Mr. Bush's cream puff Middle East policy: hard and flaky surface;sweet, undifferentiated, mushy ins

As usual, the Bush administration has reacted to these predictable problems in a

purely ad hoc manner. There is no evidence that anyone in the administration has

crafted a policy for dealing with tensions between Ankara and America's Kurdish

allies. The U.S. State Department has designated the PKK a terrorist group, but the

PKK is given safe harbor by the Kurdistan Regional Authority of northern Iraq. What

will Bush do about having wound up as the de facto protector of a radical peasant

guerrilla group that is attacking the troops of a NATO ally? If the United States acts

against the PKK, it risks alienating the Iraqi Kurds, whose pro-American peshmerga

fighters perform security duties and enlist as troops in the new Iraqi army. If Bush

does not restrain the PKK, then he is playing Mullah Omar to its al-Qaida and

"harboring" terrorists, which he trumpeted six years ago as grounds for war.

ed. note -> I wonder if pundits like Charlie Rose will Question Condaleeza Rice

about this the next time she is on his show? <-

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/24/kurds/

By Juan Cole Oct. 24, 2007 |

The Bush administration once imagined that its presence in Afghanistan and Iraq

would be anchored by friendly neighbors, Turkey to the west and Pakistan to the east.

Last week, as the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to deteriorate, the

anchors themselves also came loose.

On Sunday, just days after the Turkish Parliament authorized an invasion of Iraqi

Kurdistan, Kurdish guerrillas ambushed and killed 17 Turkish soldiers inside Turkey.

In Karachi, Pakistan, a massive bomb nearly killed U.S.-backed Benazir Bhutto, who was

supposed to help stabilize the country. The Bush administration's entire Middle East

policy is coming undone -- if it even has a policy left, other than just sticking its

fingers in the multiple, and multiplying, holes in the dike.

In Iraq, the Kurds of the north are the United States' most reliable allies. In

addition to the 5.5 million Kurds in Iraq, however, persons speaking dialects of

Kurdish constitute around 11 million of neighboring Turkey's 70 million citizens.

There are another 4 million Kurds next door in Iran, and up to 2 million in Syria. All

three of Iraq's northern neighbors fear that Kurdish nationalism, which has been

fostered by the U.S. occupation of Iraq, could tear them apart. Opposition to that

nationalism could provide a platform for an alliance of Syria, Turkey and Iran -- a

nightmare for the Bush administration. Washington had hoped to isolate Syria, an ally

of both Iran and of Hezbollah in Lebanon. That's not how it is turning out.

Even after Turkey declined to sign on to the Iraq war, then U.S. Deputy Secretary of

Defense Paul Wolfowitz praised it in April 2003 as a dependable ally and secularizing

model for the Muslim world. Since then, however, Washington's relationship with Ankara

has turned increasingly sour over U.S. favoritism toward the Kurds.

The Turkish Parliament late last week passed a resolution permitting the military to

make incursions into Iraq in order to chase down guerrillas operating on both sides of

the border. Syria's Bashar al-Assad piled on, appearing to support the Turkish move,

though under pressure from Baghdad he denied he had urged an invasion. Iran also fears

Kurdish terrorism and has shelled Kurdish villages in Iraq in reprisal for guerrilla

attacks in Iranian Kurdistan. Perhaps as a quid pro quo for Syrian support against the

Kurds, Turkey offered this weekend to broker an agreement between Syria and Lebanon.

Bush's partiality to the Kurds has provided Damascus an opening for newly warm

relations with Ankara.

On Sunday, guerrillas of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) ambushed a Turkish military

convoy, killing 17 soldiers. The Turkish military counterattacked, killing 32 persons

it said were guerrillas. In Istanbul on Sunday, a thousand demonstrators came out to

denounce the PKK. In the two weeks prior to Sunday, the PKK had killed 28 Turkish

soldiers. The mustachioed president of Turkey, Abdullah Gul, a member of the

Islamist-leaning AK Party, vowed that his country would "pay any price" to protect

itself. The new tensions have roiled the world petroleum markets, hurt the Turkish

economy, and further destabilized an already violent Iraq.

