 Writers' Community! |
|
| Home Page Two Columnists Q&A Submit an Article FAQs Contact Author Login |
Middle East PerspectivesStephen John Morgan (262)    Stephen John Morgan   Behind the Turkey-Kurdish ConflictPosted Thursday, October 18, 2007 (2 years 38 days ago.) Viewed 587 times. The Kurds are an ancient people tracing their roots back to 3000 B.C. With over 40 million Kurds estimated to be spread out in a arc of territory stretching from Syria across Turkey and Iran, they are considered to be the world’s largest ethnic group without their own homeland. At the end of the 1 st World War their territories fell victim to the redrawing of the map of the Middle East leaving them dived and stateless. They have survived because of their national pride and culture, which, despite differences in linguistic dialects, allow them to share a common language, folklore, music and festivals distinct from their Arabic, Persian and Turkish oppressors. For the last century they have resisted all attempts to viciously suppress their identity from banning of their language and the right to hold Kurdish names as in Turkey, who until recently refused to even recognize their existence as distinct form other Turks. And worse still when they became the victims of mass killings during the regime of Saddam Hussein. But times are changing and largely because of the relative peace and prosperity enjoyed in the autonomous region of northern Iraqi Kurdistan. Ever since 1991, they have enjoyed a level of self-government through the British and US no-fly zone and since the fall of Hussein the country has flourished economically, politically and culturally. Although key participants in the Iraqi government, they already enjoy virtual independence. They have control over their own substantial oil fields and the Army and Police are made up overwhelmingly of former Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga guerrillas – ferocious mountain fighters over whom the central Iraqi government and military has no control or capacity to challenge and whom the US has had to depend on for cooperation in sustaining peace in the North. Turkey charges that the Iraqi Kurdish authorisations are harbouring and allowing thousands PKK guerrillas (Turkish separatist Kurdish insurgents) on their territory from which they are able to find safe haven, raise finances, take advantage of the possibilities to organize and to instigate cross border raids on Turkey across the Candil mountains which separate the two countries. Iran has also made similar complaints against the Pejak group of Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who are attacking Iran and Iran has already retaliated with incursions and attacks on their bases. (The Pejak group although formerly a terrorist organisation is supported by the CIA as part of US efforts to de-stabilize the Iranian regime.) In Eastern Turkey some 37,000 people have died in the conflict over Kurdish rights. The PKK has recently increased its attacks on Turkish troops and civilian, the deaths of some 13 troops and 30 civilians recently has outraged Turkish public opinion and added to pressure for Turkish incursions and/or an all-out invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan. Last weeks vote by the Turkish parliament to give permission to the Turkish army to invade or take any measures necessary against the threat from the PKK has stemmed from theses recent events. However, the underlying reasons for Turkey considering an invasion lie in the pole of attraction, which Kurdish Iraq acts as for the 15 million Kurds within Turkey’s borders. Iraqi Kurdistan attacks as a magnet drawing together the Kurdish Diaspora and offering hope of a unified independent homeland for all Kurds. This is literally fuelled by the enormous oil wealth Iraqi Kurdistan posses and which makes a homeland a feasible economic, social and cultural potentiality. Although the present Kurdish leaders proclaim that they are content with autonomy the situation remains extremely volatile. Especially because of the internal issue of Kirkuk, a city on the frontier of Kurdistan which is largely Kurdish, but with large Sunni and Shiite and Turkoman minorities. The city has huge oil wealth and it will be subject to a referendum before the end of the year, after which it is likely that the Kurds will proclaim it their capital instead of Erbil. The inter-communal violence that may ensue is added to the threat of Turkish incursions. Turkey is vehemently opposed to Kirkuk becoming formerly Kurd as it would be seen as the final jewel in the oil crown that could lay the basis for overall independence for Iraqi Kurdistan. This will especially be the case if the situation in Southern Iraq and the country as a whole continues to deteriorate and the government is trapped in stalemate, especially over the distribution of oil wealth nationally. An imminent invasion is not ruled out after the parliamentary vote (some 507 to 19 in favour), but the coming winter snows across the mountain ranges makes it a less viable option than Spring time. It is probable that incursions and attacks by Special Forces will be stepped up with the use of aerial bombardment at the moment. An all-out invasion would not necessarily be successful and the Turkish troops could find themselves as bogged down as US forces are I the rest of Iraq. Thousands of PKK guerrillas are said to be massing in the mountains to counter-attack and if the Turks were to invade they could find themselves in combat with formidable and well-armed troops of the former Iraqi Peshmerga guerrillas, with the official forces of the Iraqi army and police, which they control, engaging in combat with the Turks. Mayhem would follow and the Iraqi government and US forces would be helpless to intervene. Furthermore, such an invasion, which is openly supported by Syria, could embolden both Syrian and, especially Iranian forces, to likewise invade, in order to carve up the area between them - de facto-redrawing the map of the centre of the Middle East. The US and Iraq have vehemently opposed any moves and have tried vainly to promise to somehow clamp down on the PKK activities in the region. But these are viewed as hollow promises, without the means or will to back them up and measures which are already to little and too late. To make matters worse the recent vote in the Congress to name the mass murder of Armenians by Turks in 1915 an act of genocide has further infuriated Turkish sentiments and alienation from the US. This could result in the closure of vital air roots that supply some 70% of the US war effort in Iraq, creating a logistical disaster for the US. The Kurdish issue will not be waved away by some magic wand of diplomacy. War is inevitable at some point in the near future. But fighting the proud and aspiring Kurds may prove to be an even greater debacle for the Turks and their neighbours than even Iraq is for the US. 
