RUMORS OF WAR

"The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy." ~ Adolf Hitler.

Reuters is reporting that Turkey denies any of its troops had crossed the border into South Kurdistan. The report goes on to mention that Ozkok Pasha stated that Turkey has every "right under international law to carry out cross-border operations." I guess that must have been the same kind of reasoning the pashas used when they invaded Cyprus, a little Turkish intervention so reminiscent of the Nazi invasion of the Sudetenland, and with the same response by the world community.

It is ridiculous to believe anything the pashas might say publicly about cross-border operations because Turkey has crossed the border into South Kurdistan many times in the past, and there is nothing to indicate it will not do so now. If they weren't crossing the border, why tens of thousands of troops deployed there, with a total of almost 300,000 terrorizing the Kurdish population under Turkish occupation? Why has the entire border been closed, if the TSK is not conducting operations?

Bianet is carrying a similar report and, again, Ozkok Pasha is stressing Turkish "sovereignty," a sovereignty that apparently stretches well beyond Turkey's own "territorial integrity," and includes invasion of any country it chooses. I don't understand why he's so sensitive to Turkish media reports on troop deployment though. All he has to do is throw the journalists in prison. Maybe he should get those Special Security Courts up and running again so that he could avoid having to deal with that facade of democracy. See items #4 and #7 of the characteristics of a fascist state to understand that.

Given the level of propaganda in the Turkish media, designed specifically to justify all actions of the Turkish government in the phony crisis it has created, I am fairly certain it is engaging in cross border operations in an unconventional warfare mode and that it is planning to engage conventional forces at any time. All the propaganda is merely the set up, the softening of the target of world opinion to con everyone into continuing to believe that Turkey is simply attempting to protect its "territorial integrity." You won't hear any dissent from the US, the EU (who have become amazingly silent in the last couple of weeks), or the UN. All of these groups are members of the club, and to voice dissent with Turkey's actions will place their own sovereignty and territorial integrity in a possible line of fire. This club exists to protect their own turf and for no other reason, not for human rights, not for "democracy," not for justice.

Plan on watching their media lap dogs barking on cue and to the only tune the club permits.

Iran, of course, is the same kind of fascist state as Turkey but it is not likely to discuss anything with Condoleeza Rice. But there is one little coincidence that should come to mind, especially given the tightening of tensions in Kerkuk recently, and that little coincidence was Ja'afari's visit, at the end of February, to Ankara:

. . . Jaafari's visit to Turkey will be followed within days by a visit from radical Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr. Jaafari and al-Sadr are widely perceived by Kurdish leaders as the Shiite leaders least friendly to the Kurds in the government-formation talks. Jaafari's trip to Turkey has jabbed a sharp thorn into these negotiations, providing an opportunity for the Sunnis and Shia to serve their mutual interest by using the talks to contain the Kurds.

[ . . . ]

The Turkish government will primarily address the Kurdish question in its talks with the Iraqi Shiite leaders. Turkey's concerns are clear. Like Iran, it does not want Iraq's reinvigorated Kurdish population to encourage Kurdish separatist movements within Turkish territory. Ankara also wishes to keep the oil-rich northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk out of Kurdish hands to deprive Iraqi Kurds of a key asset that would help finance their long-term goal of independence. Ankara also wishes to safeguard the interests of Kirkuk's Turkoman population. Also on Turkey's wish list is a guarantee that the peshmerga, or Iraqi Kurdish militia, will be disbanded under the new government.

Ja'afari's visit created such a barrage of criticism that the scheduled visit of Moqtada al-Sadr was cancelled, but both of these men are links to Iran, and no doubt the increased presence of al-Sadr's militia in Kerkuk has been coordinated with the build up of Turkish and Iranian troops on the border.

Was Talabanî's defence of pêşmerge forces this last weekend a result of Turkish interference in Iraqi politics, interference the pashas would never tolerate (see Ozkok's comments in the Bianet article, above), especially over its own military matters? Is Khalilzad Turkey's tool to help dismantle the pêşmerge, for the sake of Turkey's Shi'a (Iranian) brothers? The US, Turkey and the Shi'a (Iran) can forget about that little pipedream because the pêşmerge are here to stay.

Let's not forget Turkey's warm relationship with Russia, a relationship Turkey encouraged during the Cold War, while it was a good NATO ally. Russia has been ingratiating itself into the Middle East lately, and it's recent activity shadows Turkish activity. Is it any coincidence then, that Russia obtained observer status in the OIC at a time when the organization is headed by a Turk?

While all of this goes on, one of Erdogan's propaganda advisors insists that Turkish anti-Americanism can be "reversed overnight" if only the Americans will arrest Kurdish leaders and murder Kurds for the Turkish state. The propaganda advisor even goes so far as to hearken back to that old Cold War chestnut of Turkey being a NATO ally, a little something for old time's sake, no doubt. But the fact is that the reversal of anti-Americanism is a ploy, a carrot dangling in front of the American nose, while the massing of Turkish and Iranian troops is the proverbial stick.

In all of this, there are a few things that America should remember. The first is that PKK has never targeted Americans. The second is that not a single American has received so much as a hangnail while serving duty in South Kurdistan. The third is that the Kurds of the South willingly committed every pêşmerge to liberate Iraq alongside the US, without engaging in bickering or camel-bargaining and without asking for anything in return, unlike the Turks, who, thinking the question of war was akin to a deal to be haggled in the Kapalı Çarşı, tried to get as much as they could, even while the Turkish Parliament was voting against the Americans.

The fourth thing to remember are the words of Masud Barzanî, recently from Hurriyet:


. . . [S]ince the war, everything here has changed. Syrian and Iranian Kurds are also here. There is a coming together. Which is why, even if I were to give orders, Kurds will not fire on other Kurds.


It is not, therefore, the place of the US to go against the wishes of its Kurdish allies in such a fundamental Kurdish matter. But if the Americans would like to come to the mountains to fight Kurds for Turkey, well, this is something Kurds have done for a very long time and something they can continue to do for a very long time.

It might be easier for the US, in the long run, to begin demanding that Turkey end its racist and fascist policies against the Kurdish people. Not only would it be easier, it also would be the right thing to do.