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq', a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006.
Iran says documents show U.S. backing "terrorists"
(Reuters) - Iran has access to evidence of U.S. support for terrorist groups in the Middle East, a senior Iranian official was quoted as saying on Sunday.
Iran's new chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, made the allegation in comments to visiting Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, whose country may soon send troops to hunt down Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq.
Tehran says the rebels are operating in Iraq with U.S. forces present in the country and this shows Washington is refraining from tackling them.
Like Turkey, Iran also has faced cross-border attacks by Kurdish rebels and has shelled targets inside Iraq in response.
"Escalation of terrorism in the region is one of the direct results of the presence of occupiers in Iraq, particularly America," Jalili, an ally of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said according to the country's state broadcaster.
"And there are documents and information available proving America's support for terrorist groups in the region," he said, without giving details. Jalili is also the new secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council.
The United States often accuses Iran of backing and training militias responsible for some of the bloodshed threatening to tear Iraq apart. Tehran denies the charge and blames the violence in Iraq on the presence of U.S. forces.
The two countries are also locked in a stand-off over Tehran's nuclear programme, which Western powers suspect is aimed at developing bombs. Iran says it only wants to generate electricity.
Washington last week dubbed Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and accused its Qods force of backing terrorists. It also imposed sanctions on more than 20 Iranian companies, major banks and individuals.
At a joint news conference with Babacan, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Sunday also accused the United States and Israel of involvement in terrorism in the region.
"We see ... their hand behind some of the regional terrorist activities," Mottaki said.
Babacan, whose country's ties with the United States have deteriorated sharply in recent weeks, thanked Iran for helping Turkey fight the PKK guerrillas and said the two sides had talked about continuing their cooperation.
The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) launched its campaign for a Kurdish homeland in southeastern Turkey in 1984. More than 30,000 people have been killed in the conflict since then.
Jalili on October 20 replaced Ali Larijani as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, a move analysts saw as signalling a toughening of Tehran's position in the atom row.
Iran's new chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, made the allegation in comments to visiting Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, whose country may soon send troops to hunt down Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq.Tehran says the rebels are operating in Iraq with U.S. forces present in the country and this shows Washington is refraining from tackling them.
Like Turkey, Iran also has faced cross-border attacks by Kurdish rebels and has shelled targets inside Iraq in response.
"Escalation of terrorism in the region is one of the direct results of the presence of occupiers in Iraq, particularly America," Jalili, an ally of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said according to the country's state broadcaster.
"And there are documents and information available proving America's support for terrorist groups in the region," he said, without giving details. Jalili is also the new secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council.
The United States often accuses Iran of backing and training militias responsible for some of the bloodshed threatening to tear Iraq apart. Tehran denies the charge and blames the violence in Iraq on the presence of U.S. forces.
The two countries are also locked in a stand-off over Tehran's nuclear programme, which Western powers suspect is aimed at developing bombs. Iran says it only wants to generate electricity.
Washington last week dubbed Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and accused its Qods force of backing terrorists. It also imposed sanctions on more than 20 Iranian companies, major banks and individuals.
At a joint news conference with Babacan, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Sunday also accused the United States and Israel of involvement in terrorism in the region.
"We see ... their hand behind some of the regional terrorist activities," Mottaki said.
Babacan, whose country's ties with the United States have deteriorated sharply in recent weeks, thanked Iran for helping Turkey fight the PKK guerrillas and said the two sides had talked about continuing their cooperation.
The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) launched its campaign for a Kurdish homeland in southeastern Turkey in 1984. More than 30,000 people have been killed in the conflict since then.
Jalili on October 20 replaced Ali Larijani as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, a move analysts saw as signalling a toughening of Tehran's position in the atom row.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Kurdish fighters defy the world from mountain fortress as bombing begins
By Patrick Cockburn in the Qandil mountains, Iraq
Turkey used its helicopters and artillery to attack Kurdish guerrillas inside northern Iraq yesterday as the Turkish army massed just north of the border. The helicopter gunships penetrated three miles into Iraqi territory and warplanes targeted mountain paths used by rebels entering Turkey.
Guerrilla commanders of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) were defiant in the face of an impending invasion. In an interview high in the Qandil mountains, Bozan Tekin, a PKK leader, said: "Even Alexander the Great couldn't bring this region under his rule." The PKK has its headquarters in the Qandil mountains, one of the world's great natural fortresses in the east of Iraqi Kurdistan, stretching south from the south-east tip of Turkey along the Iranian border. If Turkey, or anybody else, is to try to drive the PKK out of northern Iraq they would have to capture this bastion and it is unlikely they will succeed.
Despite threats of action by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, the PKK leaders give no sense of feeling that their enemies were closing in.
For a guerrilla movement awaiting assault, the PKK's leaders are surprisingly easy to find. We drove east from Arbil for two-and-a-half hours and hired a four-wheel drive car in the village of Sangassar. Iraqi police wearing camouflage uniform were at work building a new outpost out of cement blocks beside the road leading into the mountains but only took our names.
In fact the four-wheel drive was hardly necessary because there is a military road constructed by Saddam Hussein's army in the 1980s which zig-zags along the side of a steep valley until it reaches the first PKK checkpoint. The PKK soldiers with Kalashnikovs and two grenades pinned to the front of their uniform were relaxed and efficient. In case anybody should have any doubt about who was in control there was an enormous picture of the imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan picked out in yellow, black, white and red painted stones on a hill half a mile away and visible over a wide area.
There were no sign that threats from Mr Maliki in Baghdad or from the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, were having an effect. The PKK soldiers at a small guest house had not been expecting us but promptly got in touch with their local headquarters.
For all its nonchalance the PKK is facing a formidable array of enemies. The Iraqi government in Baghdad has no direct influence over the Kurdistan Regional Government, led by President Massoud Barzani whose administration is made up of his own Kurdistan Democratic Party and President Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. This is the only force capable of trying to eject the 3,000 PKK fighters.
So far the KRG shows no sign of doing so. One reason is that, paradoxically, the Turkish government will not talk to the KRG although it is the only Iraqi institution that might help it – Ankara is fearful of the growing strength of the KRG as a quasi-independent state on its borders.
