Tweet
WAR AND PEACE SCENARIOS IN KURDISTAN
Kurdish Aspect, CO
Nov 1 2007
War in Kurdistan is a risky political game and might be intended to
put the so called good and bad Kurds against each other. "Good Kurds,
Bad Kurds" became the title of a documentary movie in 2000 by Kevin
McKiernan, in which he criticizes the double standard of Washington to
assist the currently moderate Kurds in Iraq and oppose the radical ones
in Turkey. Washington might have forgotten that the Iraqi Kurds were as
oppositional to the system as PKK. Through opportunity for dialogue,
the Iraqi Kurds were able to change their methods and participate in
the political games with suite and tie instead of mountain baggy pants
and Kalashnikovs. PKK fighters could change their attire and tools,
if they have the same opportunity.
Of course as a product of the Turkish state brutality, PKK is a radical
organization and its method and tools are not supported by most Kurds
in Diaspora. The reality of the lives of the Kurds at home dictates
different approaches than what we see fit. Although PKK is willing
to compromise and use dialogue instead of Kalashnikov, it is still
described by some of the Washington's peripheral ideologues such as
Christopher Hitchens as a "Stalinist cult organization". The same
ideologue is aware of Turkish ultra nationalism and calls it "Kemalist
Chauvinism", unfortunately without discussing the US cooperation with
Stalin to end the European fascism and subsequent spontaneous ending
of Stalinism through dialogue and development.
Even if PKK had advocated the frightening Stalinism, it will not
survive once the Kurds in Turkey are treated as equal human beings.
Obviously Turkish ultranationalists can not accept to have Kurds
as equal negotiating partners, they rather prolong the existence of
Stalinism in the region, have every Kurd live in the mountains and
join PKK, or fight with them as gladiators to the point of stabbing
each other. Since this time Kurds do not seem to be manipulated and
used against each other, Turkey plans to take a more drastic measure
by attacking them with full force. I do not see why mobilizing 100,000
soldiers is needed against 3,000 PKK fighters except to prevent the
Kurdish success in Iraq and regain control over one part of the lost
territory of the Ottoman Empire. This extreme measure might not only
unite the ultranationalists and religious right in Turkey, but also
strengthen the NATO in the region under the leadership of Washington
for a short while.
Washington, frustrated with the current war, could welcome another
short term attractive offer, and pull out from Iraq. Iraqis will feel
impregnated without having a responsible partner and welcome anyone who
looks mighty and prays in the same direction. Arab countries, pressured
to end their dictatorship by competitive dictatorial organizations,
feel incompetent to take care of themselves, let alone their sister
country Iraq. Israel, the only tiny Western Democracy in the region,
handicapped by the violence of radical Islamists and own military will
not be of any help. Other democratic countries around the world, too
slow in seeing the real dangers of the world, might abandon the US,
if pressured by their sleepy beauties. So the Turks are tempted to
take advantage of the vacuum.
Turkey with its 100,000 ready troops could substitute the American
soldiers so they can return to their families. United States would
not be disappointed even it means losing the support of the Kurds in
Iraq. Both democrats and republicans have old ties with the Turkish
government and businesses. Those ties are much more valuable than
some small connections with the frequently accommodating Kurdish
leadership in Baghdad. Some American politicians have recognized
that a free Kurdistan is the way out, but many of them do not dare
to advocate this reality because of their commitment to Turkey. Its
not surprising that the less popular presidential candidates have
recommended a three region solution for Iraq, while the one that have
a better chance to win avoid a serious comment about Kurdistan.
Hopefully they gain some insight into the outcome of war and peace
scenarios so they can make a better decision.
In a war scenario, Kurdistan will lose militarily and Turkey cheers up
for a short while. Washington builds new friendly business and military
contracts with the winner. The Kurds, used to being stabbed in the
back, return to mountains and plea to one of their regional enemies
for asylum and protection of their families. These enemies would open
their doors to them with joy, so they can pretend in the international
community that they value humanity and have nothing against the beaten
up and submissive Kurds. Those American interested in human rights
and democracy will suffer morally and others will continue business
as usual. Even the four infamous countries together can not kill
all 40 million Kurds without severe consequences for themselves. The
surviving Kurds will become united as one nation against aggressors
and build mutually satisfactory relations with more reliable, neutral,
and free countries instead of those who repeatedly use them for their
own gain. They will repeat the fighting cycles without pleading to
their enemies until they win as the Jews did and Armenian are doing.
In a peace scenario, the United States would work with all Kurds
including PKK and other leftist organizations to prevent further growth
of ultra nationalism and religious extremism in the Middle East. Such
cooperation would serve not only the United Sates but also the majority
of the Turks and other Muslims in the Middle East. PKK would join
the moderate Kurds, denounce Stalinism, and use the same method that
Mandela and Gandhi used to free their people. Turkey would accept the
Kurds as a nation, with them take a leading role in becoming a true
democracy, and prove that even countries with an Islamic background
have the potential to appreciate freedom and human rights. Finally the
world would recognize that the Kurds deserve equal rights and need to
have one to four representatives in the United Nations to promote peace.
