OUTSOURCING WAR AND FOREIGN POLICY

"Private companies are becoming significant players in conflicts around the world, supplying not merely the goods but also the services of war. Although recent well-publicized incidents from Abu Ghraib to Zimbabwe have shone unaccustomed light onto this new force in warfare, private military firms remain a poorly understood—and often unacknowledged—phenomenon."
~ Peter Singer, "Outsourcing War," Foreign Affairs.

I had written something a few weeks ago that I hadn't posted until now, because so many other things have been happening that I did not feel there had been time to bring up the subject of Private Military Contractors (or Private Military Corporations, see Sourcewatch). However, with the news that some American, and one Austrian, employees of Crecent Security Company--listed at the Sourcewatch link--have been abducted in Iraq, it seems as though the time has come to post this one.

Whoever wants to, can check Google News for the latest information on the news of the missing Crescent employees, but it seems that there is still a lot of confusion surrounding the event. However, a site linked to the extreme reight-wing Media Research Center slammed CNN on Friday for referring to the "contractors" as mercenaries.

Bear in mind that, unlike anyone at Media Research Center, I have seen these guys in South Kurdistan, lounging around outside the Mazî Market in Dihok and guarding their self-important clients in Hewlêr. The Başûrî call them what they are--mercenaries--and their armed presence is considered an insult to the honor of the Kurdish people and Kurdish hospitality. It goes without saying that hospitality encompasses the personal safety of guests.

The fact is, as you will see below, these employees of Private Military Contractors are mercenaries, and that brings up questions of accountability and oversight of mercenary forces by those governments that contract their services. In light of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and all proposed Democratic changes to the act (see a post by unbossed.com), are these mercenaries an example of "unlawful combatants" in those countries where they operate? Check Wikipedia to get an idea of the confusion surrounding the legality of the term, "unlawful combatant". There is also a UN resolution against the use of mercenaries, commonly referred to as the UN Anti-Mercenary Convention.

Private military contracting companies, such as Blackwater USA, have been hiring mercenaries for Iraq from places like Chile and South Africa. More from the New Statesman.

For more on PMC's and the problems they pose, check "Corporate Mercenaries" and "Controlling the Corporate Mercenaries". PMC's have also been referred to by George McGovern and William Polk in their proposal for withdrawal from Iraq, from Harper's, with commentary on that from Dissident Voice, specifically:

The fifth step in the withdrawal plan deals especially with the large force of mercenaries "euphemistically known as 'Personal Security Detail'." There are about 25,000 of them hired by over thirty different private security "contractors." They will have to go, and they should go, because they are hated by the Iraqis and are basically unanswerable to anyone except their immediate bosses. Since they are all paid for by the American tax payers, "either directly or indirectly," it should be easy enough for the U.S. to get rid of them: "all we need to do is stop payment." This is, for the foreseeable future, a pipe dream. The U.S. is not going to stop payment to the private firms they have contracts with (what type of capitalism is that) and, even more importantly, the many big shots in the U.S. puppet government who have these mercenaries as their body guards don't look forward to having to depend on their fellow country men for their security.

With that, on to the post I had been saving:


I have something here for your consideration that isn't specifically Kurd-related, but it's an indicaton of a growing regional problem, and possibly a world-wide problem. That problem is Private Military Contractors (PMC)--the current favored euphemism for mercenaries. This mercenary outsourcing is big business and it's another indication of the fact that foreign policy is being driven by other defense contractors, aside from Lockheed Martin. Former military officers tend to be heavily involved in turning a few hundred million bucks from their glorified mercenary companies.

It looks like this problem got it's big break in Kosovo. Bearing in mind that the quote below comes from the PBS Frontline interview with Peter Singer, Director of the Project on US Policy Towards the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and that the Brookings Institution is an extreme right wing think-tank, we are still able to learn that the US government began outsourcing the military side of foreign policy in the Yugoslav war:

I was with an organization called International Peace Academy, which is a think tank that's affiliated with the U.N. And so we were looking at the military balance on the ground.

And one of the things that was striking, that was on everybody's lips there, and everybody was concerned about and surpris[ed] by, was that you had an American company made up of ex-colonels, ex-generals, etc., that was training one of the sides during the cease-fire period. And the result was that, arguably, the balance of power was being shifted in the entire region. It was being shifted by a company. And that was something that all of the way we understood war, the way we understood military strengths and etc., [we] just simply couldn't even comprehend. It didn't fit the model. …

[ . . . ]

You're talking about an industry that really didn't exist until the start of the 1990s. And since then, it's grown in size, in monetary terms to about $100 billion worth of revenue a year. In geographic terms, it operates in over 50 different countries. It's operated on every single continent but Antarctica.

It operates in poor states, rich states -- you know, the Saudi Arabias, the Congo-Brazzavilles. It operates in superpowers like United States -- we're the largest client of that industry; the Pentagon's entered into over 3,000 contracts with it in the last couple years -- to weak states, failed states, Sierra Leones, Liberias, Afghanistans of the world.

You can also think about it in terms of the wars that it's affected. It's been present in pretty much all the major wars we think about -- the Iraqs, etc. -- and many of the minor wars that most folks haven't even heard about that take place in these areas. They were operating in Sudan before most people even paid attention to it because of Darfur.

Another way to think about it has been the money that's been made in this industry. If you had owned stock in these companies on 9/11, the rest of your portfolio outside this industry went down. Most people's stock went down. On average, these guys went up 50 percent. A couple of them double, tripled, so it's been a pretty good payoff.

And the result has been like any other new industry, almost like an Internet-like boom, is that some of these companies have literally exploded in size and new companies have rushed in. And the big boys have also come in. So you've seen a lot of mergers and acquisitions.

At least read the rest of that interview to get an idea of what's going on and to be able to get an idea of where things are going (although I encourage you to explore the entire site and become acquainted with its contents). I found the comments on alleged American aversion to ongoing genocides particularly ironic. Telling, too, is the example of one small company that had 10 employees and was doing well under $1 million in business pre-9/11; after 9/11, they boomed to some 1400 employees and did more than $100 million in business.

This is an example of the bipartisan nature of mercenary outsourcing by American administrations. Another interesting thing to note is that those who were in positions of power and responsibility with regard to the conduct of the Yugoslav war are well represented in the defense industry, such as those at the helm of The Cohen Group--William Cohen, Marc Grossman, and Joe Ralston.

At the time, William Cohen was the Secretary of Defense, while Marc Grossman was the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs. Joe Ralston took over from Wesley Clark as NATO commander in 2000, probably a result of his failed appointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Revelations of Ralston's adulterous affair put the skids on that, in spite of Bill Cohen's overwhelming support for both Ralston and his appointment as head of the Joint Chiefs. After leaving public service, these three got together in The Cohen Group (TCG), a secretive lobby firm that helps to facilitate defense industry-related mega-deals between foreign governments and defense contractors.

Cohen also started a private equity firm, TCG Financial Partners which, according to the Washington Post, was supposed "to work on defense industry mergers and acquisitions," possibly in a way similar to The Carlyle Group:

Following the extraordinary success of the Washington-based Carlyle Group, which has built a private equity empire that's earned billions for its investors, a number of firms have lined up rosters of former government officials and high ranking military officers as they pursue companies that are in the national security business.

Carlyle, which ranked as the ninth largest Pentagon contractor from 1998 to 2003, has made billions of dollars by investing in the defense sector. A team of high-powered former Washington insiders, including Frank Carlucci, who served as secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, and James Baker, who served as George H. W. Bush's secretary of state, led its pursuit of defense deals. (See related report, "Investing in War.")

More than a half dozen companies are now following in the footsteps of Carlyle by signing up former high-ranking government and military officials as they try to make inroads into the Pentagon and the newly-created Homeland Security contracting business.

The blue-chip political talent these private equity firms have lured include five of the past nine defense secretaries, two secretaries of state, two national security chiefs, two CIA directors and dozens of distinguished retired military officials.

It would be interesting to know how involved these private equity firms are with the rise of PMC's.

If governments have a hard time trying to control the commission of war crimes by individual soldiers or groups of soldiers, what is the oversight on the private mercenary brigades? Does anyone honestly believe that former public and military officials--turned outsourcing whores--are going to jeopardize their bottom lines in order to obey theoretical niceties like laws of warfare or international human rights laws?