So far the PKK is benefiting substantially from the crisis which started this summer when it began to make more attacks within Turkey. Instead of being politically marginalised in its hidden valleys, it is suddenly at the centre of international attention. This will help it try to rebuild its battered political base within Turkey where it suffered defeat in the 1990s and where its leader Abdullah Ocalan has been imprisoned since 1999.
Asked if the Turkish forces could inflict damage on the PKK, one of its fighters, called Intikam, said: "Three out of five of our fighters are hiding in the mountains in Turkey and, if the Turkish army cannot find them there, it will hardly find them in Iraq."
Bozan Tekin and Mizgin Amed, a woman who is also a member of the leadership, hotly deny they are "terrorists" and ask plaintively why there is not more attention given to Kurds who have been killed by the Turkish army. They add that they have been observing a ceasefire since since 1 October 2006 and fight in retaliation for Turkish attacks.
"Since then the Turks have launched 485 attacks on us," says Bozan Tekin. "Even an animal – any living thing – will fight when it feels it is in a dangerous situation," said Mizgin Amed. Both the PKK leaders were chary of giving details of last Sunday's ambush in which at least 16 Turkish soldiers were killed and eight captured. This is because the ambush is a little difficult to square with their defensive posture. But Bozan Tekin said that in reality "35 Turkish soldiers were killed and only three PKK fighters were lightly wounded. We did not lose anyone dead." He claimed that an attack on a minibus, which Turkey blamed on the PKK, was in fact carried out by Turkish soldiers on a Kurdish wedding party.
Overall, although it does not say so openly, the PKK would welcome a Turkish military invasion of northern Iraq because it would embroil Turkey with the Iraqi Kurds and the Iraqi army. It would also pose almost no threat to the PKK.
Turkey used its helicopters and artillery to attack Kurdish guerrillas inside northern Iraq yesterday as the Turkish army massed just north of the border. The helicopter gunships penetrated three miles into Iraqi territory and warplanes targeted mountain paths used by rebels entering Turkey.
Guerrilla commanders of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) were defiant in the face of an impending invasion. In an interview high in the Qandil mountains, Bozan Tekin, a PKK leader, said: "Even Alexander the Great couldn't bring this region under his rule." The PKK has its headquarters in the Qandil mountains, one of the world's great natural fortresses in the east of Iraqi Kurdistan, stretching south from the south-east tip of Turkey along the Iranian border. If Turkey, or anybody else, is to try to drive the PKK out of northern Iraq they would have to capture this bastion and it is unlikely they will succeed.
Despite threats of action by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, the PKK leaders give no sense of feeling that their enemies were closing in.
For a guerrilla movement awaiting assault, the PKK's leaders are surprisingly easy to find. We drove east from Arbil for two-and-a-half hours and hired a four-wheel drive car in the village of Sangassar. Iraqi police wearing camouflage uniform were at work building a new outpost out of cement blocks beside the road leading into the mountains but only took our names.
In fact the four-wheel drive was hardly necessary because there is a military road constructed by Saddam Hussein's army in the 1980s which zig-zags along the side of a steep valley until it reaches the first PKK checkpoint. The PKK soldiers with Kalashnikovs and two grenades pinned to the front of their uniform were relaxed and efficient. In case anybody should have any doubt about who was in control there was an enormous picture of the imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan picked out in yellow, black, white and red painted stones on a hill half a mile away and visible over a wide area.There were no sign that threats from Mr Maliki in Baghdad or from the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, were having an effect. The PKK soldiers at a small guest house had not been expecting us but promptly got in touch with their local headquarters.
For all its nonchalance the PKK is facing a formidable array of enemies. The Iraqi government in Baghdad has no direct influence over the Kurdistan Regional Government, led by President Massoud Barzani whose administration is made up of his own Kurdistan Democratic Party and President Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. This is the only force capable of trying to eject the 3,000 PKK fighters.
So far the KRG shows no sign of doing so. One reason is that, paradoxically, the Turkish government will not talk to the KRG although it is the only Iraqi institution that might help it – Ankara is fearful of the growing strength of the KRG as a quasi-independent state on its borders.
So far the PKK is benefiting substantially from the crisis which started this summer when it began to make more attacks within Turkey. Instead of being politically marginalised in its hidden valleys, it is suddenly at the centre of international attention. This will help it try to rebuild its battered political base within Turkey where it suffered defeat in the 1990s and where its leader Abdullah Ocalan has been imprisoned since 1999.
Asked if the Turkish forces could inflict damage on the PKK, one of its fighters, called Intikam, said: "Three out of five of our fighters are hiding in the mountains in Turkey and, if the Turkish army cannot find them there, it will hardly find them in Iraq."
Bozan Tekin and Mizgin Amed, a woman who is also a member of the leadership, hotly deny they are "terrorists" and ask plaintively why there is not more attention given to Kurds who have been killed by the Turkish army. They add that they have been observing a ceasefire since since 1 October 2006 and fight in retaliation for Turkish attacks.
"Since then the Turks have launched 485 attacks on us," says Bozan Tekin. "Even an animal – any living thing – will fight when it feels it is in a dangerous situation," said Mizgin Amed. Both the PKK leaders were chary of giving details of last Sunday's ambush in which at least 16 Turkish soldiers were killed and eight captured. This is because the ambush is a little difficult to square with their defensive posture. But Bozan Tekin said that in reality "35 Turkish soldiers were killed and only three PKK fighters were lightly wounded. We did not lose anyone dead." He claimed that an attack on a minibus, which Turkey blamed on the PKK, was in fact carried out by Turkish soldiers on a Kurdish wedding party.
Overall, although it does not say so openly, the PKK would welcome a Turkish military invasion of northern Iraq because it would embroil Turkey with the Iraqi Kurds and the Iraqi army. It would also pose almost no threat to the PKK.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Bush offers to bomb Kurds
The Bush Administration is considering air strikes, including cruise missiles, against the Kurdish rebel group PKK in northern Iraq.
The move would be an attempt to stave off a Turkish invasion of that country to fight the rebels. President George Bush spoke with Turkish President Abdullah Gul by phone yesterday in an effort to ease the crisis. And Prime Minister John Howard says the tensions on the Turkey-Iraq border will not help the west's battle for democracy in Iraq. Mr Howard said there was some recent evidence that US forces were making headway in their battle against al-Qaeda in Iraq following the US troop surge. "There is some evidence in recent weeks that the surge has been more successful than many of its critics wanted it to be or believe it would be," Mr Howard told an army land warfare conference in Adelaide today.
