It has been a wild 72 hours for the Kurdish-dominated SDF forces in Syria’s northeast. After substantial fighting over the city of Manbij and a 4-day truce conditioned entirely on the SDF removing themselves and their families from the area, the relative stability in Syrian northeast seems more tenuous than it’s been in years.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in Turkey Friday to meet with Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, with the talks including considerable discussion on post-Assad Syria. Just hours later, Fidan made a live TV broadcast in which he declared that Turkey’s strategic goal was the “elimination of YPG.” YPG is the Kurdish group which is by far the largest component of the US-backed SDF.
Fidan’s broadcast suggests that his Blinken meeting didn’t go well, at least as far as the SDF would be concerned. Since that Friday meeting and broadcast though, US officials have been in continuous talks with the SDF trying to “reassure” them that they don’t really face an existential threat from Turkey and its allies.
That’s clearly a reassurance that the SDF would desperately need, after not just Fidan’s broadcast but consistent fighting with the new Syrian government’s forces since the ouster of Assad. That fighting has already, apparently, cost them Manbij.
ISIS took over Manbij is 2014, and the SDF took the city, allowing the return of displaced Kurds to the city and surrounding areas, in 2016. Turkey has been trying to get the Kurds out of Manbij since 2018. This past week’s ceasefire deal apparently has accomplished that.
Turkey has long had a problem with the de facto US alliance with the YPG, and by extension the SDF. Turkey considers the YPG to be a direct offshoot of the PKK, a banned organization considered terrorists inside Turkey. The PKK and YPG do have ideological commonalities and there is a relationship, but many have said Turkey overstates how closely related they actually are.
Either way, it seems like the deal and evacuation of Manbij is not the end of this for the SDF, despite US reassurances. The US reportedly has reminded the SDF that Turkish President Erdogan and US President-elect Donald Trump are “friends.”
Erdogan did indeed refer to Trump as a friend, and embraced his reelection last month. Their relationship has hardly been smooth though, and they sparred over multiple issues, including Turkey’s purchase of Russian air defense systems.
The ceasefire seems likely to last however long it ends up taking to get the Kurds out of Manbij. That’s just a stepping stone in Turkey’s ambitions in the region though, and more fighting seems like virtually a foregone conclusion. Turkey’s decision to back the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in taking over Syria from Assad was, after all, in no small measure because Turkey has long believed a Syria dominated by Sunni Arabs would keep the Kurdish minority from having autonomy. This is just a continuation of more than a decade of strategic decisions, as US reassurances that it’s not a real threat flies in the face of all the evidence.
If Syria or any other country is to succeed in the ME, there must be a reevaluation of the what it means to be a nation state. Nationalism, is a poor construct for achieving a healthy nation. It should be based on land, justice and faith. The Kurds deserve a state in the national state construct but not in the Middle East where religion is more important than nationalism. The Kurds are almost all Sunni like the majority in Syria. Erdogan earned Kurdish votes when he spoke in Islamic terms but when he increased his nationalist rhetoric in response to right wing nationalist parties he lost his traction with Kurds.
So; the "nationalist-secular" movements in the Arab nations like Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and (South) Yemen back in the 1960s, that all were eventually hijacked by the military or by dictators using the military, tried to do just that; establish a national identity separate from tribal or religious identity. The USA did everything it could to undermine that. The middle east right now is exactly what we want it to be; a failed, dysfunctional no-mans land where everyone hates everyone else, Israel has a free hand to do whatever it wants, and the only "secure" governments are those that are totally dependent on us.
That is a defeatist way of looking at things. Religion is not the problem. Whoever i sin charge has to provide justice for the rest. Ultimately, Capitalism, communism and secularism can't do that.
Except that Washington, with more than a little help from Israel, and Saudi Arabia, beginning in the 1970s recruited and funded nascent Islamist movements in all the "secular nationalist" Arab states as a way to destabilize them. "Justice" means different things to different people; depriving jihadists of their "rights" in an effort to preserve the rights of christians, shiites, druze, yazidis, and other minorities might seem "just" to some.
Muslims are the majority in the ME. Poll after poll shows they want Islamic law. I don't accept these naive theories that Israel created Hamas, the US created the jihadis. Israel and the US are fools playing with fire and it burnt them. But the fire was always there.