Permalink Comments (3) US Used Neutron Bomb to Take BaghdadPosted Tuesday, April 24, 2007 (2 years 215 days ago.) Viewed 779 times. Ever more reports are emerging on the likelihood that the US experimented with tactical nuclear weapons against the Iraqi armed forces four years ago during the last days of the invasion. In a recent interview with The Iconoclast entitled "Battle of Baghdad Cover-up — Four Years Later," Captain Eric H. May, a former intelligence and public affairs officer in the military, stated "The truth is that the battle started April 5, the night that Baghdad Bob said that they had counterattacked us at the Baghdad Airport and there was a sustained fight that went on for several hours. The best evidence that I have from international sources, scientific sources, is that our position was becoming untenable at the Baghdad Airport and we used a neutron warhead, at least one. That is the big secret of Baghdad Airport." On the eve of the 4th anniversary , April 8th , Al-Jazeera news also carried an interview with the former head of the Iraqi Republican Guard, Saifeddin al-Rawi, in which he claimed that the US used both neutron and phosphorous bombs to take Baghdad airport four years ago. The incredible claim may go some way to explaining the sudden and unexpected collapse of the Republican Guard Elite Corps, who now make up some of the most tenacious and dangerous elements of the insurgency. In the interview al-Rawi recounted how the bombs dropped “annihilated soldiers, but left the buildings and the infrastructure of the airport intact." Neutron bombs are thermonuclear weapons, which detonate with a minimal explosion, but release radiation that penetrates buildings and armour and is immediately deadly for human beings. Al-Rawi’s accusation is not without credibility, since the US and Brits have certainly been using depleted uranium (DU) shells and chemical weapons such as napalm since the first Gulf War. DU is the by product of uranium which has been enriched in nuclear weapons or nuclear reactors. The US now fits it to the tips of missiles because its radioactive nature means it can burn through targets. On Znet, Simon Helweg- Larsen explained that “On March 28th 2003 a tank unit fired two 120mm DU rounds down the main road of urban Kifi, creating a vacuum effect that ‘literally sucked guerrillas from their hideaways into the streets, where they were shot down by small arms fire or run over by tanks." Furthermore, despite claims by the US military that it has stopped using napalm and destroyed its stocks in 2001, there is good evidence that it has been used in Iraq. Embedded with the 7th Marines 1st Battalion near Basra reporters from CNN and the Sydney Morning Herald/Melbourne Age, reported its use against resistance fighters. Lyndsay Murdoch reported in Sydney Morning Herald/Melbourne Age that “ (Marine artillery) were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm." CNN reporter, Martin Savidge recounted one assault where “It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery and by the Air Force that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there was then hit napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations on that hill." These suggestions would also fit in with the fact that the Bush Administration has a policy of pre-emptive nuclear strike. Given the fact that the US Armed Forces were led to believe that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, Washington and the Pentagon probably gave the go-ahead to experiment with the neutron bomb and the use of chemical weapons against Saddam’s troops. After all it was the British who first used the Iraqi people to experiment on with mustard nerve gas in the 1920’s and 30’s. Why not try out the latest toys?