Consider how all of these same government/military officials have willingly, and with full knowledge, armed, trained, and jointly operated with TSK Gray Wolves, i.e. Ozel Timler/Ozel Hareket Timler, in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan. Consider how the same officials deliberately ignored and successfully managed to negate all attempts at Congressional oversight for the genocide they enabled against the Kurdish people. Think long and hard on that and then you'll get one of those "Eureka!" moments, and you will know that there is not, nor will there ever be, any kind of effective oversight or prosecution for war crimes of anyone involved in the outsourcing of foreign policy through mercenaries.

It's hypocritical to complain about the proliferation of private militias in Iraq when these corporate mercenaries are private militias too. They also run around like cowboys in the Wild, Wild West, firing up everything in sight, with no thought for accountability nor a worry about war crimes tribunals. Why bother to have a plan for reconstruction when you can have private companies overcharging for the privilege of trying to force reconstruction in an unorganized, half-assed manner, thus driving up profits?

The conflict of interest inherent in the fact that former government and military officials are behind these companies, or that they hold positions in governments making the decisions that boost the profit margins of these companies is very worrying. In light of the conflict of interest, claims of desire for democratic change, on the part of these same officials, appear as nothing more than high-priced advertising for the benefit of these outsourcing whores. How convenient instead to manipulate the lives of millions and change the dynamics on the ground to favor the defense industry and private military contractors.

This amounts to more than simply outsourcing war; it's outsourcing of the shaping of foreign policy. It's not accountable to anyone, not to the citizens of the countries engaged in the outsourcing nor to those citizens of the target countries . . . all in the interests of big business, naturally.

Watch the PBS Frontline program, Private Warriors, here.

BEHEADING KURDS

"There was mass and systematic terror inflicted on the Kurdish population, often including the most barbaric forms imaginable, beheadings, lynchings, castrations, cutting off of ears and limbs. Extra-judicial executions were commonplace, carried out by ‘contra-guerrillas’, Hizbullah and ‘Village Guards’."
~ Mark Campbell, Kurdish human rights activist, cited by Desmond Fernandes, "Turkey's US-Backed 'War on Terror': A Cause for Concern?".

Check out a post that was carried on one of the Pajamas Media blogs, Instapundit about the US, Turkey, and Kurds:

A favorable trade deal is always a nice thing, but if we really want to make nice with Turkey -- and I completely agree that we should, for the reasons you mention -- then we will have to offer them what they really want, which is PKK heads in a box. The KDP and PUK provide refuge for the PKK in Iraq, which they use to attack Turkey. The Turks want us to go after the PKK directly, and failing that, to let them do it -- to supply them with intelligence so that they can invade northern Iraq and clean out the PKK pockets. We're of course reluctant to go after the PKK (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) for fear of destabilizing the one part of Iraq that seems to be a success, but from the Turks' point of view, we've just decided to sell them out.

Every Kurd remembers the photos of Turkish contra-guerrillas posing with the heads of Kurdish gerîlas, heads that the Turks themselves had cut off. This was at at time when the US had been training the very same commandos. As cited by Desmond Fernandes, I wonder if American special operations forces, such as the Navy SEALS, trained Turkish commandos in this particular technique or if it was one of the techniques the SEALS simply observed, with admiration, of course.

Joining the SEALS in admiration of the beheading of Kurds, and encouraging further beheadings of Kurds, is exactly what the author of that email and Instapundit want to see.

In the email, extreme right-wing fascist and pro-Kurd beheader, Claire Berlinski, goes on to moan about PKK "terrorism," even though it is widely known that the particular "terrorism" the author is moaning about was not done by PKK. She must be living in one of those MHP neighborhoods in Istanbul and imbibing the entire atmosphere. This woman is truly ignorant.

Of course, Berlinski is only concerned about that "one part of Iraq that seems to be a success" because it's the only positive thing to come out of America's most direct attempt to gain control over the region's resources, and it makes the Bush administration look good. She's too ignorant to know that the US had absolutely nothing to do with any successes the Başûrî have had.

Do we need to discuss US support for Saddam's Anfal campaign? Do we need to discuss the fact that the US government cynically noticed Saddam's atrocities against the Başûrî only as a means to gain domestic support to go to war? Do we need to discuss the fact that the US government has never condemned Turkey's atrocious human rights record against the Kurdish people?

Instapundit author, Glenn Reynolds, concludes thusly:

I love the Kurds, but the PKK are bad people.

Yeah, he loves Kurds, which is why he advocates beheading them. For Reynolds, "PKK are bad people" because they are Kurds who refuse to "acquiesc[e] in their treatment," as the Blair government recently phrased it.

Do Claire Berlinski and Glenn Reynolds deny the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust in the same way that they deny the reality of Kurds under Turkish occupation? Do they believe that Armenians and Jews should have simply "acquiesced?" Inquiring minds want to know.

Too bad these two little fascists never took a trip to Kurdistan with Mark Campbell as their guide.

It also looks like someone else has picked up on the conflict of interest surrounding the Bush administration/Lockheed Martin appointment of Joseph Ralston as "PKK coordinator," from Lebanon's Daily Star:

The Bush administration is courting influential Kurdish factions in Iraq. But across the border in Turkey, it is supporting Turkey's subjugation of its large Kurdish population. The United States has just approved the sale of F-16 and F-35 fighter jets to Turkey that are to be used for the express purpose of crushing Kurdish militants in the eastern provinces. It has also appointed an envoy with strong business ties to a leading American defense contractor as well as to pro-Turkey American lobbies.

[ . . . ]

Ralston happens to be a board member of the defense company Lockheed Martin, which is providing the new jets. It has been reported that he also has ties to the American-Turkish Council. In other words Ralston has a financial interest in seeing Turkey gain deadly American weaponry, and is in a position to both influence the US government in helping Turkey procure arms and facilitate those purchases on behalf of Lockheed Martin. On learning of this appointment, Kurdish groups were, legitimately, outraged.

[ . . . ]

The fight for Kurdish rights in Turkey is on hold, but history shows that further Turkish obstinacy will only restart the conflict. The US must withdraw Ralston and push Turkey to engage its Kurdish population and introduce democracy and pluralism once and for all in the Kurdish areas. Otherwise, expect to see a resurrection of the Kurdish problem in Turkey, but also more volatility in northern Iraq, very soon.

When the US gives it's client state, Turkey, the green light to invade South Kurdistan, it will mean that the US has decided to allow Turkey control of Mûsil, Kerkuk, and all the newly discovered oil deposits in Behdinan . . . but only because the US will have decided how to control Turkey's control of these resources.

WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT WILL SELL

“The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell.”
~ Confucius.

KurdishMedia has something on Dean, the Democratic National Convention, and Kurds. With Howard Dean's acquiescence to Turkish propaganda, and Michael Rubin's sucking up to his Turkish friends, it's fairly clear that those of us who have been suspicious about US intentions toward Kurds, have had a basis in reality for those suspicions.

With the reappearance of the Kissingerians on the US foreign policy stage, and the upcoming results of James Baker's Iraq study group, everyone should be suspicious. Realpolitik is about to run amok.

On the DNC post from the other day, Vlad left an URL to an International Herald Tribune article (Thanks, Vlad). The title of the article is revealing: "Winning back the Turks." Let me think . . . if I remember correctly, the American administration was irate with Turkey for its March, 2003 parliamentary vote which pretty much screwed up US plans for the invasion of Iraq. But now, F. Stephen Larabee, an academic who's been bought and paid for by the RAND Corporation, is making it sound like the Turks were the ones who were irate. Interesting spin.

Mr. Larabee certainly sounds enthusiastic about the Ralston appointment, but I had a few questions about that, so I sent him an email, as follows:

Dear Mr. Larabee,

I read with interest your recent article in the International Herald Tribune titled, "Winning back the Turks."

However, I was wondering how you could view the appointment of Joseph Ralston as "special envoy" to counter the PKK as a sign that the Bush Administration takes Turkish concerns seriously when Joseph Ralston is a member of the Board of Directors of Lockheed Martin, is on file with the Senate under the Lobby Disclosure Act of 1995 as a lobbyist with The Cohen Group for Lockheed Martin, and is a member of the current American Turkish Council Advisory board, an organization in which Lockheed Martin is a member. Since October, Lockheed Martin secured a $2.9 billion sale of F-16's to Turkey, and is on track to secure a $10 billion sale for the F-35. All of this coincided with Ralston's first two visits to Ankara as "special envoy."