Sunnis are the majority, but they view shiites as apostates, and vice versa. Shiites have no interest in being ruled by sunnis; sunnis have no interest in being ruled by shiites; arabs have no interest in being ruled by kurds; kurds have no interest in being ruled by turks. And so it goes. The ONLY HOPE for those countries was secular nationalism, building a modern state around a common shared NATIONAL identity that transcended tribe and religion. And THAT was something the USA (with help from the UK, Israel, and the Saudis) did everything they could to destroy. Mission Accomplished. Think it’s “better” now?
It has been a bumpy road but this is a defeatist attitude. We live in realities. The reality is the majority wants Islam as a way of life. That is the best recipe for the protection of all.
It’s not working. Anywhere. That way leads to impotence and disorder. Kemal Ataturk had the right idea.
Yeah that's why more than half of Turkey have abandoned him and gone towards an Islamic party. The old Kamalists are living in the past.
But they were the only hope for a peaceful, prosperous future.
The AK Party was so popular because Erdogan was the most economically successful prime minister Turkey ever had.
Yet Turkey is hardly “peaceful”. And the future doesn’t look good.
Under the "despot" Assad, Syria was, I repeat, was secular.
Yes. The Baath party, in both Syria and Iraq, were nationalists, not islamists.
I don't believe any of that. And that isn't the history of the Muslim world. Turks ruled over many different ethnicities and religions under the Ottomans and so did the Arabs. I do agree that they can get together in a kind of Islamic confederacy where national urges are satiated but common interests are concentrated into a central system defending borders and administering laws etc. That's one of the advantages of Islamic rule it doesn't specify the form of government as long as there is some form of unity under an executive branch (caliphate) and ruled by Islamic law. The Nation State system sucks too.
Women in the ME want to wear a burka in 118 temps?
Women in the ME want to be killed in an honor killing because they love someone who is not in a certain tribe, or, in defiance of an arranged marriage?
A man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his impoverished family wants his hand chopped off?
Yes, the fire was there, but Islamic (Sharia) is not the answer.
Unless you are a Muslim woman keep them out of this. We hate the patronizing of our Muslim women. Most Muslims are sick of hearing about how much people in the West care about Muslim women. They've watched Muslim women slaughtered in Gaza and Sudan and the feminists are silent.
1. Muslim women wear the hijab or burqa out of choice. Its part of the resurgency of Islam and conservatism in the region since 1979. Somehow certain types of wool keeps the sun off their skin in North Africa. They'll be just fine.
2. Honor Killings are prohibited in Islam. That's a biblical thing. And to the extent Muslims practice that, they are better Christians and Jews than they are Muslims since its in the Bible and not the Quran.
3. No system claims to prevent all harm. However, the West claims to be enlightened and they don't do those barbaric things anymore. No, they have been leveled up to much bigger and better things like causing the biggest disparity in wealth between the few billionaires and the rest of the population, where humans are just viewed as consumers, where poor black neighborhoods are relegated to single family homes, drugs and when they get in trouble with the law they consistently get higher sentences than white individuals.
It's anecdotal but take it for what it's worth, but a crypts gang member was put away for like over 20 years for some financial crimes like racketeering and stealing. He was asked would you rather get a multiu year sentence or have yiur hand cut off. He chose having his hand cut off. The point is that it is supposed to serve as a deterrent. In Islam there is actual rehabilitation and its mentioned in the Quran. People are rehabilitated into society even after theft, murder, etc. In America the law is punitive not rehabilitative.
“Unless you are a Muslim woman keep them out of this.”
GFY. Nobody has to “stay out of” subjects you don’t like discussing just because you don’t like to discuss them.
I'll take GFY to mean "Good For You" instead of the other negative meaning. And you must know me a bit by now, I was speaking figuratively instead of literally. I enjoy engaging with most everyone on any subject I am qualified to talk about. I used a bit of hyperbole to make a point. However, all too common when Muslims voice support for Islamic values and rules for Muslims, it is met with hostility and ignorance. Some unwittingly employ outdated orientalism tropes while forgetting the hypocrisy of how the west exploits their women, and how the issue of oppressed women is weaponized to justify Western colonial intervention in Muslim lands. And perhaps most importantly some fail to recognize Muslim women's agency in in matters involving them. Muslim women can speak for themselves.