But he hoped the temperature between Turkey and the Kurds was kept as low as possible. "It is in a strategic sense a complicating factor at a time when evidence is emerging of slow but nonetheless some progress being made in improving the security position in Iraq," he said. "The message I would give to Turkey and Iraq is, like everybody else, just keep it as cool and at a lower temperature as possible," Mr Howard said.
According to an official familiar with the conversation, Mr Bush assured the Turkish President that the US was seriously looking into options beyond diplomacy to stop the attacks coming from Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
"It's not 'Kumbaya' time any more - just talking about trilateral talks is not going to be enough," the official said. "Something has to be done."
While the use of US soldiers on the ground to root out the PKK would be the last resort, the US would be willing to launch air strikes on PKK targets, the official said, and has discussed the use of cruise missiles. But air strikes using manned aircraft may be an easier option because the US controls the air space over Iraq. Another option would be to persuade the Kurdistan Regional Government, which runs that part of Iraq, to order its Peshmerga forces to form a cordon preventing the movement of the PKK beyond its mountain camps.
"In the past, there has been reluctance to engage in direct US military action against the PKK, either through air strikes or some kind of Special Forces action," said the official familiar with the Bush-Gul conversation, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But the red line was always, if the Turks were going to come over the border, it could be so destabilising that it might be less risky for us to do something ourselves. "Now the Turks are at the end of their rope, and our risk calculus is changing."
Meanwhile, Iraq said today it would shut down the operations of Kurdish rebels based on its soil, hoping to head off the threatened invasion by Turkish troops massed on the border.
"The PKK is a terrorist organisation and we have taken a decision to shut down their offices and not allow them to operate on Iraqi soil," Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said. "We will also work on limiting their terrorist activities which are threatening Iraq and Turkey," Maliki said after crisis talks in Baghdad with Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan. He gave no details on how the rebels could be prevented from launching attacks from their remote mountain bases. Analysts say military action would have to involve US forces in Iraq.
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said Ankara was giving diplomacy a chance, but reminded Iraq that Turkey's parliament had given the go-ahead for a military incursion at any time.
And the publication of photographs said to show eight Turkish soldiers captured by the rebels increased pressure on Turkey's government to take swift action.
"Right now we are in a waiting stance but Iraq should know we can use the mandate for a cross-border operation at any time," Erdogan told a joint news conference in London after talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
He later ratcheted up pressure by telling an investors' conference that Turkey might impose sanctions on exports to Iraq. Turkish exports to Iraq were worth $US2.6 billion ($A2.94 billion) in 2006.
PKK separatists, operating from northern Iraq, killed a dozen Turkish soldiers in weekend fighting. The PKK said it also captured eight soldiers, and a news agency with close links to the rebels published what it said were photographs of the captives today. Turkey had denied soldiers had been captured but acknowledged eight were missing.
"The pictures show their health condition is pretty good," said the Firat news agency, which is based in western Europe. With feelings running high in Turkey, and anti-PKK protests in several towns, the broadcasting watchdog banned news reports on the deaths of the 12 soldiers.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, said PKK attacks on Turkey would not be tolerated.
"We have given the PKK the option to leave or disarm. We care for every drop of Turkish blood like we care for every drop of Iraqi blood," he said after talks with Babacan.
Washington has so far been reluctant to attack PKK rebels, fearing this could damage ties with Iraqi Kurds and destabilise the Kurdish region, the only area of Iraq to see relative stability and prosperity since Saddam Hussein was toppled.
Turkey estimates 3,000 PKK rebels are based in Iraq. Ankara believes US forces in Iraq have the capability of capturing PKK leaders hiding in the Qandil mountains, shutting down their camps and cutting off supply routes and logistical support.
Turkey's government says it will use all diplomatic options before launching any strike into northern Iraq against the PKK. The easing in rhetoric has helped bring global oil prices down from record highs. Turkey has deployed as many as 100,000 troops, backed by tanks, F-16 fighter jets and helicopter gunships along its border in preparation for a possible attack on rebel bases.
"If expected developments do not take place in the next few days, we will have to take care of our own situation," Erdogan said in Oxford, England, yesterday.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Britain's visiting foreign secretary, David Miliband, said they had proposed a meeting in Istanbul next month of officials from the United States, Turkey and Iraq to discuss how to stop PKK attacks.
Iraq's Talabani said yesterday the PKK would announce a ceasefire. Later the guerrilla group said in a statement it was ready for peace if Ankara stopped its military offensive against Kurdish fighters. It made no mention of a ceasefire. Babacan said any ceasefire offer would be meaningless as the PKK was a terrorist organisation, not a sovereign army.
An ambush over the weekend by 200 PKK guerrillas left 12 Turkish soldiers dead and eight missing. The attack's sophistication and scope surprised not only the Turks but also the US and its Iraqi allies.
The US, with Iraqi help, also could squeeze the flow of supplies and funds for the PKK coming across the border, or through the airport in Irbil, the largest city in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Turkey yesterday said it would exhaust diplomatic channels before launching any military strike into northern Iraq
The move would be an attempt to stave off a Turkish invasion of that country to fight the rebels. President George Bush spoke with Turkish President Abdullah Gul by phone yesterday in an effort to ease the crisis. And Prime Minister John Howard says the tensions on the Turkey-Iraq border will not help the west's battle for democracy in Iraq. Mr Howard said there was some recent evidence that US forces were making headway in their battle against al-Qaeda in Iraq following the US troop surge. "There is some evidence in recent weeks that the surge has been more successful than many of its critics wanted it to be or believe it would be," Mr Howard told an army land warfare conference in Adelaide today.
But he hoped the temperature between Turkey and the Kurds was kept as low as possible. "It is in a strategic sense a complicating factor at a time when evidence is emerging of slow but nonetheless some progress being made in improving the security position in Iraq," he said. "The message I would give to Turkey and Iraq is, like everybody else, just keep it as cool and at a lower temperature as possible," Mr Howard said.
