"Kurdistan" v. Turkey v. Iraq

So why haven't we moved against the PKK, which after all is a Communist insurgent group listed as a terror organization by the State Department and bent on attacking Turkey? Gosh...Seems like a mystery...

In the case of one group, the P.K.K. or the Kurdistan Workers Party and they are along with Israel sponsoring them to carry out guerrilla raids inside Iran and its part of a much wider plan by the United States to foment discontent and actual terrorist activities by ethnic Iranians in various parts of Iran. And when I was in northern Iraq, I was able to determine that that kind of activity is going on from Iraqi soil under the Kurdish controlled areas of Iraq, into Iran.

AMY GOODMAN: How did you get to the guerrilla camp?

REESE ERLICH: Well, it's quite interesting, two cell phone calls and a drive up into the mountains. One of the arguments by the Kurdish regional government of Iraq and of the United States is that they can't find these guerrillas because it's so inhospitable territory that no one can find them. They're operating from secret bases, et cetera. But all I did was drive up into the closest Iraqi village and asked the local driver and they say oh, yeah, which of the guerrilla camp do you want to see and we'll take you right up to them. So they are very easy to find.

AMY GOODMAN: So now, explain the difference. Explain the P.K.K. and the P.J.A.K.

REESE ERLICH: The P.K.K. is the mother organization if you will. It was founded by Oshelan, the Turkish Kurd who is now in jail, charged with terrorism. The P.K.K. by the way, is listed on the United States State Department List of Terrorist Organizations. The P.J.A.K., the Party for Free Life of Kurdistan is the Iranian affiliate. The P.K.K., about two years ago split into four parties in each of the countries where is the Kurds live. In Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran. So the P.J.A.K. is the Iranian affiliate. Basically they're still part of the same organization. In order to get to the P.J.A.K. interviews that I did, you had to go through two P.K.K. based camps with walkie-talkies and soldiers and guerillas and so on. For all intents and purposes they're the same thing.

AMY GOODMAN: And can you explain the U.S. relationship with these organizations?

REESE ERLICH: Well, it's very complicated. Because on the one hand, the United States is very much opposes to the P.K.K.'s actions in Turkey. On the other hand they're supporting P.K.K.'s attack on Iran. This is kind of typical of the clandestine efforts by the United States when we saw the U.S. support for the Mujahadeen against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They sided with some pretty nefarious characters who ended up forming al Qaeda and bombing New York.

So once again, the U.S. is allying with one faction of this party, but not with the other, playing a very dangerous game and they're playing a very similar game with the Mujahadeen al-Halb, another Iranian group and with groups in Baluchestan which is near the Pakistan Iranian boarder where some revolutionary guard buses were blown up. It's a very very dangerous, duplicitous game that the United States is playing.

AMY GOODMAN: You talked about how Ochelan's political organization, Radical Kurdistan's Workers Party, P.K.K. is classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. And then P.J.A.K.'s relationship with the party supposed to be at arms length. You had to pass through two P.K.K. checkpoints on your way to the guerrilla camps each of them relaying information up the line via walkie-talkie?

REESE ERLICH: That's exactly right. No among other Kurdish groups that I spoke to, no one thinks that the P.K.K. and the P.J.A.K. are really separate organizations. At a minimum they very clearly coordinate their activities, get funding, weapons, et cetera. But I think in practice, their function is one organization.

I stand corrected by Paleo, the situation is more complicated than I thought at first.

Paleocon wrote:

I think the Turks have already shown extraordinary restraint. The problem is that there seems to be little if any political will on the other side of the border to deal with a clearly criminal element. The PKK (a Marxist terrorist organization with territorial ambitions in Turkey) is operating with impunity in Northern Iraq. This is precisely the reason why we bombed the living snail snot out of Afghanistan (a policy universally endorsed by members of the European Union).

And that tactic, "bombing the snot out of... ", has proven so successful, hasn't it? Honestly, at some point you have to deal with the local population in a issue such as this and bombing them back to the stone age isn't a good start or particularly good way of dealing with guerilla tactics either.

The EU didn't support "bombing the snot out of Afghanistan" either. It certainly said that America has every right to bring to justice the perpetrators of Sept 11th but most, bar Blair, were appalled at the level of collective punishment doled out to the average Afghan. Bush's image abroad was pretty tarnished way before he started his move on Iraq on the back that campaign.

I'm sorry if I get annoyed at this logic that collective punishment is somehow OK. Maybe its due to my history or maybe its due to the fact that if the British used the same logic my life would be as worthless as.. well collateral damage. Its wrong whichever way you wish to paint it. It was wrong when the Luftwaffe did it, it was wrong when Bomber Command did it, it was wrong when the IRA did it and it was wrong when AQ did it. Its still wrong when the US does it.

Axon wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think the Turks have already shown extraordinary restraint. The problem is that there seems to be little if any political will on the other side of the border to deal with a clearly criminal element. The PKK (a Marxist terrorist organization with territorial ambitions in Turkey) is operating with impunity in Northern Iraq. This is precisely the reason why we bombed the living snail snot out of Afghanistan (a policy universally endorsed by members of the European Union).