Isn't this appointment indicative of an obvious and extreme conflict of interest? Whose interests is Joseph Ralston working for, US interests, Turkish interests, or Lockheed Martin's interests? How will this appointment help to solve the severe problems in Turkey, such as the long history of gross human rights abuses against the Kurdish people, or the Turkish military's continued dominance over civilian government? That second example was a serious concern of Turkey's outgoing EU envoy to Turkey, Hansjoerg Kretschmer.

I would be interested to hear your views on this matter.

Regards,

Mizgîn

I'll let you know what I hear. In the meantime, you can start familiarizing yourself with the RAND Corporation. Basically, it was created by the US Air Force and most of its work has to do with "national security issues." I think that means they are always figuring ways to sell more weapons.

On the same day as the Larabee article, IHT ran another article, this time comparing Turkish Cypriots, Kurds, and the hypocrisy of the Ankara regime in its treatment of both. By Kirsty Hughes, not of the RAND Corporation:

Turkey complains vociferously about the European Union's unfair treatment of the politically and economically isolated Turkish Cypriots. Why then shouldn't Turkey grant a big chunk of its own citizens - the Kurds - the same rights it demands for people who are not even Turkish nationals?

There are many similarities between Northern Cyprus and the Turkish southeast, where many of Turkey's estimated 15 to 20 million Kurds live.

[ . . . ]

But it's the differences that are more striking. Turkey is loudly championing the rights of Turkish Cypriots in the EU. But anyone who champions Kurdish rights in Turkey risks being accused of separatism and even terrorism.

While Turkey expects international support for its Cyprus solution, based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality between the two communities, it argues the precise opposite for its own Kurdish citizens.

Read the whole thing. It's really pretty good and certainly very refreshing.

NO MORE COOPERATION WITH THE ENEMY

"If you live among wolves, you have to act like a wolf."
~ Nikita Krushchev.

If anybody out there has any doubts about the undying "friendship" of the US toward Kurdistan, I have something that should be a serious wake-up call for you. In fact, if you don't get it from this, then you probably wouldn't get it if I whacked you on the side of the head a few times with a baseball bat.

From the hevals at KurdishInfo, we have information about what one of the leading neocons at the American Enterprise Institute, Michael Rubin, has to say about South Kurdistan:

In his fax to me, Rubin explained that he had given this interview by email. He said: "I never said such things. In fact, I said the complete opposite. Here is precisely what I said concerning Turkey and Iraq's other neighboring countries: Whenever I go to Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurds tell me that they are our best allies, and that this friendship needs to be reciprocal. I am sorry, but this is wrong on many levels. First of all, it is great that the Kurds say that they are our allies, but if we think about the fact that Kurdish politicians change their policies along with the direction the wind is blowing, there is no reason to believe American politicians are going to have any more confidence in Kurdish politicians than they have in themselves. There are many political leaders who put trade before principles in terms of importance. There are now documents which have come out which show that some top Kurdish leaders were doing serious business with Saddam's sons, Uday and Kusay. Also, Turkey is an important enough ally for Washington that it is not going to be ignored.

The Iraqi Kurds can believe what they want about Turkey, but the fact remains that for as long as Iraqi Kurdistan is a home to terrorists, Washington will always be on the side of Ankara, and not Erbil or Suleymaniye. My belief is that Turkish-American relations are very important, and despite current administrations in both Washington and Ankara, they will remain so. Most Iraqi Kurdish newspapers print exactly what they think Mesut Barzani and Jelal Talabani want to hear.

Talabani and Barzani have spent thousands of dollars getting former US ambassadors to say good things about them. I thought that since the Iraqi Kurds have not been able to learn what Washington really thinks about them, it would be a good idea to say it directly to their newspapers. Iraqi Kurds must understand that Washington will absolutely not forget about Ankara, and that for as long as the PKK exists in Northern Iraq, the region will be seen as a terror supporting one.

In the end, the Northern Iraq leadership is responsible for whatever happens in their region. And if the situation continues, Northern Iraq is not looking at a good future. Turkey has just as much a right as the US, Israel, and other countries to struggle against terror coming from across the border to it.

I hope that my explanation has cleared up the incorrect report carried in your newspaper."

And I hope Rubin's explanation has cleared up all doubts in every Kurdish mind about the alleged "friendship" of the United States, a country which has had a direct hand in the genocide of the Kurdish people for many decades.

Interesting, too, that Rubin mentions how "many political leaders" put "trade before principles in terms of importance." Is Rubin referring to the American administration? After all, it was the Americans who appointed Joseph Ralston to coordinate the PKK "issue" for Turkey, and Joseph Ralston is not only a director of Lockheed Martin, but also a registered lobbyist for Lockheed, as well as an "advisor" to the ATC. Is that what Rubin was referring to, the corporate whores that Washington appoints to "take care of America's business?"

[For more on American whores, see Sibel Edmonds' new article, "The Hijacking of a Nation".]

Everyone should be aware of the propaganda that the two-faced Rubin spun back in 2001, when the US was desperate to make a case for the invasion of Iraq. At the time, Rubin presented the Başûrî in an extremely positive light, especially for Israel, but everything he has written since the war has been designed specifically to maintain the status quo of the state terrorism of the US and its fascist client state, Turkey.

Now it appears that Rubin, along with Howard Dean and the DNC, prefer to spin the lie that Kurds are responsible for all the "terrorism" of the Middle East. Odd, isn't it that an "expert" like Rubin has never written a single word about Turkey's long history of gross human rights abuses against the Kurdish people? Or maybe not, considering that Rubin is one of America's premier versions of Joseph Goebbels.

It's long past time that Başûr ended all cooperation with that notorious state-sponsor of terror, the United States, while the Başûrî leadership must begin to think solely of the interests of Greater Kurdistan. And if the Başûrî leadership cannot, or will not, do that, it's time for the Kurdish people to take matters into their own hands.

DEMOCRATS AS STATE-SPONSORS OF TERROR

"I expect to review our arms sales policy and to take it up with the other major arms sellers of the world as a part of a long-term effort to reduce the proliferation of weapons."
~ Bill Clinton, presidential candidate, lying through his teeth.

Here's what Howard Dean the Idiot and chairman of the Democratic National Convention had to say Sunday on Fox News:

The problem is the president had no idea what he was doing when he got us into it [Iraq] and therefore the consequences are going to be bad no matter what happens.

I mean, the worst thing that can happen — and this may well be the outcome — is that Turkish troops end up in Kurdistan, because the Kurds are fomenting terrorist violence in eastern Turkey. That is a real possibility. The PKK, which is the terrorist organization, the Kurdish terrorist organization, now is operating out of Kurdistan. That's a very serious problem.

If we hadn't gone into Iraq, that wouldn't be a serious problem. Turkey is one of our most important allies. There are all kinds of unforeseen consequences to this policy. Our problem is we've got to cut our losses and figure out how we're going to get our folks out and still defend the United States of America.

Kurds are fomenting violence in "eastern Turkey?" Kurds are fomenting violence? No, Mr. Dean, let me tell you who is formenting violence in Kurdistan--that's right Mr. Dean, "eastern Turkey," as you call it, IS Kurdistan. While your last dishonorable, oral-sex-crazed, Democratic president was getting himself serviced in the Oval Office, he had already made sure that the US fascist client state, Turkey, was getting plenty of weapons with which to genocide Kurds, from good old Mother Jones:

It was the early 1990s and then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton was on the campaign trail making promises: "I expect to review our arms sales policy and to take it up with the other major arms sellers of the world as a part of a long-term effort to reduce the proliferation of weapons."

[ . . . ]

. . . once elected, Bill Clinton did what he does best: He took advantage of the opportunity. Rather than insert human-rights concerns into the arms-sales equation, as did his Democratic predecessor President Carter, Clinton decided to aggressively continue the sales policies of President Bush, himself no slouch when it came to selling U.S. arms.

Early on, Clinton required our diplomats to shill for arms merchants to their host countries. The results were immediate: During Clinton's first year in office, U.S. arms sales more than doubled. From 1993 to 1997, the U.S. government sold, approved, or gave away $190 billion in weapons to virtually every nation on earth.

The arms industry, meanwhile, has greased the wheels. It filled the Democratic Party coffers to the tune of nearly $2 million in the 1998 election cycle.

