Tuesday, December 18, 2007


"The feeling on the street is that we must not just sit back idly while this is taking place. There is anger towards US forces. People feel they gave the green light to the Turks to bomb."
~ Nawzad Bolous, Hewlêr.

While US spokesmen in Ankara spent all yesterday denying any knowledge of Turkey's intentions to bomb Kurdish civilians in South Kurdistan, today we are told that the US is picking and choosing targets for Turkey:

U.S. military personnel have set up a center for sharing intelligence in Ankara, the Turkish capital, providing imagery and other immediate information gathered from U.S. aircraft and unmanned drones flying over the separatists' mountain redoubts, the officials said. A senior administration official said the goal of the U.S. program is to identify the movements and activities of the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK), which is fighting to create an autonomous enclave in Turkey.

The United States is "essentially handing them their targets," one U.S. military official said. The Turkish military then decides whether to act on the information and notifies the United States, the official said.

"They said, 'We want to do something.' We said, 'Okay, it's your decision,' " the official said yesterday, although he denied that the United States had explicitly approved the strikes.

Well, the American military lies as well as the State Department. By opening the air space over Iraq, the US explicitly did approve of Turkish strikes against Kurdish civilians--the very targets that the US handed over to Turkey. Let's review:

The official U.S. line is that Washington did not approve Turkey's Sunday air strike on Kurdish targets in northern Iraq. But the U.S. does control the skies over Iraq and the Pentagon did open airspace over Iraq for at least three hours to Turkish warplanes. It was also informed of the raids beforehand, according to an American spokesperson in Ankara. "By opening its airspace, America gave its approval to the operation," Turkish General Yasar Buyukanit said.

Not satisfied with bombing civilians and destroying the property that gives them shelter and livelihood, the monsters who command both the American and Turkish military (and their corporate masters in the MIC) want to come up with a "comprehensive strategy" for genocide:

The intelligence cooperation comes as senior U.S. military and Pentagon officials have engaged in talks with their Turkish counterparts to produce a more comprehensive strategy for combating the PKK, according to a senior military official familiar with the discussions. In addition to providing targets, U.S. military officials said they have encouraged the Turks to employ nonmilitary measures against the PKK and to hold a dialogue with the Iraqi government.

None of these not-so-bright boys has considered taking up the points outlined by the KCK in its offer of a democratic solution because then the Americans couldn't turn a few blood bucks on military gifts to Turkey, such as the recent purchase of upgrade packages for Lockheed Martin's F-16s or the purchase of Lockheed's new albatross, the F-35. The F-35 purchase was the reason Lockheed Martin director, Joseph Ralston was appointed by the State Deparment as the "PKK coordinator" for Turkey last year.

There is only one way to solve the injustices that the Ankara regime has perpetrated against the Kurdish people, and it's not the military way:

After more than two decades of war against the rebels, Turkey’s generals and politicians concede that military measures alone cannot fix its festering Kurdish problem.

The corporate bloodsuckers behind American foreign policy are certainly not going to permit any solution that's going to undercut their bottom line--no matter who offers them--or rule of law, as William Arkin opines at the Washington Post's blog:

The rule of law took another hit this week. Not because of questionable interrogation tactics or warrantless wiretapping. But because one sovereign country, a member of the United Nations and NATO in good standing, bombed the territory of another sovereign country and member of the United Nations.

And, in large part because we are in the midst of an over-stated war against terrorism, where exaggerated threats distort our standards and encourage military solutions, the United States didn't protest; it assisted in the attack.

[ . . . ]

The historical twists and turns here, the overlapping Kurdish relationships inside Iraqi Kurdistan and across the border, the shifting Kurdish agenda - in regard to Iraq and Turkey and internally -- could be the stuff of an HBO suspense. I won't pretend to explain it here.

The Bush administration, of course, doesn't pretend either. Turkey and the U.S. reduce the problem to PKK terrorism - which, of course, then justifies a military response and preemption, even in the face of official protest in Baghdad.

What Turkey should do about the PKK, and what the U.S. and the international community should do to pressure the Iraqi Kurds to stop supporting terrorism, is difficult to prescribe.