According to an official familiar with the conversation, Mr Bush assured the Turkish President that the US was seriously looking into options beyond diplomacy to stop the attacks coming from Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
"It's not 'Kumbaya' time any more - just talking about trilateral talks is not going to be enough," the official said. "Something has to be done."
While the use of US soldiers on the ground to root out the PKK would be the last resort, the US would be willing to launch air strikes on PKK targets, the official said, and has discussed the use of cruise missiles. But air strikes using manned aircraft may be an easier option because the US controls the air space over Iraq. Another option would be to persuade the Kurdistan Regional Government, which runs that part of Iraq, to order its Peshmerga forces to form a cordon preventing the movement of the PKK beyond its mountain camps."In the past, there has been reluctance to engage in direct US military action against the PKK, either through air strikes or some kind of Special Forces action," said the official familiar with the Bush-Gul conversation, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But the red line was always, if the Turks were going to come over the border, it could be so destabilising that it might be less risky for us to do something ourselves. "Now the Turks are at the end of their rope, and our risk calculus is changing."
Meanwhile, Iraq said today it would shut down the operations of Kurdish rebels based on its soil, hoping to head off the threatened invasion by Turkish troops massed on the border.
"The PKK is a terrorist organisation and we have taken a decision to shut down their offices and not allow them to operate on Iraqi soil," Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said. "We will also work on limiting their terrorist activities which are threatening Iraq and Turkey," Maliki said after crisis talks in Baghdad with Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan. He gave no details on how the rebels could be prevented from launching attacks from their remote mountain bases. Analysts say military action would have to involve US forces in Iraq.
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said Ankara was giving diplomacy a chance, but reminded Iraq that Turkey's parliament had given the go-ahead for a military incursion at any time.
And the publication of photographs said to show eight Turkish soldiers captured by the rebels increased pressure on Turkey's government to take swift action.
"Right now we are in a waiting stance but Iraq should know we can use the mandate for a cross-border operation at any time," Erdogan told a joint news conference in London after talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
He later ratcheted up pressure by telling an investors' conference that Turkey might impose sanctions on exports to Iraq. Turkish exports to Iraq were worth $US2.6 billion ($A2.94 billion) in 2006.
PKK separatists, operating from northern Iraq, killed a dozen Turkish soldiers in weekend fighting. The PKK said it also captured eight soldiers, and a news agency with close links to the rebels published what it said were photographs of the captives today. Turkey had denied soldiers had been captured but acknowledged eight were missing.
"The pictures show their health condition is pretty good," said the Firat news agency, which is based in western Europe. With feelings running high in Turkey, and anti-PKK protests in several towns, the broadcasting watchdog banned news reports on the deaths of the 12 soldiers.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, said PKK attacks on Turkey would not be tolerated.
"We have given the PKK the option to leave or disarm. We care for every drop of Turkish blood like we care for every drop of Iraqi blood," he said after talks with Babacan.
Washington has so far been reluctant to attack PKK rebels, fearing this could damage ties with Iraqi Kurds and destabilise the Kurdish region, the only area of Iraq to see relative stability and prosperity since Saddam Hussein was toppled.
Turkey estimates 3,000 PKK rebels are based in Iraq. Ankara believes US forces in Iraq have the capability of capturing PKK leaders hiding in the Qandil mountains, shutting down their camps and cutting off supply routes and logistical support.
Turkey's government says it will use all diplomatic options before launching any strike into northern Iraq against the PKK. The easing in rhetoric has helped bring global oil prices down from record highs. Turkey has deployed as many as 100,000 troops, backed by tanks, F-16 fighter jets and helicopter gunships along its border in preparation for a possible attack on rebel bases.
"If expected developments do not take place in the next few days, we will have to take care of our own situation," Erdogan said in Oxford, England, yesterday.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Britain's visiting foreign secretary, David Miliband, said they had proposed a meeting in Istanbul next month of officials from the United States, Turkey and Iraq to discuss how to stop PKK attacks.
Iraq's Talabani said yesterday the PKK would announce a ceasefire. Later the guerrilla group said in a statement it was ready for peace if Ankara stopped its military offensive against Kurdish fighters. It made no mention of a ceasefire. Babacan said any ceasefire offer would be meaningless as the PKK was a terrorist organisation, not a sovereign army.
An ambush over the weekend by 200 PKK guerrillas left 12 Turkish soldiers dead and eight missing. The attack's sophistication and scope surprised not only the Turks but also the US and its Iraqi allies.
The US, with Iraqi help, also could squeeze the flow of supplies and funds for the PKK coming across the border, or through the airport in Irbil, the largest city in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Turkey yesterday said it would exhaust diplomatic channels before launching any military strike into northern Iraq
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Amy Goodman interviews Professor Juan Cole on Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Kurdistan
by Amy Goodman
President Bush has asked Congress for another $46 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The request brings this year's total to more than $196 billion -- by the far the highest amount since the 9/11 attacks. If the trend continues, war funding could top $1 trillion by the time Bush leaves office. By some measures, that amount would exceed the cost of the Korean and Vietnam wars combined.
The record-high request comes as the drumbeat continues for opening a new war in Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney warned Sunday that Iran faces “serious consequences” over its nuclear program and alleged role in Iraq. His comments came days after President Bush spoke for the first time of “World War III” if Iran obtains the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. And the threat has been bipartisan: the three leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- have all declared that no option is off the table to stop Iran's nuclear program.
(excerpts from the interview - for the full interview and audio, click here)
AMY GOODMAN: President Bush has asked Congress for another $46 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The request brings this year's total to more than $196 billion, by far the highest amount since the 9/11 attacks. If the trend continues, war funding could top $1 trillion by the time Bush leaves office. By some measures, that amount would exceed the cost of the Korean and Vietnam wars combined. The record-high request comes as the drumbeat continues for opening a new war with Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney warned Sunday that Iran faces “serious consequences” over its nuclear program and alleged role in Iraq. His comments came days after President Bush spoke for the first time of “World War III” if Iran obtains the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. And the threat has been bipartisan: the three leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- have all declared that no option is off the table to stop Iran's nuclear program.