Jump to another Mother Jones report:

American Weapons, Kurdish Blood

As the only traditionally Islamic member of NATO, Turkey is treated as a pivotal ally in the Middle East. In addition, for decades Turkey and Greece acted as barriers that effectively kept the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact from establishing a warm-water seaport in the Mediterranean. However, with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, one would think that the Turks would no longer merit Cold War-sized arms shipments.

Wrong. The U.S. continues to use Turkey as its unofficial envoy between the Western and Islamic worlds. Since 1993 President Clinton has approved $8.3 billion worth of weapon sales and giveaways to Turkey, including frigates, helicopters, M-85 machine guns, numerous replacement parts for F-16 fighters, and Lockheed Martin LANTIRNs, which allow Turkish pilots to find their targets at night.

[ . . . ]

Human Rights Watch reported several incidents in which American weapons were used by the Turkish government against its own civilians. For example, following the October 22, 1993, sweep of a village by Turkish troops, "Five witnesses said that [U.S.-supplied Cobra] helicopters and other aircraft pounded the village of Zengok.... Five civilians were found dead in the village two days later, captives left by the troops to be burned alive while bound and tied, linked together with electric cables and a chain. There reportedly were no guerillas in the village at the time of the raid." In another incident, "Troops used U.S.-supplied M-48 and M-60 tanks, 105 mm artillery, U.S.-supplied M-113 armored personnel carriers, U.S. designed M-16 rifles and LAWS antitank rockets to assault the town of Sirnak following an alleged PKK provocation. Twenty-two civilians died in the assault, 60 were wounded, and many of the town's 25,000 residents fled in panic. Much of the town was destroyed."

More on the Democratic Party's war crimes at Foreign Policy In Focus.

More on the Democratic Party's war crimes at Federation of American Scientists.

More on the Democratic Party's war crimes in a joint report of the World Policy Institute and the Federation of American Scientists.

More on the Democratic Party's war crimes, again at Mother Jones.

And I can go on and on and on and on.

We don't forget, Mr. Dean, that the current regime in Ankara was carried out by "the boys" (i.e. the pashas) of another Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, from John Tirman.

The U.S. officials of the period always denied foreknowledge or prompting of the coup, of course. Paul Henze, the former CIA station chief in Ankara who was responsible for Turkey on the White House national security staff during the Carter administration, stated flatly that there was no encouragement or prior approval of the coup. But he also said that "the Carter administration would not have discouraged the takeover if it had been informed in advance, but it preferred not to be. Given the fears that Turkey might go the way of Iran and that the entire Western security position in the Middle East would disintegrate, there was a great sense of relief throughout Washington when the change occurred." Carter signaled his approval by calling for generous increases in military aid in the next two years. Given how traumatic the arms embargo of 1975-78 had been for the Turkish military elite, it is unlikely they would have taken such a drastic step without some assurances from Washington that it would not earn retribution from the "human-rights president."

Let me be brutally frank, Mr. Dean, Turkish troops in Kurdistan is not the worst thing that could happen. On the contrary, it would be a great opportunity to help rid the world of fascists. Let them come! They've come before and every time they've come they've gone home with much more than a bloody nose. Let them come and they will die.

This is what happens when you support, for decades, an illegitimate, military ruling class over genuine democratic change, Mr. Dean, and that is what the US has done in Turkey. Looks to me, Mr. Dean, like there are a lot of Democrats who need to be tried for war crimes and genocide, right alongside your Republican colleagues.

In a just world, Mr. Apologist-for-State-Sponsorship-of-Terror, you'd be worried about swinging with Saddam as the worst thing that could happen.

KISSINGER, SCOWCROFT, GATES

I love you,
You love me,
We're best friends like friends should be,
With a great big hug,
And a kiss from me to you,
Won't you say you love me too
~ Barney

Lukery at WotIsItGood4 is pondering a possible Senate confirmation of Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, and his argument is that the Democrats should oppose the nomination because it's another attempt to put one of Daddy Bush's longtime cronies in a key position.

Given the skeletons in Gates' closet, I have to point out a few things, because the nomination of Gates does not bode well for Kurds. Some backgrounder:

BREAKING RANKS: What turned Brent Scowcroft against the Bush Administration?


Robert Gates is a protégé (read: lapdog) of Scowcroft; Scowcroft is a protégé (read: lapdog) of Kissinger, and what Kurd can forget Kissinger?

If the Democrats don't obstruct the Gates nomination, it will be very enlightening, because by Thursday after the elections, Scowcroft (the friendly face of the pashas and Deep State in America) was already in Ankara, and meeting with just about every "business" organization to finalize the thawing of the US-Turkish relationship. Naturally, he was there as the head of the ATC. I posted a little about this yesterday, but here's a roundup of the Scowcroft visit since then:

Talking Iraq with Brent Scowcroft

Turkish-American trade relations to be developed

US exploring Turkey's potential, says Scowcroft

Check this also, from Rumsfeld departure ends 'March 1 process' with Turkey:

But Rumsfeld's planned successor, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Robert Gates, belongs to a totally different school. He was a protégée of former president George H. W. Bush, and he has never worked in the president's administration.Gates is part of a "realist" camp in the Republican Party, whose most prominent members include James Baker, secretary of state for the elder Bush, and Brent Scowcroft, the elder Bush's national security adviser. Gates' close relationship with Scowcroft, who also heads the American-Turkish Council, an organization of mainly large U.S. companies doing business with Turkey, could be a plus from the perspective of relations with Ankara, some analysts suggest.

Turkish-language media, at this moment, is carrying virtually all the same news.

Big lies from the Turks:

After the closed-door meeting [with Scowcroft], TABA President Uğur Terzioğlu told reporters that during the meeting the issue of Turkey and the United States moving closer in every field was discussed. with particular emphasis on the commercial, military and political areas. He said that while in previous years only the issue of military cooperation was raised, today cooperation in tourism, textile and energy was being discussed. He underlined that TABA was not a political association and that it was aiming to increase friendship and cooperation at every stage between Turkey and the United States as well as to bring American capital to Turkey.

More closeness sought in US-Turkish relations


Right, it's all about friendship and closeness, hugs and kisses. We're all best friends; we're all members of one big, happy, loving, non-dysfunctional family.

You know, when they say stupid things like that, the only thing my mind flashes on is Barney. Scowcroft and his Turkish counterparts must be really stupid if they think that we are stupid enough to believe this drivel about friendship. There is no such thing as friendship in politics or business.


More big lies, from New US Congress to pose more troubles for Turkey:

There will also likely be adverse implications of the Democratic takeover of Congress for Turkey, although Turkey is never an actor in U.S. domestic politics, Turkish diplomats fear.

The last time that Scowcroft visited Ankara as head of ATC was in December, 2005, at the same time that Muller (FBI) and Goss (CIA) were making their pilgrimages to the regime. All of that was in preparation for Rice's visit in April, at which time she gave the US blessing for Turkish and Iranian attacks against the Kurdish people, and set the stage for Gul's visit to DC in July, when the US-Turkish Strategic Vision document was finalized.

Scowcroft's running off to Ankara immediately after the elections therefore indicates to me that big changes are on the horizon, and if Scowcroft's lapdog, Gates, becomes the Secretary of Defense, expect continued Deep State involvement in US domestic politics.


I wanted to point out something else from Lukery, which was the passing away this last week of CBS newsman, Ed Bradley. Back in 2002, Ed Bradley conducted an interview with Sibel Edmonds for 60 Minutes. Lukery managed to find a series of Youtube videos that contain the footage of the interview, and he posted them all, here. I highly recommend the interview series because it's a reminder of Big Lie #2 above, to wit: "Turkey is never an actor in U.S. domestic politics." Also keep in mind that Muller (FBI) was one of those to hot-foot it to Ankara almost a year ago. Each one of the videos is no more than 4 minutes or so.

Lukery also made another post on the interview contents, here.



Having said that, there's another reason why Ed Bradley should be remembered by Kurds, and that is that he's one of the few mainstream media people, and I think 60 Minutes was the only American TV news program to air an interview with Abdullah Ocalan, way back in 1996. The gist of the interview was American arms sales to Turkey and the conflict against the Kurdish people, so there are others interviewed, too. For example:

ED BRADLEY: Few could argue with scenes like this. German television was documenting this 1992 Kurdish holiday celebration in Cizre, when government troops opened fire. At least four civilians were killed. Yet in the face of mounting evidence of military repression of Kurds, the Turkish Government categorically denies any wrongdoing.

ONUR OYMAN: Can you believe, for a moment, that a democratic country can kill its own women and children?