Well, it's only "difficult to prescribe" when you are a citizen of a nation that has spent decades--long before the official, War on Terror, Inc.--contributing to the Turkish genocide of the Kurdish people. In other words, when you are guilty of having created the situation on the ground that forced Kurds to engage in this most recent legitimate armed resistance. The seven points have been offered twice in a little over a year, and they are the only means to end the conflict.

All these facts of life make Condoleezza "Chevron" Rice a big, fat liar:

“We have made clear to the Turkish Government that we continue to be concerned about anything that could lead to innocent civilian casualties or to the destabilisation of the north,” Dr Rice told a joint news conference in Baghdad with Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, who is a Kurd.

And you had better believe that whenever this little hobgoblin, Rice, comes to town, everyone rushes to roll out the red carpet for her so that no one will notice all the blood dripping from her hands. That's why Mesûd Barzanî refused to meet with the creature:

"Turkish troops committed an atrocious crime against innocent civilians and violated Iraq's sovereignty," said KRG President Massoud Barzani, whom Turkish generals accuse of harboring the PKK. Mr. Barzani, who refused to meet Rice on her visit to Iraq, said the US should fulfill its "moral and legal commitment to protect the country's sovereignty and defend the Iraqi people."

Okay, well, anyone who still believes the US is in Iraq to "protect the country's sovereignty and defend the Iraqi people" has not been paying attention.

It looks like they'll always have to roll out the red carpet for Hoshyar Zebarî in the future, too, and for the same reason as Rice:

The statement of the Kurdish-Iraqi minister Hoshiyar Zebari is an example of the Kurds selling out due to fear. According to Reuter, Zebari had stated "We fully understand Turkish legitimate security concerns over PKK terrorism across the border". PKK might not be the savior of Kurdistan, but it is embarrassing for any Kurds at this stage to call the fighters from other parts of Kurdistan terrorists. The patriot of any other nation would have said we have suffered enough and are willing to defend ourselves and our brothers and sister in other parts of Kurdistan against state terrorism. Zebari's statement regardless of diplomatic reasoning is disappointing and most likely forced by some of the corrupt NATO members.

To classify Zebarî's statement as "disappointing," is a vast understatement and is better described as absolute shamelessness, or as a first rate example of unblushing obsequiousness. Meanwhile, those Kurds who would call PKK fighters "terrorists" are worse than shameless; they are cowardly traitors.



Hi Mizgin,

Two questions:

1) what is your explanation for the fact that the Pentagon spokesman actually volunteered the info that the USA had gone as far as providing targeting data to the Turks? Why would he volunteer an information which could potentially place US force in Iraqi Kurdistan at risk? Is he plain stupid or what?

2) how likely is, in your opinion, a PKK retaliation on US assets in Iraq, whether in Kurdistan or elsewhere? After all, there are plenty of areas of Iraq, Baghdad for one, in which the US occupation forces are highly dependent on Peshmerga units. And there are at least two US divisional HQs (and more regimental HQs) in the Northern sector. Do you think that the PKK could decide to make them pay for being, in fact, intelligence collection agents for the Turks?


The Saker

Anonymous said...

Zebari is a cehs/poisonous traitor to Kurds. He needs to get kicked out head first.

berxwedan said...


1) The PKK already knows that the Turkish airstrike was planned with intelligence collected by the USA. They don't need an official from Pentagon to clarify it for them. They even knew something was about to happen when the Peshmerga-forces conveniently retreated back to their home bases from their "defense positions".

2) I don't believe there will be any attacks on US targets outside the MDZ (Median Defense Zones, the HPG-controlled part of Kurdistan.) PKK can't and wouldn't open up a fourth front outside the MDZ (the first front is the rural areas of northern Kurdistan, the second front is the urban areas of northern Kurdistan, the third front is the rural areas of eastern Kurdistan.) It's not PKK's style. Europe is herself not very innocent when it comes to annihilation politics toward the Kurds. Plenty of weapons used to massacre Kurds have been sold to Turkey even since before the creation of the PKK. If it had been PKK's style to attack non-Turkish targets who interferes, the PKK would have had plenty of opportunities. They ARE the number one Kurdish political and economical force in Europe. (And military, of course.)