Permalink Comments (9) Insurgent psychology – Honour, Dignity, Shame and Humiliation – the roots of an endless warPosted Thursday, March 15, 2007 (2 years 255 days ago.) Viewed 620 times. Working out the perspectives for war takes a certain type of empathy. It should not be confused with sympathy or even, in this case, as necessitating a positive connotation. Every general should be empathetic to his enemy counterpart. If he is to stand a good chance of anticipating his moves and thereby forearming himself with the knowledge to defeat him, he must understand, get a feel for, and even put himself in the practical and psychological shoes of his opponent. This was sorely lacking both in the Administration and the Pentagon. The Administration’s want of cultural and humanitarian empathy meant Iraq was lost on the psychological level before a boot could hit the ground or a shot could be fired. The simplistic attitude that US occupation would be unconditionally welcomed and that there would be a relatively smooth transition to a model Western-style democracy, which would act as a bulwark against fundamentalism and a beacon to transform other regimes in the region was pure fantasy. If anything testifies just how divorced from reality the Bush Administration is, it was this. Indeed it was something, which was so stubbornly entrenched that, they continued to believe in their own propaganda when the entire country began burning down around them. Their attitude was a gross misconception, derived from the inflated egocentric, all-American, Imperialist mindset that consumed the Administration and which doomed it to calamity for the start. It was very much reminiscent of the arrogant way in which Central and Latin America has been regarded as the United States’ backyard, and now euphemistically re-named our “neighbourhood" by Bush. The Administration and the Army made no initial effort to understand the psychology of the Arabic and Muslim mind and the ways in which its invasion would be perceived and eventually repulsed. The problem with the egocentric and ethnocentric mind is that it, at best, perceives all others as thinking and feeling in ways which it does, of having the same norms and values as the West and believing itself to be perceived as some marvellous example to be modelled. At worst, the West still views other cultures as inferior and in need of civilizing, by force, if necessary. Not for one moment did the Bush Administration consider that Arabs and Muslims have their own quite different emphasis on mores and values, which often come into sharp conflict with those of the West and which they are deeply devoted to defending. Consequently, with the utmost arrogance, US troops booted down the door of Arab values and brought the worst of all possible insults upon them by dishonouring and humiliating them. In a region and culture, both Arabic and Muslim, where one’s dignity and honour are to be defended at all cost, including one’s life, the US shamed the Iraqi nation, the Arab nation and the Muslim world. This, in a culture where shame is the worst possible of destinies - unlike the guilt based societies of the West. The psychological and political difference is important and not semantic. Guilt focuses on inappropriate, bad behaviour aimed at creating a social conscience. Shame concerns self worth and profoundly affects a sense of value towards one's worthiness to exist. Guilt can lead to reforms, while shame can lead to more harmful consequences, especially in terms of violence towards oneself or those who create it. If shame is a stronger component of a culture than guilt then the motivation to avoid guilt leading to shame is far greater. The fight for one's honour is therefore much more ferocious than in a culture where guilt is more ready accepted and then paid for and forgiven. Indeed, it rules out compromise, negotiation or trading. It is above legal statutes. It is a matter of life and death. If a shame-based culture is attacked and threatened with humiliation and dishonour, the likely reaction will be fiercer than guilt based cultures. This is the case in the Middle East and among Arab and Muslim peoples, among others. And what comes with it is a tendency to need to regain one's honour through retribution and retaliatory shaming of the persecutor. This extends to become the blood feud common to many Eastern rather than Western societies and is very dangerous once extended along national and religious dimensions. It is a reason why the humiliation and shaming of the Palestinians has made it the cause célèbre of the Arab and Muslim world and also explains the ferocity of the eventual resistance to the US occupation in Iraq and its condemnation of by Arabs and Muslims worldwide. The occupation is felt and empathized as a humiliating, shameful, dishonour perpetrated by the infidel, United States upon Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters. For Arabs and Muslims their honour and the shaming of themselves and their brethren is something, which cannot go unavenged. One must be prepared to die for it. It is linked to the culture of retribution, where a hurt or death brought upon another of one’s family, tribe or clan must be avenged and this now extends to one’s sect, nation, ethnicity and common religion. The Bush administration, thus, blindly and arrogantly entered a war, which would inevitably result in a ceaseless Arab fight to regain their lost honour, dignity, pride, and to exact revenge upon an infidel who has dared to so grievously injure it. The shame dimension of the conflict rules out a negotiated settlement. The fight for regaining honour cannot be compromised, traded or negotiated; it can only be one to the death. Therefore, psycho-culturally, the US has entered an unwinable and endless war, so long as it refuses to back down. The Administration was three times blind to these subterranean forces at work and were taken in by their own initial and fictitious victory following the initial shock of invasion. They were doubly taken aback by the new opposition, which emerged in multifarious forms triggered by the overwhelming sense of humiliation felt and the Pandora’s