Juan Cole is a professor of history at the University of Michigan. He runs an analytic website called "Informed Comment," where he provides a daily roundup of news and events in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world. In his new book, Juan Cole steps back from his widely regarded analysis of contemporary politics to chronicle the first Western invasion of the Middle East since the Crusades. Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East is a history of France's 1798 invasion of Egypt, a conquest the still has repercussions today.
Juan Cole joins us now from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Cole.
JUAN COLE: Thanks so much, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. Before we go back in time, can you talk about this latest news, the latest threats against Iran? How serious are they? Do you think a US war with Iran is imminent?
JUAN COLE: Well, I think the Cheney camp in the Bush administration very much would like to bomb the nuclear research facilities, which, as far as we know, are civilian facilities near Esfahan. And what has been leaked from their office is that they’ve talked about various stratagems for getting up such an attack and that they have been blocked so far by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and by Secretary of State Condi Rice.
AMY GOODMAN: And what about the shifting rationale? I mean, we saw in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- or was it Saddam Hussein was a tyrant? -- that didn’t fly with the US, so they went with WMD, and Saddam Hussein didn’t have WMD. We hear about the nuclear issue, and then we hear about the shifting rationale, that the American people see it as too similar to the missing WMD in Iraq, so that the rationale would be that Iranian soldiers are fighting in Iraq and killing US soldiers.
JUAN COLE: Well, the most disheartening thing for the Cheney war camp must be that a recent poll shows that they’ve actually managed to convince the vast majority of Americans that Iran is trying to get a nuclear bomb and that Iran is actively killing US troops in Iraq. Neither thing is actually in evidence. They’re possible, but it hasn’t been proven. But most Americans have accepted this story. And yet, 78% of Americans say that they don’t want a US attack on Iran. So, so far, all of the rationales that they have trotted out and trumpeted through the media for attacking Iran have not been sufficient to convince the American people that action is necessary.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cole, I want to ask you about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to the US last month. He spoke at Columbia University in a highly contested address. Many who criticized Columbia for hosting the event later praised Columbia President Lee Bollinger for his harsh introduction to Ahmadinejad.
LEE BOLLINGER: Frankly -- I close with this comment -- frankly and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will, in itself, be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do.
Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country that this only further undermines your position in Iran, with all the many goodhearted intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country -- was at one of the meetings of the Council on Foreign Relations -- so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.
I am only a professor -- I am only a professor who is also a university president. And today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. Professor Cole, your response?
JUAN COLE: Well, my own analysis is that Bollinger solved a problem that he had, which was that his -- one of his deans had invited Ahmadinejad the previous year to speak at Columbia, and Bollinger had shot that down. His faculty were angry at him for suppressing this man’s freedom of speech in the United States. And so, I think he felt he had to extend the invitation this year.
On the other hand, he wants to rebuild the area around Columbia University. He wants to put a new theater district up there. He needs the help of the New York real estate community, many of whom are warm supporters of Israel and who would be offended by Ahmadinejad’s invitation. So I think he solved the problem by inviting Ahmadinejad, and so mollifying his faculty, and then attacking Ahmadinejad, and so mollifying his real estate backers.
AMY GOODMAN: What about Ahmadinejad’s power in Iran?
JUAN COLE: Well, Ahmadinejad is a ceremonial president. He is a little bit more active, has stronger links to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps than his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, who, by the way -- the previous president of Iran -- has upbraided Ahmadinejad for his comments regarding Holocaust denial. So Ahmadinejad is -- he is not commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He can’t order anybody to kill anybody. He can’t launch a war. He can’t launch missiles. Those powers are vested in the Supreme Jurisprudent, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad can, you know, cut the ribbons and open bridges and things like that. So the American right’s fascination with him is entirely misplaced, and it’s because he’s a quirky character and he has objectionable views, and so it’s easy to use him to demonize Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about General Petraeus's report. General Petraeus spoke before Congress last month. He accused Iran of waging a proxy war inside Iraq.
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: In the past six months, we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Quds Force. These elements have assassinated and kidnapped Iraqi governmental leaders, killed and wounded our soldiers with advanced explosive devices provided by Iran and indiscriminately rocketed civilians in the international zone and elsewhere. It is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Quds Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi special groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s General Petraeus testifying before Congress. Professor Cole, your response?
JUAN COLE: Well, the whole story doesn't make much sense to me. The main backers of Iran in Iraq are the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which was formed in Iran at the suggestion of Ayatollah Khomeini by Iraqi Shiite expatriates, and has a paramilitary, the Badr Corps, which is trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The Badr Corps and the Supreme Council are America's closest allies among the Shiites of Iraq.
I think this is really a jealous girlfriend story. I think the US wants the fundamentalist Shiite parties and militias for itself, doesn’t want to have to compete with Iran for their affection for clientelage, and so is slamming Iran as a way of driving a wedge between them. All of the Iranian personnel that have been kidnapped by the United States, detained by the United States, have been found in territory of US allies -- Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council, or up in Irbil among our Kurdish allies. So the idea that the Iranians are building up rogue units of the nativist Mahdi Army, who are slum kids in Iraq, don’t like Iran -- I don’t know -- doesn’t strike me as very likely. And I think that the US military is getting bad intelligence on these things from some of its contacts, including the cult-like terrorist organization, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, which Saddam used against Iran and which the Pentagon is still using against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: And the fact that there are more Saudi fighters in Iraq than Iranian, but that is almost never raised, either in the press or by the administration?
JUAN COLE: To my knowledge, the United States has never captured any Iranian with arms. There were 136 foreign detainees, the last we knew. There are 24,000 Iraqi ones. And the 136 contain no Iranians at all. 45% of them, earlier in the summer, were Saudis. I think that proportion has changed, but it’s such a small number. But, in any case, there is no proof of any actual Iranian military activity inside Iraq whatsoever.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, on the issue of Iran, the resignation of the nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, what is the significance of this?
JUAN COLE: Well, it’s very bad news. In many ways, it’s a sign that President Ahmadinejad, who does have the power to appoint ambassadors and some of the diplomatic corps in conjunction with the approval of the Supreme Leader Khamenei, is gradually putting his people into place. Larijani was a very experienced diplomat, well liked among his European interlocutors, and is being replaced by someone of far less experience who, however, is close to Ahmadinejad. So, it’s cronyism. I think it’s a very bad move on Iran's part and probably worsens their posture with regard to these negotiations over their nuclear program.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Professor Juan Cole, professor of history, University of Michigan. He’s joining us from Ann Arbor from the campus. He runs an analytical website called "Informed Comment," and has written a new book called Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East.
