In between their attacks on Kurdish targets in northern Syria, Turkey’s policy rests heavily on threatening to attack Kurdish targets in northern Syria. According to Kurdish officials, they view this week’s threats as a “declaration of war” against them.
It’s fair for the Kurds to view it as such, as that’s certainly what Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan intended. Indeed, he’s constantly talking up future offensives against the Kurdish “terrorists,” and this one made clear that he intends to liquidate the entire autonomous Kurdish region.
The US has long tried to keep Turkey from invading Kurdish Rojava outright, and President Trump made a call to Erdogan on Friday. The White House says an agreement was reached to continue “coordinating” on Syria.
This doesn’t exactly rule out an invasion of Syria, however, as the US has repeatedly claimed to have reached deals with the Turks on the future of Kurdish territory. This has included repeated deals over the city of Manbij, and Turkey has again indicated this week they intend to send troops directly into Manbij.
“made clear that he intends to liquidate the entire autonomous Kurdish region”
Which one? There is more than one.
I’m sure he means to clear Turkey’s border of any independent Kurdish entity.
The US has also been protecting at least two Kurdish entities in Iraq, which don’t get along with each other. That has been going on since Bill Clinton.
The US is also protecting one or more Kurdish groups around its al Tanf base.
There were Kurdish groups who had a deal with Assad, to be autonomous so long as they kept out the Sunni jihadis. Some of those communities still exist.
The Kurds famously don’t have a nation to unite them, and they look like a people disunited.
There is a big difference between threatening to attack and actually doing so. Arguably the Kurds declared war on Turkey a long time ago with their terrorist campaigns, and Turkey crossing the border to finish them off would just be wrapping up the war the Kurds declared on them. The Kurds exaggerating in this way is irresponsible. Turkey’s threats are also, but in effect they are warning that something big had better change or they will attack… better than nothing.
I’m not sure if that’s fair to the Kurds, to say they tacitly declared war. Their history of alliance and rebellion with local powers long predates the modern Westphalian nation-state system.
Sykes-Picot divvied up the failed Ottoman Empire in a way not necessarily intended to be a recipe for enduring
stability and peace in the Middle East. The agreement was drafted in
secret by Great Britain and France, and initially included a ‘Kurdistan’. Absent Kurdistan, Sykes-Picot was then foisted on unwilling
locals in 1917.
The denial of a Kurdish majority nation-state turf, yet memory of the possibility under Sykes-Picot, more or less guaranteed they would face discrimination from the majority cultures, first as minorities then as minorities with cause for geographic ambition.
If new land could magically be created between Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, they locals could accommodate a Kurdistan. However, the NIMBY rule kicks in when Kurdistan means surrendering legally sovereign real estate.
Circumstances have expanded the Kurds beyond what might be considered ‘traditional’ territory; they never historically controlled that much of Syria.
This is the real issue. What really does it mean “control”. This is a mirror trick. US has drawn a line along Euphrates, and declared itself the ISIS warrior over that territory. Then US invented Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) consisting of Kurdish YPG and whatever Arabs they could firce to join them. After ISIS defeat, Syrian Arabs no longer wanted to particilate, and the force is mainly YPG. There are THREE things worth knowing:
1) YPG does not represent all Kurds; YPG has ousted other parties and leaders, taken their assets and made money by smuggling arms to various CIA and Saudi supported Islamist groups. This ended in Afrin, but Kobane is still active.
2) Kurds as population in Syria is concentrated in Afrin (West), and Kobane (East). Rojava is an abstraction, land iof Kurds, not geographical location. Outside of these two areas, Kurds are small minority, thus, US attempt to portray the entjre area US has an AIR control over as Kurdish, is preposterous.
3) Kurds have a bad reputation in Syria, as during French colonial rule over Syria Kurds were favored. They received land grants, and held important positions in colonial administration. The entire region that HS controls from air is seething from resentment — Syrian Arabs see American use of Kurds as their overlords a repeat of French colonialism. As Kurds have already ethnically cleansed many townships along Turkish border and in Manbij. All of these places have large Turkman population, thus the rage in Turkey over US turning blind eye. Polulation of many places, liberated from ISIS have been prevented by Kurds to go back home. US is supporting them by objecting the plans by Russia, Turkey and Damascus to bring refugees back
The countries that want to help with return of refugees is Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey. And they have already returned in large numbers in government cck trolked ares, but US is finding excuses and not letting them return. In fact, some that tried to return to Raqqa have been killed or injured by mines. Clearing of mines, restoring service, not even removing debris or dead from ruins — not done. US and Kurds do not wish to do it and allow majority of Arab polulatiin back — and Arab population is not given resources to do anything.