box of unresolved internal grievances and injuries, the retribution of which has laid unsatisfied for generations and even centuries. This blindness to reality, which continued throughout the war, was epitomized in the first period, when Bush blissfully announced, in a typical act of crude bravado that “all combat operations" had ended, under the banner of “Mission Accomplished" on an aircraft carrier in 2003! Furthermore, the United States has trampled underfoot the most basic democratic entitlement of the right of nations to self-determination. Moreover, the right of self-determination is something, which, like honour, is so basic that it goes beyond legalistic niceties and generates revolutionary fervour. And although much of the character of the struggles is clouded in forms of black reaction, they are fought with revolutionary zeal. Ironically, in different forms and from different groups, the US has taken the place of the dictator they deposed, by robbing the Iraqis of the right, the satisfaction and the honour of overthrowing Saddam themselves. Today, the driving forces of the character of the insurgency is not so much to defeat the American enemy, as to repay him in the form of dishonouring and shaming him. Guerrilla war which is the traditional form of Arab combat, going back to Bedouin tribal times, is precisely fought, not for victory as such, but for shaming and dishonouring those who have brought shame and dishonour upon them. Bedouin tribes would not seek to conquer kingdoms and occupy others territories, so much, but rather preferred to execute raids aimed at shaming another tribe through robbing it of its honour. Much of this lies at the root of the psychology of the unwinable asymmetrical war the US is now embroiled in. The longer they stay the longer they remain an object to be shamed and dishonoured. The aim will be to defeat them, not so much militarily, which is impossible, as psychologically through the unrelenting humiliation of its forces. The insurgent aims dictate the means. They wear down and ridicule the US army by their hit and run tactics, their invisibility, they picking off of choppers, the sniper, the IEDs and, of course the suicide bomber. When suicide bombers first emerged in Palestine and Lebanon against the overwhelming might of the Israeli forces, the responses to why they did this was that “our bodies are the only weapons, we have left." The suicide attack is seen as the ultimate act of superiority left to the attacker – the “spiritual" superiority of having the courage to take one’s own life against an infidel enemy, hiding behind his unassailable array of armaments, defending his shameful materialistic Western values. Suicide bombing confuses and terrifies the opponent, however much feigned distain they attempt to show towards it. For similar reasons, the beaten Japanese, with a similar shame/honour culture code, resorted to the terrifying tactic of kamikaze pilots of the 2 nd World War. What hold true toward the US occupiers is also the case for the unresolved historical blood feuds between the different sects and ethnic groups. Centuries of insults are heaped on fresh memories of atrocities under the Hussein regime. The tactics of suicides, of the torture, throat slitting, public beheading and the dumping of victims in groups in street dumps or floating as bloated corpses down the Tigris, are all meant to shame and humiliate the opposite camp. This is not only applicable to the long-suffering Shiites, but conversely to the Sunnis, who are well aware that they will be held to account and face retribution for the crimes of Sunni dominated regimes of the past. They are fighting to pre-emptively shame the vengeful shamers; dishonour the avenging dishonourers in advance of an all-powerful Shia government. Indeed, in an unconscious and perverse form, part of the character of the sectarian carnage the Iraqis are wreaking upon themselves also plays a role in the blaming and shaming the US in the yes of the international community for the situation it has created. The US cannot create stability or effect regime change, because it would entail achieving an impossible cultural change from bottom up. For these reasons, the mounting military operations to achieve security as a space to achieving political solution and national reconciliation, is purely pie in the sky. The US is applying sticky plasters to gaping gangrenous wounds at a tremendous and worthless price. They are doomed to failure. Thus they are stuck in an endless war, they cannot win. For the blinkered and myopic, cultural ignoramuses in the White House this is a book closed with a thousand seals. Consequently, the Iraqi adventure turned out to be a victory of astonishment over foresight. But having banged their heads on it they have chosen either to ignore it, or to treat it with contempt and carry on regardless. The bankrupt Administration has chosen to simply repeat and repeat again and again the same failed strategy and tactics, regardless of whether they kept coming up with the same failed results - something someone once described as being the definition of madness. It would take a leap of the imagination for the Administration to realize that the aim of the insurgency is not to win, but to take retribution and to heap shame upon them. Culturally, this would even be the case should they be able to win militarily! Humiliation not annihilation is their payback for the occupation. Thus, withdrawal is the only option for the US, since they cannot uproot an emotional motivation by military means. It is not just that the US cannot succeed in an asymmetrical war, but that they cannot win a psychologically asymmetrical conflict. Withdrawal will be a victory for the insurgents. But regardless of all this, sometimes eating humble pie is the most emotionally intelligent course.
Permalink Comments (1) |
Archives:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Home |
Page Two |
FAQ's |
Contact |
Terms of Service |
Article Submission Guidelines |
Questions & Answers |
Privacy |
Mission / About
Copyright © 1999-2009 SearchWarp.com, All Rights Reserved - SearchWarp.com is an IcoLogic, Inc. Company