Kurdish Aspect, CO
Nov 1 2007
War in Kurdistan is a risky political game and might be intended to
put the so called good and bad Kurds against each other. "Good Kurds,
Bad Kurds" became the title of a documentary movie in 2000 by Kevin
McKiernan, in which he criticizes the double standard of Washington to
assist the currently moderate Kurds in Iraq and oppose the radical ones
in Turkey. Washington might have forgotten that the Iraqi Kurds were as
oppositional to the system as PKK. Through opportunity for dialogue,
the Iraqi Kurds were able to change their methods and participate in
the political games with suite and tie instead of mountain baggy pants
and Kalashnikovs. PKK fighters could change their attire and tools,
if they have the same opportunity.
Of course as a product of the Turkish state brutality, PKK is a radical
organization and its method and tools are not supported by most Kurds
in Diaspora. The reality of the lives of the Kurds at home dictates
different approaches than what we see fit. Although PKK is willing
to compromise and use dialogue instead of Kalashnikov, it is still
described by some of the Washington's peripheral ideologues such as
Christopher Hitchens as a "Stalinist cult organization". The same
ideologue is aware of Turkish ultra nationalism and calls it "Kemalist
Chauvinism", unfortunately without discussing the US cooperation with
Stalin to end the European fascism and subsequent spontaneous ending
of Stalinism through dialogue and development.
Even if PKK had advocated the frightening Stalinism, it will not
survive once the Kurds in Turkey are treated as equal human beings.
Obviously Turkish ultranationalists can not accept to have Kurds
as equal negotiating partners, they rather prolong the existence of
Stalinism in the region, have every Kurd live in the mountains and
join PKK, or fight with them as gladiators to the point of stabbing
each other. Since this time Kurds do not seem to be manipulated and
used against each other, Turkey plans to take a more drastic measure
by attacking them with full force. I do not see why mobilizing 100,000
soldiers is needed against 3,000 PKK fighters except to prevent the
Kurdish success in Iraq and regain control over one part of the lost
territory of the Ottoman Empire. This extreme measure might not only
unite the ultranationalists and religious right in Turkey, but also
strengthen the NATO in the region under the leadership of Washington
for a short while.
Washington, frustrated with the current war, could welcome another
short term attractive offer, and pull out from Iraq. Iraqis will feel
impregnated without having a responsible partner and welcome anyone who
looks mighty and prays in the same direction. Arab countries, pressured
to end their dictatorship by competitive dictatorial organizations,
feel incompetent to take care of themselves, let alone their sister
country Iraq. Israel, the only tiny Western Democracy in the region,
handicapped by the violence of radical Islamists and own military will
not be of any help. Other democratic countries around the world, too
slow in seeing the real dangers of the world, might abandon the US,
if pressured by their sleepy beauties. So the Turks are tempted to
take advantage of the vacuum.
Turkey with its 100,000 ready troops could substitute the American
soldiers so they can return to their families. United States would
not be disappointed even it means losing the support of the Kurds in
Iraq. Both democrats and republicans have old ties with the Turkish
government and businesses. Those ties are much more valuable than
some small connections with the frequently accommodating Kurdish
leadership in Baghdad. Some American politicians have recognized
that a free Kurdistan is the way out, but many of them do not dare
to advocate this reality because of their commitment to Turkey. Its
not surprising that the less popular presidential candidates have
recommended a three region solution for Iraq, while the one that have
a better chance to win avoid a serious comment about Kurdistan.
Hopefully they gain some insight into the outcome of war and peace
scenarios so they can make a better decision.
In a war scenario, Kurdistan will lose militarily and Turkey cheers up
for a short while. Washington builds new friendly business and military
contracts with the winner. The Kurds, used to being stabbed in the
back, return to mountains and plea to one of their regional enemies
for asylum and protection of their families. These enemies would open
their doors to them with joy, so they can pretend in the international
community that they value humanity and have nothing against the beaten
up and submissive Kurds. Those American interested in human rights
and democracy will suffer morally and others will continue business
as usual. Even the four infamous countries together can not kill
all 40 million Kurds without severe consequences for themselves. The
surviving Kurds will become united as one nation against aggressors
and build mutually satisfactory relations with more reliable, neutral,
and free countries instead of those who repeatedly use them for their
own gain. They will repeat the fighting cycles without pleading to
their enemies until they win as the Jews did and Armenian are doing.
In a peace scenario, the United States would work with all Kurds
including PKK and other leftist organizations to prevent further growth
of ultra nationalism and religious extremism in the Middle East. Such
cooperation would serve not only the United Sates but also the majority
of the Turks and other Muslims in the Middle East. PKK would join
the moderate Kurds, denounce Stalinism, and use the same method that
Mandela and Gandhi used to free their people. Turkey would accept the
Kurds as a nation, with them take a leading role in becoming a true
democracy, and prove that even countries with an Islamic background
have the potential to appreciate freedom and human rights. Finally the
world would recognize that the Kurds deserve equal rights and need to
have one to four representatives in the United Nations to promote peace.