As a matter of strange curiosity — lately Murds presumably liberated some places from ISIS. This is strange, as ISIS bas no foothold in any place for a while with the exception of refugee area in and around Al Tanf. It is amazing that Syria and Iraq wiled out ISIS — while US and Kurds are still talking about ISIS as if it holds territory. I am more likely to believe that Kurds are punishing any Arab attempts to take charge of their places in Eastern Syria. Let us remember that there are practically no Kurds living there.
What Erdogan will do, only he knows. But he has been listening to the same old story about YPG exiting Manbij since Joe Biden famously went in TV while in Turkey, and asked YPG to leave. Thus, a different plan.
It looks like by attacking from the east Turkey intends to remive YOG control over the border region, and allow refugees to come back there, Those are not Kurdish majority populated. By doing this he will force YPG hand — pull back from controlling the wide area with no Kurds and protect Kobane region. It would be a disaster for YPG to lose control of Kobane as they did Afrin. Other Kurdish factions have taken power there under Turkish occupation. US has tried to calm YPG by installing border checkpoints — presumably to discourage Turkey from entering,. But YPG is between fock and the hard place. Without US they will not be able to convince Kurds to go out to Deir Azzor and control Arab majority – – as defence is needed at home. If YPG pulls its troups home, Turkey will have clear path along Euphrates, and to Iraqi border, freeing up the territory for refugees to return. At that point, Turkey can have a shortcut to Raqqa from Al-Bab, Turkey local militia controls.
Another huge factor is Saudi Arabia abandoning Islamists and Salafi groups in Syria. Those groups now include new fighters — from refugee camps in Turkey, former SDF that deserted from YPG controlled fighters, as well as ethnically cleansed people from Eulhrates valley, and Turkish border. It is bard to tell numbers, but a while ago, only Jaish Al Islam had over 10,000 fighters. It is very likely that aling with Turkmen, Turkey has over 2@,000 fighters. More then a year ago Turkey put all the groups under one command, and one uniform.
It is possible still to work out something — but so far US did not deal with Thrkey’s concern — YPG chain of command link to Turkish PKK. YPG as the representative of Kurds is problem. US has not budged on removing Kurish control over non-Kurdish towns and villages. US still not allowing refugee return within its air control zone.
If Turkey takes action — question of NATO support arises. Who should be supported — Turkey acting against PKK subsidiary, with PKK being already identified as terror group by US, or will NATO support US, as it partners with a branch of terror organization?
Makes me winder also, why did not US demand YPG separate itself from PKK? At least, remove PKK leader’s picture from YPG offices, and PKK flag? May be US is allowing this in order to threaten Turkey with eventually joining Kurds from both sides of border, taking Turkish territory? Or is it YPG — being the only US. ally — seize the moment to force US hand, and accept their tie with PKK? We shall see.
Control is a function of firepower and intelligent targeting; the U.S. understands that much.
The YPG and PKK form a good part of the total armed Kurdish mass they want to wield externally. Preserving the YPG-PKK division to play against each other facilitates control over the Kurds. Why separate them?
Same with the other factions in the ME; finding that elusive balance of unity and division that keeps them more useful to the Empire than themselves or anyone else.
What I meant to say is — US is either interested to keep Turkey as NATO ally, and come up with a compromise, or US believes that Turkey is just trying to squeeze the best bargain on Kurdish issue, but has only empty threats and nothing to really hur US position in Syria.
That would not be my bet. US should separate YPG from PKK — at least in appearance, to tell Turkey that YPG is just Syrian group. This would have helped with selling this to “international community”. The way it stands now — US is supporting PKK-YPG, a link that even US considers terrorists.
But, as you say, US fire power will keep the control over the north east Syrian border to both Iraq and Turkey, down to Euphrates.
Well, how? US can have firepower, and can keep Syrian Arab population subjugated, or kept as refugees with no right of return. But to do that — US needs Kurds to take effective control ON THE GROUND. And that is not happening — as Kurds are tiny minority in tge region with the exception of Kobane region.