Let's go today's top story: tension remaining high on the Turkish-Iraq border, following the killing of seventeen Turkish troops by Kurdish militants over the weekend. How significant is this?
JUAN COLE: Well, it’s extremely significant. I mean, imagine what would happen in this country if a guerrilla group based in a neighboring country came over the border and killed seventeen US troops. That would be a war. And the Kurdish guerrilla movement, the Kurdish Workers Party, based now in Iraq, but originally from Eastern Anatolia, from the Turkish regions, is conducting a guerrilla war against the Turkish military. It is being given safe harbor by Kurdish politicians on the Iraqi side.
And, in essence, the United States has created this situation in which a NATO ally -- people forget Turkey fought alongside the United States in Korea; it’s got troops in Afghanistan -- a NATO ally of the United States is being attacked and its troops killed by a terrorist organization, so designated by the State Department, that essentially has US auspices. The US is responsible for security in Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: And how connected is the US to the PKK, or is it at all?
JUAN COLE: Well, the United States doesn’t like the PKK and doesn’t have much connection to it, but the United States has allied with the Iraqi Kurdish leaders, who are the most reliable allies of the United States in Iraq: Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani. And Barzani, in particular, it seems to me, just de facto, is giving harbor to, giving haven to, these PKK guerrillas. So the United States needs Barzani and needs his support. He’s doing an oil deal with Hunt Oil, which is close to the Bush administration. His Peshmurga paramilitary is the backbone of the most effective fires of the new Iraqi army. They do security details in other cities like Mosul and Kirkuk. So the US really desperately depends on the Kurdistan Regional Authority and its paramilitary and can’t afford to alienate Barzani. And since Barzani is -- behind the scenes seems to kind of like the PKK and does -- giving them a haven, the US is politically complicit in these attacks.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the deal with Hunt Oil?
JUAN COLE: Well, Hunt Oil, which is, I think, losing its bids in Yemen, is desperate for a new field to develop, and they are exploring a partnership with the Kurdistan Regional Authority in northern Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: And the issue of the US Congress taking a vote within one of its committees, Foreign Relations Committee, that Turkey was involved in a genocide against the Armenians, the significance of that vote, though it’s expected to fail at a congressional level with the whole Congress voting, and how it has played in Turkey, leading to the parliament vote to invade northern Iraq?
JUAN COLE: Well, I really here would underline that, as a historian, I think it’s important that everybody understand the horrible things that were done to the Armenians during World War I. On the other hand, it’s my duty also to try to understand the Turkish contemporary response, which is that the United States has made enormous trouble for this close ally. Turkey has put itself out over the last decades to help the United States. It was an ally in the Cold War. It was an ally in the Gulf War.
And in return, the United States seems to have told Turkey, “Drop dead,” I mean, they invaded Iraq against Turkish advice. They have unleashed Shiite fundamentalism, Sunni fundamentalism, Kurdish separatism on Turkey's doorstep. There is now a resurgence of the PKK and terrorism against Turkish citizens. And now, on top of all this trouble the United States is making for the Turks, the US Congress was set to condemn the Ottoman government of Turkey, the predecessor government to the present one, for this genocide against the Armenians.
So, the Turks are hurt and confused. In Bill Clinton's last year, 56% of the Turkish public thought well of the United States. That number is down to 9%. So it’s not entirely clear what motive the United States has in so alienating a country that has been a valued and close ally.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see the war expanding?
JUAN COLE: The Iraq war could expand very easily. I mean, we don’t know, of course, the future, but now we begin to see that the Kurdish separatism in northern Iraq is causing severe tensions and possibly military conflict with Turkey. There’s a possibility of increased Sunni volunteers, if the Shiites were to massacre any large number of Sunni Arabs. It especially seems likely that the US will gradually draw down troops in the next two and three years. If it leaves behind it substantial instability and there are massacres, it could draw in the neighbors. You could have a proxy war. And these things are dangerous to the world economy, because the Persian Gulf is the source of a very substantial amount of the world's energy, and that energy production could be interrupted by such a guerrilla war. So it’s a very, very dangerous situation.
AMY GOODMAN: And the news from Lebanon that a high-ranking leader of Hezbollah has warned the United States not to set up any military bases inside Lebanon, Hezbollah saying it would consider such move a hostile act, and the US increasing their military assistance to Lebanon to $270 million, more than five times the amount they provided a year ago?
JUAN COLE: Well, to tell you the truth, Amy, I think the idea of putting a US military base in Lebanon, which is an unstable country and has a very large Shiite militia, is a brain-dead idea, and I can’t imagine that the Lebanese government itself will be so stupid as to go forward with this. And up until recently, of course, Hezbollah, which opposes this plan and which has a substantial number of deputies in the Lebanese parliament, was part of a national unity government. That’s broken down for the moment. It may come back. It seems to me that the politics of that move would be awfully fraught.
Juan Cole, professor of History at the University of Michigan. He runs an analytical website called "Informed Comment" where he provides a daily roundup of news and events in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world. In his new book, Juan Cole steps back from his widely regarded analysis of contemporary politics to chronicle the first Western invasion of the Middle East since the Crusades. “Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East” is a history of France's 1798 invasion of Egypt, a conquest that still has repercussions today.
President Bush has asked Congress for another $46 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The request brings this year's total to more than $196 billion -- by the far the highest amount since the 9/11 attacks. If the trend continues, war funding could top $1 trillion by the time Bush leaves office. By some measures, that amount would exceed the cost of the Korean and Vietnam wars combined.
The record-high request comes as the drumbeat continues for opening a new war in Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney warned Sunday that Iran faces “serious consequences” over its nuclear program and alleged role in Iraq. His comments came days after President Bush spoke for the first time of “World War III” if Iran obtains the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. And the threat has been bipartisan: the three leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- have all declared that no option is off the table to stop Iran's nuclear program.