1. Leila Ahmed, "Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate" She explores how colonial powers in the 19th century used the condition of Muslim women to assert the moral superiority of the West. She argues that modern versions of this rhetoric persist, particularly in post-9/11 contexts. She critiques the "colonial feminist" mindset, where Western powers feign interest in Muslim women’s liberation while perpetuating war, poverty, and oppression in Muslim countries.
2. Lila Abu-Lughod
Book: "Do Muslim Women Need Saving?" Abu-Lughod, a Palestinian-American anthropologist, dissects the West's fascination with Muslim women, especially with the hijab or niqab, as symbols of oppression. She criticizes how Western feminists and politicians use Muslim women’s struggles as political tools without understanding their lives or listening to their voices.
A notable quote: “We need to be vigilant about the ways that narratives of saving other women are deployed to justify American interventions.”
3. Yvonne Ridley. A British journalist who converted to Islam after being held captive by the Taliban. She has spoken at length about the West’s superficial "concern" for Muslim women. Ridley argues that many Western narratives are rooted in Islamophobia, sexism, and Orientalism rather than genuine solidarity. Example critique: She frequently points out how women’s rights are weaponized to justify wars, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq.
4. Mona Eltahawy. Although Mona Eltahawy has a more critical stance on issues within Muslim communities, she also highlights Western hypocrisy.
She often calls out the selective outrage of the West, where women’s issues are only highlighted when they align with broader political agendas. She criticizes how veiled Muslim women are portrayed as “voiceless victims” rather than agents of their own destiny.
5. Asma Barlas. Book: "Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an." Barlas addresses the double standards where Muslim women are often treated as "oppressed" to reinforce orientalist narratives while Western societies ignore systemic issues affecting women globally.
She urges for a focus on empowerment rather than patronization.
6. Fatima Mernissi. A Moroccan sociologist and feminist, Mernissi explored the Orientalist lens through which the West views Muslim women.
In her works like "The Veil and the Male Elite", she discusses how Muslim women’s realities are often misrepresented or manipulated to fit Western narratives.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfb7a24270124eaa18f24fd58752f3e82cce9f1df0180296c91375cc195591a3.png
The only thing I’d really have to say on supposedly Islamic regimes’ treatment of women is this:
If Muslim women really want to wear the burqa, chador, hijab, etc., all those supposedly Islamic regimes have to do is ALLOW them to do so. Requiring them to is evidence of believing they’d rather not.
When an Islamic regime comes into power (for now Iran is the only one for some Shia) and deals with these thorny issues, I will let you know the dynamics at play. For now it is a family issue and a trend since the Iranian revolution of 1979. In the 50's and 60's many Arab women were wearing mini skirts.
A number of regimes, temporary and permanent, at least DESCRIBE themselves as Islamic, whether it's the ISIS Caliphate system, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or whatever.
I'm aware that some Muslims will reject various claims of the actual "Muslimness" of various regimes, but the ones that even pretend to be Islamic in foundation tend to legally prescribe clothing standards, especially for women.
There's a degree to which I have to defer to people with more experience of, and in, those states than myself though. My sole experiences were in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait circa 1991, and my interactions with the general public in those countries were limited. The only women I saw in those places who weren't wearing significant covering were Bedouin women who were unaware that there were people in the area who weren't family members — out in the open desert, they were wearing jeans and t-shirts. In town, the Saudi women wore chadors in public. I saw a few Kuwaiti women only wearing hijab and otherwise "western" dress, but they were in movement back into Kuwait and that may not have been their usual dress.
Yes, actually Afghanistan is an Islamic Emirate and the dress code for women is mandated. Saudi Arabia under MBS went off the deep end and no longer enforces hijab. Yes in places like Idlib it was de facto mandatory. However, all that put together is but a tiny tiny fraction of the Muslim world where the hijab is not mandatory.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying it shouldn't be mandated, I am saying that for the most part, especially since 1979 it has become widespread in the Muslim world out of piety and a counter reaction to western imposed norms. The reason I said to wait is because Islamic groups have been handling this situation with great care. Even today's article from Cook points out that Hamas didn't force women to wear hijab. But the conservative nature of Gaza made it a norm.