I can see a great temptation to US and Israel to populate the land with Kurds — Israeli style, and expell Arab population eventually.
One can do it — under condition that nobody in the region has a large army and can field large ground forces. Additionally, that country must have strong support among local population willing and eager to expell the small Kurdish overseer forces from their region.
So what do you think? Will US strike Turkish Army and Turkey allied Syrians? To defend YPG — which is not supported by the majority of Kurds in Syria? Turkey can come into Syria bypassing easily US checkpoints, and come from two directions — from Turkish border AND from inside Syria, Al-Bab to Raqqa route. Kurds must pull back to defend Kobane and avoid Afrin fate.
Turkey has been trying to field a compromise — it never gave open support to Assad as a leader — just supported Syrian peace process with Russia and Iran, and prevented Kurds from forming East-West corridor along Turkish border, preventing a unification of Syrian and Turkish Kurds on both sides of border.
Turkey has clearly given up on the Assad opening to US — and today declared that Assad will be accepted if he wins election. Why is Turkish forejgn minister announcing this?
First, to signal to US that Turkey is no longer taking into consideration US position in Assad — but is challenging US to allow voting, as ISIS is no longer a concern. Iraq had elections recently — even though ISIS strikes occassionally from its hideouts. Syria cannot forever remain hostage to foreign power not allowing vote. Second reason for the announcement is — getting East of Euphrates, Turkey is entering Assad supporting territory, and needs to assure population that it is on board fully with Russia-Iran peace plan, and Assad legitimacy after election.
US is banking on Turkey backing off. And may come up with an offer. It will be too little and too late.
After Senate delegitimization of Saudi ruler, who do we think Saudis will support in any Turkey-US conflict. I realuze that webare really slow to catch on — but Erdogan pretty much pointed the finger at high level conspiracy in Kashoggi murder, always insisting MbS was not involves. Even though our media tried hard to make it sound otherwise.
And what would be NATO position in taking sides — supporting US and PKK terrorists (defined by US), or Turkey?
Since I cannot imagine NATO not supporting US — it may be a legitimate reason for Turkey to leave NATO. If US is to withdraw, will this may be a concession to Turkey to avoid rift? At this point, I cannot see US asking its Gulf allies to step in as peacekeepers. With Saudi relations at the historic low?
I am very curious if Israel decides to strike somewhere, anywhere – to deal with domestic problems?
As I see it, US is more of a hostage of circumstances then a decision maker, which makes situation much worse. There are people like Bolton with no IQ for times like these.
Good summary but what if US decides to hand over Gulen?
That’ll probably be too little too late.
Gulen? Good question. Vilumes can be written about Gulen. Hus past activities in Turkey as a conduit of early bird conuit of radical Islam into regions with Turkic ethnicity of Central Asia, Muslims in Russiia, Balkans and Middle East witn Ottoman empire history. His activities in Turkey that attracted millions of angry people folliwing heavy handed treatment of civilian givernments by military in the eightees and a bit more restrained oppression of nineties. Gulen was a preacher that tried to use radicalization as a tool tto undermine Turkey’s religious institutins — to portray them as ineffective and not “muslim enough” — and channel his activism into politics to better control masses. While Erdogan and Gulen shared on surface the belief in Turkey”s independence from military rule, they clashed over the concept of independence. To Gulen, the objective was to still stay in NATO orbit and under US influence — Erdogan sought economic independence that was posdible only by turning more to Asia and Rusdia for trade and energy. Erdogam was nearly prevented from having a party — court process was launched with intent to ban the party. But he survived, Gulen lost. Gulen’s Foundation then became a wealthy sponsor of Universities, middle schools, media and NGOs.
Here is the dillema as I see it. Two major issues. One — turning Gulen over guarantees a very public trial — something US cannot affird. It will look like US turned over a good guy to thiroughly demonized Erdogan.
But more importantly, Gulen foundation is like Soros Fund. It invests in religious Universities in Germany to lure in millions of Turkish
nationals into anti-Erdogan fanaticism. Gulen teaches the extremely rigid and disciplined Islam, students not inly study but work as sort of missionaries in communities. The reach has diminished as Central Asia coordinates intelligence on extremism, and is not anymore alliwing street prayers that often led to clashes with police.