(excerpts from the interview - for the full interview and audio, click here)
AMY GOODMAN: President Bush has asked Congress for another $46 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The request brings this year's total to more than $196 billion, by far the highest amount since the 9/11 attacks. If the trend continues, war funding could top $1 trillion by the time Bush leaves office. By some measures, that amount would exceed the cost of the Korean and Vietnam wars combined. The record-high request comes as the drumbeat continues for opening a new war with Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney warned Sunday that Iran faces “serious consequences” over its nuclear program and alleged role in Iraq. His comments came days after President Bush spoke for the first time of “World War III” if Iran obtains the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. And the threat has been bipartisan: the three leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- have all declared that no option is off the table to stop Iran's nuclear program.
Juan Cole is a professor of history at the University of Michigan. He runs an analytic website called "Informed Comment," where he provides a daily roundup of news and events in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world. In his new book, Juan Cole steps back from his widely regarded analysis of contemporary politics to chronicle the first Western invasion of the Middle East since the Crusades. Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East is a history of France's 1798 invasion of Egypt, a conquest the still has repercussions today.
Juan Cole joins us now from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Cole.
JUAN COLE: Thanks so much, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. Before we go back in time, can you talk about this latest news, the latest threats against Iran? How serious are they? Do you think a US war with Iran is imminent?
JUAN COLE: Well, I think the Cheney camp in the Bush administration very much would like to bomb the nuclear research facilities, which, as far as we know, are civilian facilities near Esfahan. And what has been leaked from their office is that they’ve talked about various stratagems for getting up such an attack and that they have been blocked so far by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and by Secretary of State Condi Rice.
AMY GOODMAN: And what about the shifting rationale? I mean, we saw in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- or was it Saddam Hussein was a tyrant? -- that didn’t fly with the US, so they went with WMD, and Saddam Hussein didn’t have WMD. We hear about the nuclear issue, and then we hear about the shifting rationale, that the American people see it as too similar to the missing WMD in Iraq, so that the rationale would be that Iranian soldiers are fighting in Iraq and killing US soldiers.
JUAN COLE: Well, the most disheartening thing for the Cheney war camp must be that a recent poll shows that they’ve actually managed to convince the vast majority of Americans that Iran is trying to get a nuclear bomb and that Iran is actively killing US troops in Iraq. Neither thing is actually in evidence. They’re possible, but it hasn’t been proven. But most Americans have accepted this story. And yet, 78% of Americans say that they don’t want a US attack on Iran. So, so far, all of the rationales that they have trotted out and trumpeted through the media for attacking Iran have not been sufficient to convince the American people that action is necessary.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cole, I want to ask you about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to the US last month. He spoke at Columbia University in a highly contested address. Many who criticized Columbia for hosting the event later praised Columbia President Lee Bollinger for his harsh introduction to Ahmadinejad.
LEE BOLLINGER: Frankly -- I close with this comment -- frankly and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will, in itself, be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do.
Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country that this only further undermines your position in Iran, with all the many goodhearted intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country -- was at one of the meetings of the Council on Foreign Relations -- so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.
I am only a professor -- I am only a professor who is also a university president. And today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. Professor Cole, your response?
JUAN COLE: Well, my own analysis is that Bollinger solved a problem that he had, which was that his -- one of his deans had invited Ahmadinejad the previous year to speak at Columbia, and Bollinger had shot that down. His faculty were angry at him for suppressing this man’s freedom of speech in the United States. And so, I think he felt he had to extend the invitation this year.
On the other hand, he wants to rebuild the area around Columbia University. He wants to put a new theater district up there. He needs the help of the New York real estate community, many of whom are warm supporters of Israel and who would be offended by Ahmadinejad’s invitation. So I think he solved the problem by inviting Ahmadinejad, and so mollifying his faculty, and then attacking Ahmadinejad, and so mollifying his real estate backers.
AMY GOODMAN: What about Ahmadinejad’s power in Iran?
JUAN COLE: Well, Ahmadinejad is a ceremonial president. He is a little bit more active, has stronger links to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps than his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, who, by the way -- the previous president of Iran -- has upbraided Ahmadinejad for his comments regarding Holocaust denial. So Ahmadinejad is -- he is not commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He can’t order anybody to kill anybody. He can’t launch a war. He can’t launch missiles. Those powers are vested in the Supreme Jurisprudent, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad can, you know, cut the ribbons and open bridges and things like that. So the American right’s fascination with him is entirely misplaced, and it’s because he’s a quirky character and he has objectionable views, and so it’s easy to use him to demonize Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about General Petraeus's report. General Petraeus spoke before Congress last month. He accused Iran of waging a proxy war inside Iraq.
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: In the past six months, we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Quds Force. These elements have assassinated and kidnapped Iraqi governmental leaders, killed and wounded our soldiers with advanced explosive devices provided by Iran and indiscriminately rocketed civilians in the international zone and elsewhere. It is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Quds Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi special groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s General Petraeus testifying before Congress. Professor Cole, your response?
JUAN COLE: Well, the whole story doesn't make much sense to me. The main backers of Iran in Iraq are the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which was formed in Iran at the suggestion of Ayatollah Khomeini by Iraqi Shiite expatriates, and has a paramilitary, the Badr Corps, which is trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The Badr Corps and the Supreme Council are America's closest allies among the Shiites of Iraq.I think this is really a jealous girlfriend story. I think the US wants the fundamentalist Shiite parties and militias for itself, doesn’t want to have to compete with Iran for their affection for clientelage, and so is slamming Iran as a way of driving a wedge between them. All of the Iranian personnel that have been kidnapped by the United States, detained by the United States, have been found in territory of US allies -- Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council, or up in Irbil among our Kurdish allies. So the idea that the Iranians are building up rogue units of the nativist Mahdi Army, who are slum kids in Iraq, don’t like Iran -- I don’t know -- doesn’t strike me as very likely. And I think that the US military is getting bad intelligence on these things from some of its contacts, including the cult-like terrorist organization, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, which Saddam used against Iran and which the Pentagon is still using against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: And the fact that there are more Saudi fighters in Iraq than Iranian, but that is almost never raised, either in the press or by the administration?