Simply, its obligated in Islamic law. But there are no prescribed punishments in the Quran or hadith so its is handled differently depending on locality. In Iran for example failure to cover up can be punished by imprisonment from 1 day to 2 months and a fine from 1-10 dollars. It's kind of like a misdemeanor here in the states.
The other point to keep in mind is while in Islamic law the woman is supposed to cover up everything in public accept the hands and face, we too have a dress code here in the US. Other than certain designated nude beaches and the like men and women aren't free to walk naked in public. Where do you draw the line. In some places in Europe women can go around topless because men can.
The bottom line is that it is a requirement. However, of course Muslim men are protective over their women. At the end of the day the man is required to protect his women folk so this comes with the territory. In public, it protects women not merely from physical attack but obligates men to be on their best behavior. Here in the US, I hear a lot of women who wear the hijab say that it forces men to acknowledge their intellect beyond the physical attraction. And honestly certain waves of feminism have done great harm to women by peddling a lie that men and women are equal. I am not talking about education and pay, etc. I am talking about the physical and psychological disposition disparities between them. We burdened women by requiring them to compete with men in earning a living and we still expect them to beare a child, etc. So its doubly hard on them.
Between you and me the west has really become sick when it comes to sexuality. There was a certain eroticism that has been lost when we undressed our women here in the west. The desire for greater and greater stimulus caused deviance that the porn industry capitalizes on and even leads to pedophelia, etc. In public women are dressed but its so revealing that they are naked. Nothing is left to the imagination. The prototype western women is nothing more than a sexual object. Yeah they're good for some sex but there is no substance to them, no femininity. I didn't marry my wife to compete with me, and she's 10 times smarter than I am.
“Where do you draw the line”
At people wearing what they damn well please, including nothing at all.
Vis a vis religion, if people have to be forced to practice it rather than choosing to practice it, I’m skeptical that they actually believe it.
“Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood.” I’m sure I’ve read that somewhere.
I think you have nailed it on the head. My position is that our moral sensibilities come from religion. This is a philosophical debate going on for thousands of years. Neo liberals and others like atheists would disagree so they have to take an indefensible positions in theory. Yes people can go around naked but why don't the overwhelming majority of people do that?
No one is debating the ability of the human being to think what s/he wants or theoretically do what s/he wants. The issue is what is more inline with the human disposition and our pursuit and need of meaning, love, security, happiness, etc.
You are right that if people have to be forced to do something then it's not from a willful conviction.
That is the crux of what it means to be a Muslim. One out of one's OWN VOLITION surrenders his/her will to that of the Creator, thereby being free of any earthly or human chains.
Also as you observed the Quran is very clear on this. Additional verses leave little room for doubt.
"So remind [O Muhammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not over them a controller."
"And say, 'The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve.'"
"But if they turn away – then We have not sent you as a guardian over them; upon you is only [the duty of] notification."
No. It is a fact.
Don't worry, SDF. We got the Turks right where we want them.
Yes, the Kurds PKK parent organization is designated as terrorists by the USA. HTS parent organization (Nusra Front, aka Al Qaeda) is also designated as a terrorist by the USA. And, of course, we provided weapons and money to both of them, in order to fight the legitimate government of Syria. And, because we have the brains of a spider monkey on crack, we will now assist one terrorist organization in resisting the attacks by the other terrorist organization, which is likely using weapons previously provided by us, and that is itself supported by our only real (as in "legitimized by treaty") ally in the entire region, Turkey. What a collection of fuckwits.
"we have the brains of a spider monkey on crack"
Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!
Ladies and gentlemen of this blog, Javy has encapsulated all that is wrong with this country. I might ad that it is bipartisan.
The PKK Was labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department, not just by the Turkish government. By the US is often flexible and ignores its guidelines and laws when it serves its purpose or its support for Israel.
Foreign Terrorist Organizations
Bureau of Counterterrorism
October 8, 1997 Kurdistan Workers Party(PKK)
https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/