Hiw does Gulen make money for this work? Among others — by running private charter schools in US — many specialising in science and technology. He is running still over one hundred schools with front partners — but the names of Boards tell the story. Teachers from Turkey are often brought in. Parents started tracking the Foundation — and the scrutiny finally had some traction.
The man has only elementary school education.
As Turkey started to actively work against his world wide network — its extent became more visible. Turkey is putting many US client states in difficulty. Turkey asked Bosnian Moslem leadership to close down Gulen institutions, same with Kosovo.
Many people do not believe that he personally runs the Foundation, and that the whole network is intelligence front. Even if so — US cannot deliver Gulen without affecting the institutions that are linked to his name — as he is the symbol of religiosity brand.
Is he as a symbol now all washed up — with vast majority of Turks now supporting Erdogan as well as their own Sunni institutions, and branches (Sufi, Hannafi), etc. But even washed up — how can US risk turning him over to Erdogan? What if he himself changes the tune and expise details of networks world wide — what has he got to lose after extradition?
He knows too much. The coup against Erdogan in July 2016 was hardly a coup — it was an intelligence run assasination attempt as Erdogan was supposed to have been vacationing in sea side hotel.
But he was not there. In fact, nobody knows where was he, and how did he end up on the flight to Istambul — when he addtessed the nation. His givernment was in Parliament building — a real trick, as it was Friday evening, equivalent of our Sunday evening.
So, what dies Gulen know if this intelligence operation and how it went wrong? Erdogan was clearly aware what was planned and had asdistance in reclaiming the control of the country. Gulen may be just a figure — with no real knowledge, but even that would implicate US. It is not known anything about his or his family’s immigration status.
I cannot see a scenario where his extradition would be beneficial to US — and it will open the ghosts of charter schools run by his Foundation.
And will the extradition really change the question of Kurds in Syria and their direct ties to PKK.
I am afraid that some of our not so bright political elite thought that Turkey is just playing hardball to bargain for some goodies. The situation is serious — and finally it may have sunk in sfter failed attempt to maje Turkey go back on purchasing Russian defence system.
At this point US can only find a solution that will address uts real interests in Syria. And if these interests boul down to the disruption of region — and attempting to fragment it — the policy brings ilus no good. In Balkans, the policy is known as LNCD — or Let Your Neighbor’s Cow Die. Just trying to needle others us not only costly and unproductive — it plants the seeds of anymosity snd resentment for many generations to cone.
We have better things to do to improve our lot. And we are better then that.
The U.S. under Trump would probably rather hand north Syria to Turkey, not attack Turkey over the Kurds. Anything that goes wrong is then their fault. They are also the only realistic Allied force on the ground, including having a full deck of geopolitical cards.
Turkey is the only reason Russia is not finishing Idlib. Turkey in north Syria enables that NATO occupation to endure because Russia values their Turkish partnership.
No-one, though, trusts Erdogan to keep north Syria for NATO, but instead cut a deal with Russia that benefits himself the most. Giving Erdogan a freer hand with the Kurds in Syria would also be a disaster for U.S.-Kurdish dealmaking in Iraq and Iran and within Turkey itself, where Kurds may still matter.
Erdogan does not want to accidentally harm U.S. troops; his threats of an attack are commensurate with the decline of Kashoggi as leverage. He needs both crisis to tread water in North Syria.
However, at some point one NATO ally has to leave because of the expense.
Since the U.S, not Turkey, would appear to have the greater long-term fiscal endurance, the U.S. may believe they can convince Turkey to remain with the Kurds in exchange for economic support to remain at all. Turkey, on the other hand may be holding out for a unilateral U.S. withdrawal that imposes no conditions on Turkey.
Worrying about the YPG-PKK, Kurds in Syria, well there’s no point. Those Kurds have no
real independent leverage, together or apart. Abandoning the U.S. is
unthinkable for them with Erdogan lying in wait. Syria and Russia aren’t going to
go to any great lengths to save them after all the perceived Kurdish betrayals. The U.S. may realize using Kurds is just not
workable long term, because that’s never worked for anyone else. But guess who’s stuck with them.
You’ve been correct all along that the Syrian Kurds are not strong enough to be an occupying force. Yet argue somehow that the U.S. should do such and such about them because. Kurds matter less and less with every casualty. They rule mostly empty desert only within the rifle range of their rifles and U.S. air support. They’ve failed as tactical, strategic and diplomatic assets.