JUAN COLE: To my knowledge, the United States has never captured any Iranian with arms. There were 136 foreign detainees, the last we knew. There are 24,000 Iraqi ones. And the 136 contain no Iranians at all. 45% of them, earlier in the summer, were Saudis. I think that proportion has changed, but it’s such a small number. But, in any case, there is no proof of any actual Iranian military activity inside Iraq whatsoever.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, on the issue of Iran, the resignation of the nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, what is the significance of this?
JUAN COLE: Well, it’s very bad news. In many ways, it’s a sign that President Ahmadinejad, who does have the power to appoint ambassadors and some of the diplomatic corps in conjunction with the approval of the Supreme Leader Khamenei, is gradually putting his people into place. Larijani was a very experienced diplomat, well liked among his European interlocutors, and is being replaced by someone of far less experience who, however, is close to Ahmadinejad. So, it’s cronyism. I think it’s a very bad move on Iran's part and probably worsens their posture with regard to these negotiations over their nuclear program.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Professor Juan Cole, professor of history, University of Michigan. He’s joining us from Ann Arbor from the campus. He runs an analytical website called "Informed Comment," and has written a new book called Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East.
Let's go today's top story: tension remaining high on the Turkish-Iraq border, following the killing of seventeen Turkish troops by Kurdish militants over the weekend. How significant is this?
JUAN COLE: Well, it’s extremely significant. I mean, imagine what would happen in this country if a guerrilla group based in a neighboring country came over the border and killed seventeen US troops. That would be a war. And the Kurdish guerrilla movement, the Kurdish Workers Party, based now in Iraq, but originally from Eastern Anatolia, from the Turkish regions, is conducting a guerrilla war against the Turkish military. It is being given safe harbor by Kurdish politicians on the Iraqi side.
And, in essence, the United States has created this situation in which a NATO ally -- people forget Turkey fought alongside the United States in Korea; it’s got troops in Afghanistan -- a NATO ally of the United States is being attacked and its troops killed by a terrorist organization, so designated by the State Department, that essentially has US auspices. The US is responsible for security in Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: And how connected is the US to the PKK, or is it at all?
JUAN COLE: Well, the United States doesn’t like the PKK and doesn’t have much connection to it, but the United States has allied with the Iraqi Kurdish leaders, who are the most reliable allies of the United States in Iraq: Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani. And Barzani, in particular, it seems to me, just de facto, is giving harbor to, giving haven to, these PKK guerrillas. So the United States needs Barzani and needs his support. He’s doing an oil deal with Hunt Oil, which is close to the Bush administration. His Peshmurga paramilitary is the backbone of the most effective fires of the new Iraqi army. They do security details in other cities like Mosul and Kirkuk. So the US really desperately depends on the Kurdistan Regional Authority and its paramilitary and can’t afford to alienate Barzani. And since Barzani is -- behind the scenes seems to kind of like the PKK and does -- giving them a haven, the US is politically complicit in these attacks.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the deal with Hunt Oil?
JUAN COLE: Well, Hunt Oil, which is, I think, losing its bids in Yemen, is desperate for a new field to develop, and they are exploring a partnership with the Kurdistan Regional Authority in northern Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: And the issue of the US Congress taking a vote within one of its committees, Foreign Relations Committee, that Turkey was involved in a genocide against the Armenians, the significance of that vote, though it’s expected to fail at a congressional level with the whole Congress voting, and how it has played in Turkey, leading to the parliament vote to invade northern Iraq?
JUAN COLE: Well, I really here would underline that, as a historian, I think it’s important that everybody understand the horrible things that were done to the Armenians during World War I. On the other hand, it’s my duty also to try to understand the Turkish contemporary response, which is that the United States has made enormous trouble for this close ally. Turkey has put itself out over the last decades to help the United States. It was an ally in the Cold War. It was an ally in the Gulf War.
And in return, the United States seems to have told Turkey, “Drop dead,” I mean, they invaded Iraq against Turkish advice. They have unleashed Shiite fundamentalism, Sunni fundamentalism, Kurdish separatism on Turkey's doorstep. There is now a resurgence of the PKK and terrorism against Turkish citizens. And now, on top of all this trouble the United States is making for the Turks, the US Congress was set to condemn the Ottoman government of Turkey, the predecessor government to the present one, for this genocide against the Armenians.
So, the Turks are hurt and confused. In Bill Clinton's last year, 56% of the Turkish public thought well of the United States. That number is down to 9%. So it’s not entirely clear what motive the United States has in so alienating a country that has been a valued and close ally.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see the war expanding?
JUAN COLE: The Iraq war could expand very easily. I mean, we don’t know, of course, the future, but now we begin to see that the Kurdish separatism in northern Iraq is causing severe tensions and possibly military conflict with Turkey. There’s a possibility of increased Sunni volunteers, if the Shiites were to massacre any large number of Sunni Arabs. It especially seems likely that the US will gradually draw down troops in the next two and three years. If it leaves behind it substantial instability and there are massacres, it could draw in the neighbors. You could have a proxy war. And these things are dangerous to the world economy, because the Persian Gulf is the source of a very substantial amount of the world's energy, and that energy production could be interrupted by such a guerrilla war. So it’s a very, very dangerous situation.
AMY GOODMAN: And the news from Lebanon that a high-ranking leader of Hezbollah has warned the United States not to set up any military bases inside Lebanon, Hezbollah saying it would consider such move a hostile act, and the US increasing their military assistance to Lebanon to $270 million, more than five times the amount they provided a year ago?
JUAN COLE: Well, to tell you the truth, Amy, I think the idea of putting a US military base in Lebanon, which is an unstable country and has a very large Shiite militia, is a brain-dead idea, and I can’t imagine that the Lebanese government itself will be so stupid as to go forward with this. And up until recently, of course, Hezbollah, which opposes this plan and which has a substantial number of deputies in the Lebanese parliament, was part of a national unity government. That’s broken down for the moment. It may come back. It seems to me that the politics of that move would be awfully fraught.
Juan Cole, professor of History at the University of Michigan. He runs an analytical website called "Informed Comment" where he provides a daily roundup of news and events in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world. In his new book, Juan Cole steps back from his widely regarded analysis of contemporary politics to chronicle the first Western invasion of the Middle East since the Crusades. “Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East” is a history of France's 1798 invasion of Egypt, a conquest that still has repercussions today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