ED BRADLEY: It's happened.

ONUR OYMAN: Just -- just -- just to -- to accuse terrorists? It's against common sense. It's against our traditions. It's against our way of life. And you cannot find such cases throughout our history. We are not criminals. We are not barbarians in Turkey.

Blah, blah, blah, Onur.

The unprovoked massacre by the Ankara regime against the unarmed civilians of Cizîr in 1992, and other massacres at the same time in other parts of Şirnex, inlcuding the city itself, was something that I mentioned in yesterday's post. Ed Bradley's report, from 60 Minutes in January, 1996, is titled "An American Dilemma." It was Kevin McKiernan who arranged the interview with Ocalan for 60 Minutes. Read more about that here.

Thanks to the work of those journalists like Ed Bradley, Kevin McKiernan, or Aliza Marcus, no one in the US leadership or media can claim they didn't know.

MASSACRES, ELECTIONS, AND BUSINESSMEN

"Hatip Dicle, chairman of the Human Rights Association of Diyarbakir, gave a number of examples including the massacre of 27 women and children in the village of Gere, near Sirnak, on June 10, on a visit to London16. Dicle pointed out that he was liable to prosecution under the new Anti-Terror Law for mentioning these crimes."
~ Eric Lord Avebury, "Turkey's Kurdish Policy in the Nineties".

Check out the bold-faced hypocrisy coming from Abdullah Gul, courtesy TDN:

Gül calls world for action against Israel’s ‘massacre’
Friday, November 10, 2006

ANKARA - Turkish Daily News

Describing Israeli attacks on Palestinians as massacre, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül in strongly worded remarks has called on Israel to immediately halt its "disproportionate and inexcusable" operations while also calling on the international community to take action against the massacre.

Gül's remarks came on Thursday in Parliament during a General Assembly meeting in response to Süleyman Gündüz of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), who said: The world is deaf and dumb. … Israel's goal is to destroy the people living in Gaza. The name of this is not war. You give it a name. This is destruction of a society, systematically and deliberately.

I wonder what name the Islamist Foreign Minister would give to Şirnex? Let's take a little trip down memory lane, shall we?

In Turkey, it is always difficult to establish whether events in the southeast are the result of political decisions by the government, or whether they are the product of local decisions by the military. In this case, it appears that the confrontation had been ordained by President Ozal himself. In late January 1992 he had declared that "the Armed Forces with super power will go to the region next term. This will be an extraordinary power. These forces will not let the bandits live there....".

In Cizre, the security forces opened fire on unarmed revellers singing and dancing in the streets, killing an estimated 12 people and injuring many more. In Sirnak also, the military fired on civilian crowds and individuals, killing 22 and again injuring dozens more. The governor of Sirnak, Mustafa Malay, told a visiting delegation on April 19, 1992, that it was said that between 500 and 1,500 armed guerrillas had entered the town on March 21, but he conceded that 'the security forces did not establish their targets properly and caused great damage to civilian houses'26. The delegation, of which the author was a member, concluded that 'violence was used by the armed forces and the police against unarmed demonstrators in Sirnak and Cizre on March 21, 1992, resulting in many deaths and serious injuries.... In Sirnak, the armed forces and police went on the rampage over a period of some 22 hours from March 21 to 22, bombarding houses, shops and offices, and causing civilian casualties'.27

The Newroz festivities left at least 91 people dead in three towns of the southeast, Cizre, Sirnak and Nusaybin, and 9 others elsewhere in the region28, and according to Helsinki Watch, 'all or nearly all of the casualties resulted from unprovoked, unnecessary and unjustified attacks by Turkish security forces against peaceful Kurdish civilian demonstrators'.29 The author can extend that conclusion to Sirnak as well, except that some of the seriously injured victims there had been hit in their own homes, and one, 16 year old Ms Biseng Anik, was murdered in custody.

[ . . . ]

Where investigations have been undertaken, it is clear that the great preponderance of terrorist acts against the civilian population have been perpetrated by the security forces themselves. These are no mere incidental breaches of discipline at lower echelons, but systematic military operations involving large forces, sanctioned at the highest levels of government. One such operation, the effects of which were seen by the author, was the destruction of the town of Sirnak in a 41-hour blitz from the evening of August 18, 1992, to midday on August 20.

According to Interior Minister Ismet Sezgin, the PKK had attacked Sirnak and bombed the city for two days, calling it the resistance of the people to state forces36. He said that 1,500 terrorists were reported to have been involved in the assault, the objective of which was to capture the town and hold it for a short time. In one foreign account of this incident, it was claimed that '700 militants.... held the town for around 40 hours..... This .....naturally attracted a full-scale counterattack by the army..'37 In reality, the bombardment was entirely unprovoked, as was shown by the fact that not a single dead terrorist was produced at the end of the 41 hours, nor were there any spent cartridge cases belonging to the militants. Minister Sezgin explained this by saying that the PKK carried their dead away, but it was not credible that evidence of their presence could have been totally erased by the survivors. The authorities claimed that three soldiers and a police officer were killed, all on the evening of August 18, and none during the two days of shooting and shelling that followed, in which 17 civilians were killed, and widespread damage was caused to private property, though not to government buildings38.

The effect of operations of this kind, and smaller scale assaults on hundreds of villages, has been to provoke a mass movement of the population, to the shanty towns of the regional capital, Diyarbakir, to the western parts of Turkey, and to foreign countries, particularly Germany. 25,000 people fled Sirnak, and this was not a mere unintended by-product of the attempt to defeat the PKK militarily, but part of a strategy, articulated by President Ozal just afterwards when he said: 'Many problems would be solved much more easily if 500,000 people left here and settled in the west'39.

[ . . . ]

The government counters all criticism of human rights violations by attempts to deflect attention towards the attacks on non-combatants perpetrated by the PKK, which must be condemned, and by falsely and maliciously ascribing massacres committed by the security forces to the PKK. There is a residue of circumstantial evidence against the PKK in the case of some atrocities, notably against the families of village guards, informers, and in one case, of six teachers, but for most of this information, researchers have had to rely on the indirect testimony of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, because the Emergency Rule Governor would not allow meetings with witnesses103.

Who is the author here? Eric Lord Avebury, Chairman of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, and the paper was presented to the Middle East Studies Association in Washington, DC, in December, 1995.

(Lord Avebury also has his own blog, proving that you are never too old to do this kind of thing)

Lord Avebury is describing just a few events here, but the list of these kinds of atrocities, perpetrated by the Ankara regime against the Kurdish people, can fill volumes. Here we have the Turkish army massacring 12 unarmed Kurdish civilians and wounding more, on Newroz, 1992, in Cizîr. At the same time in Şirnex, the Turkish military and police went on a 22-hour "rampage," destroying much of the city, massacring 22 unarmed Kurdish civilians, and wounding dozens more. The bloodbath totaled 91 dead during that year's Newroz, all of whom were purposely targeted by the Ankara regime because they committed the crime of having been born Kurds.

What name do you give that, Mr. Gul?

In August, 1992, Lord Avebury witnessed for himself the effects of the Ankara regime's destruction of the Kurdish city of Şirnex, after Turkish security forces bombarded it for 41 hours--almost two days of completely unprovoked bombing. Where was the international community then? Turgut Ozal, the Islamist president at the time, admitted that these unprovoked, ruthless attacks against the Kurdish people were part of an ethnic cleansing plan, but where in the hell was the international community?

What name do you give that, Mr. Gul? How about the name of genocide?

The intention to genocide the Kurdish people continues as one of the goals of the Ankara regime, and that cue came from Islamist Prime Minister Erdogan during the Amed Serhildan, last March, when he promised that security forces would shoot all "terrorists" even if they were women and children. Of course, we all know that Erdogan is nothing more than Buyukanit's lapdog.

For his work on behalf of the Kurdish people, Lord Avebury was named persona non grata by the genocidal, US-backed Turkish regime. More by Lord Avebury here, on European reaction to beheaded Kurdish gerîlas and the blind eye the world has turned to the genocide of Kurds by the Ankara regime.

In other news, it looks like Brent Scowcroft and a compadre from the ATC have high-tailed it off to Istanbul in the wake of the American elections. Circle the wagons, boys! It looks like Pelosi means business when she says she's gonna pass an Armenian Genocide resolution in Congress, from Thursday, also in TDN:

"I have supported legislation ... that would properly acknowledge the Armenian genocide. It is imperative that the United States recognize this atrocity and move to renew our commitment to eliminate genocide whenever and wherever it exists. This effort enjoys strong bipartisan support in the House, and I will continue to support these efforts in the 110th Congress," Pelosi said in a recent message to a prominent U.S. Armenian publisher.