The Iraqi leadership, already presiding over a failed state, agonized at being caught

in the crossfire. The Iraqi president, the avuncular Kurd Jalal Talabani,

hypocritically condemned al-Assad for urging a foreign military invasion of an Arab

country, even though he himself had supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Massoud

Barzani, the pudgy turbaned leader of the Kurdistan Regional Authority, warned that

his government would defend its citizens and not sit idly by if Turkish troops rolled

through Kurdish cities in Iraq. On Sunday, the Iraqi Parliament, having been unable to

agree on virtually any internal issue or enact any benchmark legislation, promptly

passed a resolution condemning the Turkish Parliament.

The ratcheting up of tensions between Turkey and the Kurdistan Regional Authority

threatens to throw the last relatively quiet and prosperous corner of Iraq into

turmoil. The turmoil is likely only beginning. The Iraqi Kurds are seeking to

incorporate the oil-rich province of Kirkuk into their confederacy, and there is

strong popular support for seceding from Iraq altogether. Turkish officials have

repeatedly said that either move would set off a Turkish invasion.

As usual, the Bush administration has reacted to these predictable problems in a

purely ad hoc manner. There is no evidence that anyone in the administration has

crafted a policy for dealing with tensions between Ankara and America's Kurdish

allies. The U.S. State Department has designated the PKK a terrorist group, but the

PKK is given safe harbor by the Kurdistan Regional Authority of northern Iraq. What

will Bush do about having wound up as the de facto protector of a radical peasant

guerrilla group that is attacking the troops of a NATO ally? If the United States acts

against the PKK, it risks alienating the Iraqi Kurds, whose pro-American peshmerga

fighters perform security duties and enlist as troops in the new Iraqi army. If Bush

does not restrain the PKK, then he is playing Mullah Omar to its al-Qaida and

"harboring" terrorists, which he trumpeted six years ago as grounds for war.

Meanwhile, to the east, another supposed bulwark against terror is wobbling. The Bush

administration had lovingly brokered the deal whereby Bhutto was allowed to return to

Pakistan by military dictator Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf lacks grassroots support and

has been shaken by powerful challenges from the country's supreme court, by his brutal

crackdown on Muslim militants at the Red Mosque last summer, and by his continued

inability to subdue the tribal forces and al-Qaida remnants in Waziristan and other

rugged provinces along the Afghan border.

Washington therefore became convinced that Bhutto, who heads the popular Pakistan

People's Party, might be able to come back as prime minister and cohabit with

Musharraf, who was recently elected president by the Parliament and who has pledged to

take off his uniform and rule as a civilian. Bhutto was elected prime minister twice,

serving from 1988 to 1990 and 1993 to 1996, but both stints ended amid charges of

corruption. She had lived in exile since 1999, when a military coup brought Musharraf

to power. There are open cases against her in both Pakistan and Switzerland, and

Interpol put her on an international wanted list in 2006 at the Musharraf regime's

prompting. Washington persuaded Islamabad to drop the charges against her so that she

could return.

The huge explosion that greeted Bhutto in her home turf of Karachi, however, suggests

that her arrival is hardly the remedy for Pakistan's instability. Bush administration

officials were dismayed when some in Bhutto's circle, such as still-exiled husband

Asif Ali Zardari, initially accused the Musharraf government of being implicated in

the bombing. The prospect of peace between the Bhutto camp and Musharraf's

authoritarian military has been put into question.

Bhutto herself was quick to fix the blame on al-Qaida and militants in the tribal

areas of the north. More dispassionate observers, such as Afghanistan expert Barnett

Rubin, have also suggested that the Karachi bombing may well have been planned by

militants in northern Pakistan, where the remnants of al-Qaida are thought to be

hiding out. Those areas are ethnically and politically linked to southern Afghanistan,

which has seen a resurgence of guerrilla violence.