With Russian S-400s in place, Israel is kind of sidelined. Iranian troops have been pulled back, but not out Syria. Israel can demand but likely not get, any more concessions. Its likely not been worth it for them to attack for a while, even drone harassment.
Cynically, that’s probably why Israel risked downing a Russian plane; they wanted to be sidelined, but backed out with a face-saving parting shot that locks them out for as long as they want to be.
Bolton is ironically the best person for the Empire in times like this. Anything Trump does that Bolton goes along with is harder to lay on Trump. Bolton may even take the lead at times.
Bolton is Trump’s Cheney now. He gloated about knowing Meng was to be arrested in Canada over Iran, before the President did. This made it easier – barely – for Trump to continue to deal with China. There’s some reciprocity in theory; a NK peace deal with Bolton on board sells it to Bolton’s faction better than anyone including Pomeo could.
The U.S. Senate and Trump are just playing good cop and bad cop with MbS. Erdogan can release the full tapes and this will make no difference. The story is MbS was just too independent, of the Saudi Royal family and the U.S..
Well, problem fixed. MbS is a young man, so Saudi Arabia is secured for the forseeable future. KSA may still pursue closer Russian and Chinese relations, and raise the price of oil, but only because it economically has to do these things. Nothing KSA does anymore won’t be vetted by a CIA handler with a deep inside track.
The Deep State that has adapted to Trump seems far more focused and coherent under the Trump effect. Focus trumps scattered IQs, however high, and arguably the best leadership quality any leader can bring to an organization.
I hear where you’re coming from, but I’m on the side of “less guaranteed that they would face discrimination” than ‘more’. It is deplorable that Turkish policy has been to annihilate Kurdish culture, if at least not to exterminate all Kurds. The push we’ve seen to create a Kurdistan has real roots, but I think its recent strength is because they might be even more useful puppets for American empire and meddling.
I am also quite skeptical of the notion that states defined by ethnic and religious groups instead of inclusiveness and human rights is a real solution that creates peace. They are just solving immediate problems by creating bigger ones later… Israel, India and Pakistan are examples that come to mind.
Well, that’s true, but ‘Sultan’ Erdogan is also driven by religious ethnocentrism. Neither side is going to give up their desire for sovereignty on as much real estate they can hang on to.
Its just that the Kurds fight badly, opportunistic at all levels, and so consistently choose, or are left with, the worst possible choices for allies. They are in a constant state of mean and lean. Turks are not so limited.
Rojava seems like the closest thing the Kurds had to universalist vision, but far from popularly well-understood, adopted as it was from the outside. It seems since to have become a hollow banner the U.S. uses for recruitment of its proxy Kurd army rather than a living indigenous movement.
Ataturk’s vision of Turkey worked because it was nominally founded on a Western state model in which inclusiveness and human rights are key selling points. However, he also had no use for Armenians and only temporarily included the Kurds.
Ethnocentrism and religious fundamentalism, together or alone, can drive mindlessly for independence; they wouldn’t be such sustained canards if they weren’t useful.
Only after a measure of material and social safety and prosperity is securely achieved does civil and human rights appear to become important; when the ideals can be highlighted as characteristic and more importantly, validating the dominance of the leading ethno-religious group and elite prerogatives.
The Kurds just seem to lack that middle focus between short-sighted individualism and long-sighted vision of a collective future.
Difficult to be sure if Erdogan is serious other than he would if he could. So the only question is, can he? The war would have to be won not only militarily but on economic and diplomatic fronts.
The Kashoggi murder gave him a Trump card during the now-forgotten U.S. mid terms. As Trump has since been able to turn the scandal to his advantage, blackmail over MbS, Kashoggi’s murder as leverage over the U.S. is fading fast.
Threatening the viability of American Kurdistan gives Erdogan something to use against U.S. economic and diplomatic pressure. At the same time, American Kurdistan presents a long-term existential threat to Turkey, not just the Erdogan government.
Trump may want to hand off occupation of north Syria to Turkey, a NATO ally, but Turkey is too independent to be trusted in elite Imperial circles and hang onto it, let alone govern as instructed.
“gave him a Trump card”
Good one.
Couldn’t resist… although I probably owe Kashoggi a prayer for that, even if he is in a better place.
The poor Kurds were promised the lamb and the sword but will instead get the chains. Listen to be learned from the upcoming bloody carnage.