OUCH!!

I wonder how much the ATC figures it's gonna cost to buy Pelosi? Inquiring minds wanna know. There's also a funny line in that article about how Turkey never involves itself with American domestic politics, which is another example of big, fat Turkish lies. I have only one thing to say about that: tell it to Sibel Edmonds.

Hehehe . . . wouldn't you just love to have been a fly on the wall in that ATC meeting with the Turkish-American Business Association (TABA)? TABA president, Ugur Terzioglu, explained that TABA does more than just military stuff these days, and that the organization isn't at all political. They're just businessmen. Sure, just like Joseph Ralston is just a businessman for Lockheed Martin and doesn't do politics.

I know I believe them.

Speaking of the pashas favorite businessman, it looks like Ozgur Gundem has a nice report on Joseph Ralston's conflict of interest called, "Is it Weapons Coordination?" Check it out at Ozgur Gundem online , and many thanks to the friend who brought this to my attention.

Serkeftin!

VICTORY IN NEPAL

"Nobody has lost, this is the people’s victory and nobody should be upset with this development."
~ Nepalese Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, The Himalayan Times.

Wow! The Maoist rebels in Nepal are in final negotiations with the government over a peace agreement that will end the conflict in that country, from the Christian Science Monitor:

It took five months of peace initiatives, several piecemeal agreements, and 17 hours of marathon talks for Nepal's government to finally hammer out a comprehensive agreement with Maoist rebels in the wee hours of Wednesday morning. The deal brought an end to this country's armed insurgency, which began in 1996 and left more than 13,000 dead.

[ . . . ]

Even amid the protracted peace dialogue, rebels extended a cease-fire three times, and top rebel leaders began speaking in public with increasing regularity. The Maoists' sense of security and confidence in the final weeks leading up to the agreement, analysts say, leaves little doubt of their commitment to promoting multiparty democracy.

"The well-drafted document has addressed all quarters and put a final seal on peace," says Narayan Wagle, editor of Kantipur, Nepal's largest daily. "With the agreements, Nepal is on a definite course to lasting peace. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The people will feel this the day the weapons of the rebels are locked up."

What really floors me, though, are the political arrangements:

The agreement also provides for one of the more contentious elements of the negotiations: the eventual formation of an interim government.

By Nov. 26, an interim parliament will add 73 seats for Maoist rebels. The parliament will be dissolved by mid-2007, replaced by a popularly elected 425-member constituent assembly that will draft a new constitution to determine the future of the monarchy.

The two sides have also agreed to sign a comprehensive peace accord by Nov. 16, which will include provisions to compensate the families of those killed or maimed during the conflict, rehabilitate displaced civilians, and form a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to deal with cases of serious human rights violations.

Geez. . . paradise is coming to Nepal, and with a truth and reconciliation commission, no less.

In Nepal, there has been fighting for ten years and there are more than 13,000 dead; In Turkey, there has been fighting for 22 years and there are 40,000 dead. In Nepal, the government finally wanted peace badly enough to avoid throwing themselves on the War on Terror® bandwagon, and begin a negotiated, peaceful settlement instead. On the other hand, Turkey, a fascist state and aspiring EU member, is so fearful of it's own citizens that it still enforces a constitution written by generals to protect the state from the people. Turkey is a nation of cowards, most unlike Nepal.

Now let me ask you this: Why isn't the US over there bombing the negotiations, because, after all, the Maoists are "terrorists," right? I'm really disappointed in the American defense industry, especially Lockheed Martin, for not finding a way to extend the global War on Terror® to Nepal, and turn a few dozen billion bucks on the deal at the same time.

They need to send Joseph Ralston over there immediately, if not sooner, and I'm sure he'll be able to set those Nepalese on the straight and narrow for the noble sake of world peace and to make the world safe for democracy.

In the meantime, what's the rundown in Kurdistan? The Lockheed Martin/US government entity--I have to put it that way because I don't know where one ends and the other begins--has rejected the fifth unilateral PKK ceasefire, has closed a $2.9 billion deal for Turkey's stop-gap F-16s until they can finalize their $10 billion deal on Turkey's new F-35s. The Lockheed Martin/US government entity has removed all possibility of negotiations with PKK, refuses an IRA model for peace, and would most certainly reject any model based on the Nepal model. . . especially since it's actually allowing for the formation of an interim parliament that will make room for 73 Maoist rebels.

I mean, can you imagine the Ankara regime making room in the TBMM for Abdullah Ocalan, Murat Karayilan, Duran Kalkan, and Cemil Bayik, among others? I can't even imagine them making room for DTP mayors and provincial chairmen, much less for PKK leadership.

So who are the losers here? Well, there are no losers in Nepal that I can see at the moment. Both the government and the rebels have worked with each other to arrive at their joint historic moment. There are no losers in the mountains of Kurdistan, or in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, because those are the places where everyone is willing to negotiate something like the Nepal model.

In the Kurdistan model, the losers are in Ankara and Washington.


For more on the victory in Nepal, see these links:

The Himalayan Times
The Independent
ReliefWeb Backgrounder
BBC

TO SWING OR NOT TO SWING, AND WHEN?

"Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting."
~ Julian Borger, The Guardian.

The Anfal trial resumed today with Saddam, in his best Jekyll-and-Hyde imitation, calling for Iraqis and Kurds to love each other. However, it appears that Saddam may not even see the end of the Anfal trial, from the NY Times:

But events outside the court appear to have moved sharply against his prospects of seeing the Anfal trial through. When plans for the trials were laid in 2004, American and Iraqi officials envisaged a series of trials at which the full range of brutalities committed during his 24 years in power would be laid out in court. The plan called for Mr. Hussein to appear as the principal defendant in at least three or four cases, along with a shifting cast of associates drawn from 80 other so-called high-value detainees held with him in American custody at the Camp Cropper military detention center near Baghdad airport.

What has changed the plan is the worsening war. Senior Iraqi officials, including the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, believe that Mr. Hussein, alive, remains a potent rallying point for Sunni insurgents fighting American troops and the American-backed, Shiite-led government. Senior American officials, too, say that using a series of trials to fix Mr. Hussein’s personal responsibility for a wide range of atrocities is now a lower priority in face of the Sunni rebels’ unrelenting fight to regain the power the Sunni minority lost with Mr. Hussein’s ouster.

So the Americans, for the sake of their own interests, are planning on dropping Saddam from the gallows before he drops a dime on them. In other words, it's much safer for the US and the rest of the international community that Saddam be dispatched before evidence of wholehearted support for him sees the light of day in an Iraqi courtroom.

Meanwhile, Christopher Hitchens hypocritically attempts to take the moral high ground on the matter by issuing a plea for mercy for Saddam. He references the "merciful" regime in Ankara while failing to mention the renewal of the Dirty War against the Kurds--and America's role in it under the facade of War on Terror®. Rejecting the technicality of the law, Hitchens also rejects "closure," from Slate:

There is another argument that has nothing to do with law. It concerns the bizarre word closure. A better word might be catharsis.[ . . . ] Iraq is a country absolutely febrile with rumor and paranoia: I never cease to be amazed at the way in which people's expressions still change into a flicker of fear when the name of their sadistic former boss is even so much as mentioned. Millions of people will not even start to relax until they are absolutely sure that the great werewolf will not come back. (This salutary effect was also palpable in Romania, once people became certain that the pictures of Nicolae Ceausescu's death had not been faked.) In this sense, you could argue that hanging the chief butcher and torturer would be an act of mass emancipation. But this still seems to me to be more like an exorcism than an execution—a concession to superstition and primitive emotion. And we have enough of both in today's Iraq.

Hitchens tries to make an argument about the possible destruction of evidence as part-and-parcel of the possible destruction of Saddam, but this rings hollow. No one bothered to collect "evidence" at Helebçe, did they? So now we have people suffering tremendously from the effects of the mixture of chemicals used against the people of Helebçe and the surrounding area, and evidence would have helped to make proper diagnoses of them now. Where was all this concern for evidence in 1988? Let's refresh our memories, shall we?

Rumsfeld’s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed “topics of mutual interest,” according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. “[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,” Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. “It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.”

Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States “in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to U.S. interests’ and has made several moves to prevent that result.”

[ . . . ]

In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.”

[ . . . ]

Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying “available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons.”

[ . . . ]

In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world’s attention to Saddam’s chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had “available evidence” Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing.

Sorry, Mr. Hitchens. Save your moaning from atop Mt. Self-Righteousness for someone else and don't bother to get in your digs at liberals at Kurdish expense, because from our little history lesson, and the NY Times, it looks like the Kurds are the people that every conservative in the world is getting ready to betray. Again.

For more commentary on the Saddam Dujail verdict, see Robert Fisk's opinion at the Independent. Thank you, Lukery.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR TORTURE

"Under the policy, is waterboarding prohibited? In waterboarding, the prisoner is tied head-down on an inclined board, cellophane or a cloth is wrapped over his face, and water is poured over him. The technique produces an overwhelming and agonizing sensation of drowning."
~ Human Rights Watch, "Fifteen Questions for the U.S. Government".

FOX News ran a public service announcement for waterboarding recently. Don't know what "waterboarding" is? You can check out Wikipedia or you can watch FOX's PSA right here:

Late last month, the claim was made that the US doesn't use torture, but in light of the new Military Commissions Act, I find that difficult to believe, from the AP, courtesy of Yahoo:

Snow [Tony Snow, Whitehouse spokesman], at a morning meeting with reporters, tried to brush off the controversy.

"You know as a matter of common sense that the vice president of the United States is not going to be talking about water boarding. Never would, never does, never will," Snow said. "You think Dick Cheney's going to slip up on something like this? No, come on."

Snow said Cheney did not interpret the question as referring to water boarding and the vice president did not make any comments about water boarding. He said the question put to Cheney was loosely worded.

In water boarding, a prisoner is tied to a board with his head slanted down and a towel covering his face. Water is then poured on his face to create the sensation of drowning.

The administration has repeatedly refused to say which techniques it believes are permitted under a new law. Asked to define a dunk in water, Snow said, "It's a dunk in the water."

At a televised briefing later, the questions turned tougher and more pointed.

"The vice president says he was talking in general terms about a questioning program that is legal to save American lives, and he was not referring to water boarding," Snow said.

Yet, the spokesman conceded, "I can understand that people will look at this and draw the conclusions that you're trying to draw."

Semantics. . . whether you want to call it "a dunk," or "waterboarding," or just plain, old-fashioned "drowning," the effect is the same. Since there is absolutely no clarity with regard to torture in the fascist law referred to as the Military Commissions Act, then why should we believe the regime? The fact is that torture produces tainted evidence and should never be permitted in court. But I guess that under the Military Commissions Act, there is no court, is there?

After watching the video, do you think Steve Harrigan could have been persuaded to admit to anything demanded of him, if for no other reason than to stop the torture? Does it matter that he's "okay" afterwards?

It's amazing that the fascist FOX News channel would actually air something like this, telling us, "Look guys! Everything's okay! It's just a little water up the nose!" How about a little falakka, Steve? Or perhaps the application of electricity to the scrotum? You'll be fine afterwards--trust me. The only reason FOX and the American regime are promoting waterboarding is that it doesn't leave nearly as much evidence as, say, a little anal rape with a truncheon.

And if you read the AP article, you could clearly see that the American people endorse torture. Hence the new American anti-terror law was signed into law with little protest over here.

Don't believe the Democratic hypocrisy which says that they're the party of No Torture. How did the Military Commissions Act pass Congress if they weren't for it too? Need further evidence? Do a little checking of the Carter administration's policies in Central America, or the Clinton administration's arms sales to Turkey.

And if you're one of those who's planning to cast your vote in tomorrow's midterm elections, remember this: No matter who you vote for, the State still wins!

TOLHILDAN OF LAUSANNE

“Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it [is] he who is asked.”
~ Victor Fankl.

It may come as a surprise to those who don't know any better, but PKK's ranks have never been closed to non-Kurds. There's an interesting story that came out last weekend in Der Kleine Bund about a non-Kurd who joined HPG. He is the subject of a documentary by Kurdish filmmaker, Mano Khalil.

According to Der Kleine Bund, David Rouillet was born into a well-to-do family in Lausanne, Switzerland, the same place from which the Treaty of Lausanne gets it name. David's father was a professor, former president of the Federal Court in Lausanne, lawyer and judge. His mother studied economics and actuarial science while his brother followed in their father's footsteps and became a lawyer.

David became interested in political science and active on behalf of minorities and the disadvantaged. It was probably through his political activism that David grew close to Kurdish circles in Switzerland, and traveled with a group of Kurds to Rome in 1998, to show solidarity with the Kurdish people's leader, Abdullah Ocalan. By that time, David had already been a regular at other Kurdish demonstrations.

David disappeared at the end of December, 2001, after telling his family he was making a trip to Paris. An SMS text message with greetings to his mother was the last that the family heard of David until August, 2004, when David made telephone contact with his family for the first time since his disappearance.

The Rouiller family had quietly contacted the police two months after the disappearance, and then turned to the International Committtee of the Red Cross. David's Kurdish acquaintances were also contacted, but no information was forthcoming.

It wasn't until the family made contact with Ismet Sherif Wanly that the truth of David's disappearance began to dawn on them. It was through this Kurdish intellectual that the family slowly learned that David had left for Kurdistan in late 2001, and that he was most likely living in the Kurdish mountains. The phone call from David in August, 2004, seemed to confirm that David had, in fact, become a freedom fighter for the Kurdish cause--an HGP gerîla.

David's mother, Ursula Rouiller, became determined to go to the Kurdish mountains to see her son, the gerîla. By accident, at a small film festival in Lausanne, somehow the Rouillers and Mano Khalil formed a common cause. Ursula Rouiller was willing to risk everything to go to the mountains; Mano Khalil was interested in David's story, and it was through Khalil, that Ursula did make her way to the mountains. Khalil agreed to go to Kurdistan to look for David at the end of 2005. By April, 2006, Mano Khalil caught up with David in a remote camp in the Kurdish mountains, and captured his story on videotape.

David's family was relieved to see and hear David in the documentary. The agony of not knowing his fate was over.

A few weeks after Khalil's return to Switzerland, with video footage of David, he returned to the mountains with Ursula Rouiller. David's mother did not go to the mountains to "make a scene" or to reproach him for his decision, although it was clear that the family had suffered much in not knowing what had happened to him. Perhaps the desire in Ursula's heart was a desire similar to those who long for a loved one after a sudden, unexpected death. She only wanted to see David one more time with her own eyes, to reassure herself that he was alright. For her, seeing him was enough; nothing else existed in the world.

She was received in a "friendly manner" by David's comrades, no doubt with all the legendary Kurdish hospitality that the extreme circumstances could afford. David acted as translator between his mother and his comrades. Ursula also found the assurance that David was not held against his will, but that he was free to return to his family at any time he so chose, with the help of HPG.

So David's family hopes. But Mano Khalil believes that David found something in the Kurdish mountains that is missing from the "paradise" of Switzerland, and the West--friendship, comradery, living in modesty, possessing nothing, and never knowing what the next day will bring. In other words, life stripped to its essence, and a rejection of the egoism of a Western society which is built on individualism. David's transformation is complete; he no longer speaks of "the Kurdish people," but of "our people."

David "of the Tolhildan" (Vengeance), as he is referred to in the documentary, has become a Kurd, and it may be more appropriate to refer to him as Tolhildan. Throughout David's transformation, it is apparent that it was David making the choices. Even the choice of renaming, symbolizing the transformation, was David's.

Tolhildan connects with his father and brother through the documentary, explaining that the ideals which they stand for in their practice of law, are the same ideals that he stands for, and acts on, as a Kurdish gerîla: as a defender of justice for an oppressed people, to obtain for them the rights that are theirs by virtue of their dignity as human beings.

Claude Rouiller, Tolhildan's father, gives his blessing to his son's choices through the words: "If my son has found meaning through this work he is doing, then I am the happiest person in the world. Even though some might not like this, I am proud of him."

For the entire article, in German, see the first page of "Our Son, the Guerrilla," from Der Kleine Bund, and the second page. See also an item from Hurriyet.