And in Afghanistan itself, the situation is in a similar downward spiral. More than

5,000 Afghans have been killed in political violence so far this year, 600 of them

members of the police. The United States and its NATO allies in Afghanistan allege

that a revived Taliban has taken the city of Musa Qala in Helmand province. This

weekend, major gun battles in that vicinity left 50 guerrillas dead. Farther to the

east in Kunar province, Afghan and NATO troops engaged Pushtun guerrillas, killing 20,

with one civilian dead and six wounded. Just last Thursday, a Taliban ambush near

Kandahar wounded 6 NATO soldiers.

The U.S. and NATO military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Dan McNeill, has said that

between 40 and 60 percent of the Pushtun guerrilla movement is funded by opium

poppies, the source of most of Western Europe's heroin. The dilemma for the Americans

and NATO is that eradicating the lucrative poppy crops in southern Pushtun provinces

such as Helmand appears to be driving more villagers into the ranks of the revived

Taliban. Afghanistan has only some 30,000 poorly trained troops, less than half the

70,000 that NATO had planned on by this point, and the government of Hamid Karzai

shows little prospect of being able to stand against insurgents for years to come.

Along with the failed state in Iraq, which has neglected to use any decrease in

violence temporarily provided by the recent U.S. troop escalation to effect political

reconciliation, the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan raises the specter of a

collapse of both of Bush's major state-building projects. The turmoil in Turkey and

Pakistan damages U.S. relations with two allies that are key to shoring up the

countries under American occupation.

After Sept. 11, when the Bush administration launched its global "war on terror," the

United States enjoyed some clear assets in fighting the al-Qaida terrorist network. In

the Middle East, the United States had the support of secular Turkey, a NATO member.

The long relationship of the powerful Pakistani military with that of the United

States enabled Bush to turn the military dictator Musharraf against the Taliban, which

Pakistan had earlier sponsored. Shiite Iran announced that it would provide help to

the United States in its war on the hyper-Sunni Taliban regime. Baathist Syria and

Iraq, secular Arab nationalist regimes, were potential bulwarks against Sunni

radicalism in the Levant.

Like a drunken millionaire gambling away a fortune at a Las Vegas casino, the Bush

administration squandered all the assets it began with by invading Iraq and unleashing

chaos in the Gulf. The secular Baath Party in Iraq was replaced by Shiite

fundamentalists, Sunni Salafi fundamentalists and Kurdish separatists. The pressure

the Bush administration put on the Pakistani military government to combat Muslim

militants in that country weakened the legitimacy of Musharraf, whom the Pakistani

public increasingly viewed as an oppressive American puppet. Iraqi Kurdistan's

willingness to give safe haven to the PKK alienated Turkey from both the new Iraqi

government and its American patrons. Search-and-destroy missions in Afghanistan have

predictably turned increasing numbers of Pushtun villagers against the United States,

NATO and Karzai. The thunder of the bomb in Karachi and the Turkish shells in Iraqi

Kurdistan may well be the sound of Bush losing his "war on terror."

-- By Juan Cole

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a new page describing the social aspects of American Fascism at

http://politicsusaweb.com/RootsOfFascism.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still the most concise explanation of how we are who we are:

"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress

of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her August claims, have been

born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing,

and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it

does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor

freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the

ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without

the awful roar of its many waters."

"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be

both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a

demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly

submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will

be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words

or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those

whom they oppress."

---Frederick Douglass

Source: Douglass, Frederick. [1857] (1985). "The Significance of

Emancipation in the West Indies." Speech, Canandaigua, New York, August 3,

1857; collected in pamphlet by author.

http://www.buildingequality.us/Quotes/Frederick_Douglass.htm

______________________________________________________________________________

This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in

my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights,

economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section

107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the

material in this post is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a

prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational

purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this post for purposes of your own that

go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.