And that tactic, "bombing the snot out of... ", has proven so successful, hasn't it? Honestly, at some point you have to deal with the local population in a issue such as this and bombing them back to the stone age isn't a good start or particularly good way of dealing with guerilla tactics either.

The EU didn't support "bombing the snot out of Afghanistan" either. It certainly said that America has every right to bring to justice the perpetrators of Sept 11th but most, bar Blair, were appalled at the level of collective punishment doled out to the average Afghan. Bush's image abroad was pretty tarnished way before he started his move on Iraq on the back that campaign.

I'm sorry if I get annoyed at this logic that collective punishment is somehow OK. Maybe its due to my history or maybe its due to the fact that if the British used the same logic my life would be as worthless as.. well collateral damage. Its wrong whichever way you wish to paint it. It was wrong when the Luftwaffe did it, it was wrong when Bomber Command did it, it was wrong when the IRA did it and it was wrong when AQ did it. Its still wrong when the US does it.

I ask you then, what is the alternative? The Iraqis have forbidden the Turks from carrying on the sort of law enforcement they need to by harboring the PKK and allowing them to operate with impunity from bases inside Northern Iraq. They need only sneak across the border to murder Turks and flee across the border where they know they can not be pursued. The Kurdish government (and yes, that is NOT a mistake. There IS no Central Iraqi government worth noting.) is in league with the PKK and pretty openly endorses the actions they take against the Turks. We destroyed the Taliban for far far less.

Paleocon wrote:

I ask you then, what is the alternative?

It's usually not a good idea to do something stupid and ineffective simply for lack of a better idea.

I'd say a better alternative would've been to fight with guerillas of our own. Highly trained, well-equipped special forces. You know, the guys that were actually making progress in Iraq before the Army and Air Force got jealous and flattened the place, and before the politicians on both sides of the aisle started giving away troop positions and working tactics merely to show how the war was/wasn't working.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I ask you then, what is the alternative?

It's usually not a good idea to do something stupid and ineffective simply for lack of a better idea.

I am not certain that a Turkish incursion into Northern Iraq that results in the dismantling of the terrorist training camps of the PKK, the destruction of terrorist infrastructure, and the rounding up of terrorist/criminals is such a bad idea. The complete lack of political will on the part of the Kurds to do it themselves demonstrates complicity or incompetence. And the Turks have an obligation to protect their citizens.

When you put it that way it sounds just peachy but you've left out the point of contention: whether or not the civilian casualties are worth it.

LobsterMobster wrote:

When you put it that way it sounds just peachy but you've left out the point of contention: whether or not the civilian casualties are worth it.

That can be said of any war. The one constant in all wars modern or otherwise is that there WILL be civilian casualties. Even the "good" war of World War 2 was notable for the large number of civilians killed. That does not, however, in any way diminish the legitimacy of the causis belli.

National governments have an obligation to protect their citizens. The Turks are no different. They have appealed to the government of Iraq to cooperate in the apprehension of terrorists and they have refused or been completely ineffectual in affecting a positive outcome. They can not not do anything.

Given that the Kurdish people and their de facto government are perfectly happy to carry on a unilateral proxy war with Turkish civilians, what are the Turks to do? Simply let the PKK criminals murder their citizens at will? No armed nation in the world would accept that. No democratic people would tolerate it.

Until the Kurds turn over the PKK in chains to the Turks to be tried, convicted, and executed, they bear the responsibility for reaping the whirlwind.

Paleocon wrote:

Until the Kurds turn over the PKK in chains to the Turks to be tried, convicted, and executed, they bear the responsibility for reaping the whirlwind.

That's the sort of comment that inspired Team America. We all had a good ol' laugh at that one now, didn't we?

Paleocon, stop it. Where has anyone implyed or said that the Turks should just "take it"? There are always ways and means to dealing with the enemies of the state. There are many examples of dealing with insurgencies with force but until you deal with the underlying problems, it will repeat itself over and over. I think we all know of a very good example.

Using WW2 as a cover for the use of collective punishment doesn't cover the fact the the mass killing of civilians had very little effect on either the British or Germans military and McNamara has said, in the moive Fog of war, he would have been tried as a war criminal if he were on the losing side in WW2 for the fire bombing of Japan. It is wrong and even worse, it was useless in the face of the civilian cost.

Paleocon wrote:

That can be said of any war.

Only since WW2 have we seen such scant disregard for human life shown by military forces. The justification of carpet bombing of civilians as a means has been something that has only come to being for the last 70 years and may I add the jury is still well out on this one.

Paleocon wrote:

Until the Kurds turn over the PKK in chains to the Turks to be tried, convicted, and executed, they bear the responsibility for reaping the whirlwind.

You could apply that right back to Western powers as well. Lets start with Henry Kissenger and his illegal war in Cambodia. Until he is made answer all bets are off! Infact using your logic the IRA were right to plant bombs in pubs in England. I'm sorry Paleo, but you can't approach every situation with the collective punishment model. The guys in the planes on Sept 11th had the exact same reasoning afterall. It is utterly flawed reasoning that ends up in a complete spiral of attack and counter-attack and decades of hate and revenge.