Tolhildan's story reminded me of another non-Kurd, one who became a şehîd for Kurdistan: Ronahî (Andrea Wolf), and since she was martyred in the month of November, it's fitting to remember her. See "November: A Film Treatment", by Hito Steyerl, Şehîd Ronahî's best friend. Note the statement of a former fighter:

The whole war zone of North Kurdistan is a white spot on the map. The war took place in a vacuum. There are no witnesses. And in this situation everything is possible. Everything which hurts your soul everything is possible, all the bad things you could imagine are possible, and they all happened there, too.I could smell the smell of war in all it´s facets right from the start. It was absolutely mandatory to carry weapons at that time. It was emotionally repulsive for me to carry weapons, because it was clear that these are not accessories like a filmcamera, but weapons have an extremely precise purpose.

And the struggle continues . . .

FELLOW TRAVELERS, FUNDAMENTALISTS, AND FLOODS

"Even if I saw with my own eyes that the state had burned a village, I would not believe it. Do not think that every helicopter you see is ours. It could be a PKK helicopter. It could also be a Russian, Afghan, or Armenian helicopter."
~ Tansu Ciller, former Prime Minister of Turkey, Cumhuriyet, October 28, 1994.

First item of the day . . .

Thanks to Hevallo, word about Ralston is breaking into the Armenian blogosphere, with Artyom at iararat posting the news. Onnik Krikorian, who has done some fabulous work reporting and photographing the Kurds in Armenia, includes a mention of Artyom's post and quotes more of the information from Hevallo's blog. Check Onnik's excellent blog, Oneworld Multimedia for more.

Bijî Ermenistan!

Second item of the day . . .

A week ago, an item appeared in TNA, discussing the then upcoming meeting of the MGK (took place on Tuesday of this week). Apparently, the topic of conversation at that cosy little gathering was the rise of religious fundamentalism in Turkey, with the groundwork for the meeting having been laid previously in recent public speeches of the Pashas and a visit between Gul and Land Forces Commander Basbug. Those two discussed issues related to anti-"terrorism."

What's my point? My point is that the pashas have their panties in knots over the fact of rising religious fundamentalism in Turkey, yet they were the very ones who encouraged the rise in the first place, with their Turkish-Islamic synthesis. Good Kemalists, aren't they? While they talk the talk on secularism and the prophylactic use of "rationalism and scientific knowledge" to combat the threat--yeah, Basbug actually used that argument--and while Naval Forces Commander Karahanoglu pontificated on the "plot" between global capitalism, imperialism--yeah, he actually said "imperialism"--and fundamentalism, not a single one of them walks the walk on secularism.

They can't. I mean, hell, they were the ones who said, in effect, "If there will be Islamism in Turkey, we will bring the Islamism," and they did.

So check out what Yusuf Kanli at TDN has to say on the matter today (without choking over the mention of the right to demonstrate; you've been warned):

Do we remember what happened after the 1960 coup? How many of us have read about the sufferings of the intellectuals during that military period? Wasn't the policy of the coup administrations in the interventions of 1960, 1971 and 1980 to encourage Islamic feelings as a shield against communist and leftist ideas? How many of us recall that Islamic courses became a compulsory element of school curricula after the 1980 takeover? That is, those members of the establishment who are so worried about the advance of Islamists in this country must know better than anyone else that the advance of political Islam in Turkey largely owes its success to the military administrations and the military-installed interim governments.

Geez . . . I can't believe it. I actually agree with the guy here. And let's all remember who backed the 1980 coup, shall we? All of them were the ones who incubated this problem. The only real Kemalist, when it comes to secularism, or "rationalism and scientific knowledge" to combat this threat, is sitting in Imrali. Pretty damned ironic.

And speaking of those who helped craft and carry out the September 12 coup, it seems that US National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, went to Salahaddin to talk to the KDP about "security issues." See TNA for more.

What a jackass this Hadley guy is. He should maybe go to Baghdad where they actually do have "security issues," don't you think? I wonder if he told Kak Masûd to take down the Kurdistan flag?

Last item of the day . . .

There has been some terrible flooding in Turkey, including in internal colony Kurdistan. Reuters reports that it's the worst flooding since the year the Ankara regime slaughtered 40,000 Kurds in the Dersim Serhildan (1937). 6,000 people have been evacuated in Êlih (Batman) and damage in the province is estimated at $8.7 million. You know it's gotta be bad if that's the estimate, because there isn't that much in the province.

Almost 7,000 people were evacuated in Riha (Sanliurfa). Most of the Cinar district of Amed (Diyarbakir) is under water.

IHT has more, as does TDN and TNA.

The best lines in the Reuters report are from Milliyet:

The newspaper Milliyet attributed the high death toll in the southeast to shoddy construction and creaking infrastructure.

"Neglect, not fate," its headline read above a picture of flooded streets.

Wrong.

The word "neglect" implies that stuff just deteriorated when you weren't paying attention, but in this case the Ankara regime has been paying close attention to "the predominately Kurdish region" for a very long time. The Ankara regime has, for decades, purposely impoverished and destroyed Kurdistan as a part of it's racist program of occupation. That is the only reason that 33 Kurdish lives have already been lost in this disaster. Who knows how many more will perish, thanks to the fascist Ankara regime, before the rains are over with?

By the way, make sure you check the TNA article at the end where it outlines the damage in Turkey proper (the West). There's a little property damage, but no human casualties.

MCKIERNAN ON THE RALSTON AFFAIR

" . . . [T]he civil strife in Turkey has received comparatively little coverage in the U.S. media. Television news rarely mentions the Kurds, unless the story relates to the Iraqi Kurds. It is almost as though there are two sets of Kurds--the Kurds in Iraq, who seem to be viewed as the "good" Kurds because they oppose Saddam, and the Kurds in Turkey, who are "bad" because they oppose a U.S. ally. It doesn't seem to matter that there are four times as many Kurds in Turkey . . . "
~ Kevin McKiernan, "Turkey's War on the Kurds".

That great friend of the "bad" Kurds, Kevin McKiernan, has raised his voice once again in justice, this time over the Ralston affair:

MOST PEOPLE would agree that it's bad ethics for government officials to invest in companies that they regulate. But what about a US special envoy to a Middle East trouble spot who happens to be a director of an arms company selling weapons to one of the parties in the conflict?

That's the case of retired Air Force General Joseph Ralston, who was appointed by the Bush administration in August to help US ally Turkey counter the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK , the Kurdish rebels who are seeking autonomy from Turkey and have bases in northern Iraq. Ralston, a former NATO supreme allied commander, has been negotiating with Turkish generals and Iraqi leaders since his appointment to develop measures to eliminate the bases.

The problem is that General Ralston is on the board of Lockheed Martin, the world's largest arms maker, which just last month finalized a $2.9 billion sale for advanced F-16 fighters that may well be used in the Kurdish region (the State Department acknowledges that F-16 s were involved in human rights abuses in Turkey in the 1990s). This gives the ex-general the appearance of holding a financial interest in his shuttle diplomacy.

[ . . . ]

Both the United States and the European Union regard the PKK as terrorists, but the group finds support among Turkey's long-abused Kurds. At the same time, Kurds who hoped the Turkish government would grant educational and broadcasting rights were disappointed in 2004 when the PKK ended its unilateral, five-year cease-fire and went back to war.

Now Turkey and the Kurds appear to be on a new collision course, and Lockheed Martin, General Ralston's company, may play a pivotal role.

Read the entire op/ed at the Boston Globe.

Gelek sipas, Hevallo, for the heads' up, the link, and for posting McKiernan's piece.

Kevin McKiernan mentions something that we have long suspected as the Turkish goal--Turkish occupation of oil-rich Kerkuk. Additionally, since the discovery of other oil reserves in other parts of South Kurdistan, such as in the Zaxo area, a full occupation of South Kurdistan by the Ankara regime would sweeten their efforts. A Turkish occupation of South Kurdistan would be sanctioned by Washington because it would place the oilfields in the hands of America's great Turkish ally.

Would the icing on this cake be increased sales for Lockheed Martin and the rest of the buzzards in the defense industry, as part of a Washington/Ankara-Axis-of-Evil manufactured war?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

What's Heval Kevin's conclusion?

With the looming threat of civil or even wider war in the region, the United States needs a skilled, disinterested negotiator to resolve the PKK issue, while finding a peaceful solution to legitimate Kurdish grievances.

Our new man in Ankara will be seen as an arms merchant in diplomat's clothing. He should be replaced.

Couldn't agree more.

For more developments on the Ralston affair, with comments, check DemocraticUnderground and DailyKos. Many thanks to Heval Lukery for his great help in trying to spread the word.