What might be targeted:

- The unmanned US drones (or even manned planes if they fly low enough) over the MDZ.

- Any non-HPG force entering MDZ (this includes US forces, of course.)

- Oil pipelines (and only if Turkey or Iran has a stake in the oil flowing through that pipeline.)



1) my question was about the rationale for the Pentagon spokesman to volunteer/confirm this info. I did not mean to say that the Kurds needed that to realize that the US was helping Turkey. However, 'dangling' this fact officially is, I think, either something monumentally stupid, an outright provocation or an attempt to make TUC/AIPAC happy. Intelligence operations are, as they should be, covert by their very nature and a government is not support to discuss them, much less so speak about methods and means as they did when they confirmed that there was a joint imagery analysis center in Turkey. It is also possible that the USA is trying to court an otherwise strongly anti-US public opinion in Turkey, but then it would be at the risk of Kurdish retaliation, no?

2) you might be right, but it appears to me that the Kurds could do exactly what the Iranians have done: show that US forces are, in fact, 'hostages of their hospitality' in the areas of Iraq which they control. The Americans cannot afford to have yet another front opening up in the north, yet they are acting just like they want to open one. Reminding them of the costs, not only military but also political, of doing so seems the logical thing to do. This approach worked miracles in Beirut...

Berit@n said...

Interesting comments on both parts. I don't know if I agree with Saker's last statement tho. The Americans don't seem to learn from past mistakes. Plus, they keep saying they are going to reduce troop sizes in Iraq (pressures from the States?) so what better way to ensure they have to stay and have more funding than to instigate another front?

That is a bit conspiracy theory for my tastes.

Is it possible that the Americans were too trusting in their relationship with the Turks?

Berx, interesting perspective on PKK's response. I have seen news stories that Americans are tightening all their security because they are afraid of PKK terrorist attacks. But I didn't think PKK did the type of attacks like the Libyan's did in 1986 (Berlin?) or the real terrorist groups like 17 November. Am I wrong? Besides, PKK is trying to find a democratic solution to this whole problem. Why would they target Americans? Wouldn't that be a major step backwards? Plus, I'm sure "people" would love to pin something like that on the PKK just to get justification to send in more than just drones. PKK leaders seem to be smarter than that.

sorry for the length...

Mizgîn said...

VS, the rationale for the Pentagon admitting the obvious is to send a message to the Southern Kurds . . . probably over Kerkuk. I don't think it was a coincidence that Miss Chevron went for a "surprise" visit to Kerkuk the day after the US and Turkey bombed Kurdistan and while TSK sent a few hundred ground troops into Kurdistan.

Some of us have been trying to convince other Kurds of the fact that the US will never side with Kurds against Turkey. Well, recent events confirm this fact.

There are a lot of long-term strategic reasons for this which I won't go into in detail now, but you are smart enough to figure it out if I mention a few key words: energy resources and their markets, Central Asia, Russia, China, SCO. However, I suspect the US has reached the apogee of imperium and you know what they say, "What goes up, must come down."

As for the idea of "hostages of hospitality," yes, you are correct. This is what needs to be done, but it requires the unity of all Kurdistan with the leadership of South Kurdistan. Unfortunately, there are no leaders in South Kurdistan at the present time.

Berxwedan, I hope you are well. I have no objections to raise with your comments and find them rational . . . even though the Americans richly deserve to become targets. But, as you say, it's not PKK's style. I would just tweak your target list a little:

All reconnaissance aircraft are legitimate targets.

All foreign forces in the MDZ are legitimate targets.

All oil and natural gas pipelines are legitimate targets.

Beritan, if its true that the Americans are tightening their security because they are terrified of PKK, that's excellent news. Nothing works quite so well as psychological operations.

And don't count on American troop reductions in Iraq because that's not going to happen. In the best of all possible worlds, the US would reinstate its draft.