The Two Kurdish Peoples

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Reading news articles, I have observed a trend when discussing Kurds, those people from the border region of Iran/Iraq/Turkey who want an independent Kurdistan or at least not to live as minorities with no power in other countries. When the context of the article is about Iraq, the Kurds are praised, as freedom-loving people, almost secular even, our allies against the tyranny of Saddam and now ISIS. But when the context of the article is about Turkey, we hear that the Kurds are terrorists, suicide-bombers, extremists. One of these versions of the Kurds is compatible with our long-term interest in the Middle East, but the other is not.

I think that this dichotomy correlates to American involvement in the Greater Middle East (to include Afghanistan), thusly: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We supplied Arabs and others with arms and resources in the World Wars to rise up against the Ottoman Turks but this made the extremists take power over the areas as dictators. Then, we supplied Mujahadeen with arms and resources back in the day and then we had to fight them later and we're still fighting in Afghanistan without a real end in site. In Iran, "we" gave power to Muslim fascist extremists to fight against socialism. Now, we face Iran and have been for decades. Likewise, with the Kurds, we have been arming them to the teeth because they're our "allies" for now.

When ISIS is finally pushed back to obscurity, which Kurdish people will we be facing next? How does our military involvement in the Greater Middle East make any sense at all when it perpetually comes full circle from ally to enemy for each group we empower?

 

[bigfield]

When ISIS is finally pushed back to obscurity, which Kurdish people will we be facing next? How does our military involvement in the Greater Middle East make any sense at all when it perpetually comes full circle from ally to enemy for each group we empower?

If the US policy in the Mid East makes no sense, then maybe you are expecting different outcomes than those who control said policy.

Either the US government has been spectacularly incompetent for decades, or it intends to remain at war in perpetuity.

 

[Harry Bosch]

When ISIS is finally pushed back to obscurity, which Kurdish people will we be facing next? How does our military involvement in the Greater Middle East make any sense at all when it perpetually comes full circle from ally to enemy for each group we empower?

If the US policy in the Mid East makes no sense, then maybe you are expecting different outcomes than those who control said policy.

Either the US government has been spectacularly incompetent for decades, or it intends to remain at war in perpetuity.

Obama's general foreign policy is to stay out of other country's problems. He doesn't want to send in ground troops the ME. The Kurds are ideal as they aren't involved in a civil war and just want to occupy their own land and survive.

 

[Lugubert]

But when the context of the article is about Turkey, we hear that the Kurds are terrorists, suicide-bombers, extremists. One of these versions of the Kurds is compatible with our long-term interest in the Middle East, but the other is not.

That's not what I hear, with very few exceptions. I hear of an oppressed minority, which wasn't allowed to publish newspapers in their language until 1991. Last time I checked, using the letters x and q was illegal in Turkey, because they exist in the Kurdish but not in the Turkish alphabet. Also, it was until fairly recently forbidden to speak of "Kurds". They were Mountain Turks... And the list goes on.

 

[funinspace]

What could possibly be confusing about the US air dropping weapons and support to Kurd's in Syria, only to have Turkey bomb them?

It is not only confused US policy, it is a confluence of Saudi/Sunni interests, Russian interests, Iranian/Shia interests, Turkish interests, and of course the aforementioned Kurdish interests...oh and of course Syrian Alawite survival interests. Never mind Zeus knows what Israel is doing while shuffling around in the background. Turkish and Iraqi (Shia) leadership don't really want the Kurds to have too much power or autonomy within Iraq-Syria. The Iranians have often suppressed them as well. Though this time around Iran seems that they find the Kurds to be useful fodder against the Sunni ISIS. Turkish leadership still seems more interested in battling the Kurdish PKK threat over ISIS Sometimes we sort of like the Sunni Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria), as more moderate terrorists, then at times we don't like them; but SA likes them for sure.

 

[Jayjay]

Reading news articles, I have observed a trend when discussing Kurds, those people from the border region of Iran/Iraq/Turkey who want an independent Kurdistan or at least not to live as minorities with no power in other countries. When the context of the article is about Iraq, the Kurds are praised, as freedom-loving people, almost secular even, our allies against the tyranny of Saddam and now ISIS. But when the context of the article is about Turkey, we hear that the Kurds are terrorists, suicide-bombers, extremists.

I can't say that I have seen the latter in the news I read. In western media anyway, it seems that Turkey is portrayed as the oppressor to the Kurds. I bet that if I were reading Turkish media then the Kurds would be made into villains and terrorists.

One of these versions of the Kurds is compatible with our long-term interest in the Middle East, but the other is not.

I think that this dichotomy correlates to American involvement in the Greater Middle East (to include Afghanistan), thusly: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We supplied Arabs and others with arms and resources in the World Wars to rise up against the Ottoman Turks but this made the extremists take power over the areas as dictators. Then, we supplied Mujahadeen with arms and resources back in the day and then we had to fight them later and we're still fighting in Afghanistan without a real end in site. In Iran, "we" gave power to Muslim fascist extremists to fight against socialism. Now, we face Iran and have been for decades. Likewise, with the Kurds, we have been arming them to the teeth because they're our "allies" for now.

When ISIS is finally pushed back to obscurity, which Kurdish people will we be facing next? How does our military involvement in the Greater Middle East make any sense at all when it perpetually comes full circle from ally to enemy for each group we empower?

The Kurds already have their own autonomous area in Iraq, and surprisingly, it has good relations with Turkey. There is a risk that Kurds will indeed turn their weapons against Turkey when ISIS is gone, but until last year's flareup (which was really Erdogan's ploy to retake parliamentary majority) the Turks and the Kurds were at a ceasefire. Also, the Kurdish party finally got into the Turkish parliament.