WhatFinger


Kobane symbolizes Turkish duplicity

Kobane: "a martyred town, a symbolic Town"



"A martyred town, a symbolic town" is the poignant description of Kobane, by French President Francois Hollande. He stated that "all countries concerned" should be providing weapons to the Kobane defenders and pointedly stated as bluntly as any diplomatic language can , that "Turkey must absolutely open its border."
If Kobane is a symbol in Hollande's words, then what did Hollande think it symbolic of? Kobane is an encircled Syrian Kurdish city of 160,000 inhabitants just inside the Syrian border from Turkey and entrenched on three sides by the well-equipped ISIS army that has promised the secular pro west Kurds the same gruesome enslavement, death and genocide it has delivered to the Yazidi, Christians, Sabeans and all Muslims of a religiously paler shade. To the rear, the fourth side, lies Kobane's supply line, a proverbial stone's throw from the Syrian Turkish border, and the Turkish army, with massed tanks deployed on a small crest overlooking burning Kobane. Kobane is symbolic to the Kurds. The largest ethnic group on earth denied statehood, the Kurdish nation of over 40 million are the ancient Medes of the Bible, a people who once had a state, with a history, language and culture contemporary to ancient Babylon, at least 2500 years ago, 586 BC. Unfortunately for the Kurds, they inhabit an oil rich area of land that intersects Turkey, Iran and Syria, and to varying degrees, they are oppressed by all three. Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein deployed sarin and mustard gas aerial bombs and artillery shells to destroy various Kurdish villages in northern Iraq, and Turkey to this day denies the Turkish Kurds, comprising 20% of Turkey's population, language and cultural rights and imposes political restrictions. To the Kurds, Kobane represents their plight surrounded by less than generous neighbours; neighbours that are demonstrably hypocritical in their denunciations of Israeli "discrimination" against the Palestinians, yet continue to oppress the Kurds whose population is greater than that of Canada and New Zealand combined. Kobane also represents their incandescent hope and determination to establish an independent state of their own, enshrining its own civil and religious laws, customs and traditions.

Support Canada Free Press


Turkey's infidelity

Joseph Puder (FrontPage Magazine) draws an apt historical parallel to the Red Army poised by the River Vistula, giving the Nazi Army a free hand to butcher the ill armed Polish uprising in Warsaw, 1944. In that conflict, Stalin's raison d'etre was to permit the German army to destroy the nascent Polish home army making his conquest and domination of Poland easier. Ring any bells? President Erdogan, in a similar vein, is content to see a similar fate befall the Syrian Kurds, thus denying them the means to establish their own long overdue state and thwart his geo- strategic ambitions on north east Syria. Turkey has the second largest military in NATO next to the US, an army of over 500,000 men, with 3,600 tanks and just under1000 military aircraft. It has the military capability to steamroll ISIS deployed force of 20, 000 Jihadis and lift the siege of Kobane sparing the city and its inhabitants from extinction. Yet it has refused to use its military against ISIS or come to Kobane's defence. It has also refused to allow Turkish Kurds to aid their brethren from annihilation by ISIS's Iraqi captured American heavy weaponry. Plus, adding insult to injury, Turkey's air force bombed not ISIS, but the Kurds in the north. Nor does Turkey's infidelity stop there. There are clearly documented cases of Turkey both passively and actively assisting ISIS in its campaign of conquest. These charges come not just from the Kurds, but from the Turkish political opposition parties, Turkey's media and in reports from MEMRI ( Middle East Media Research Institute). Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of Turkey's main opposition Republican Peoples Party (CHP) stated unequivocally that the purpose and real policy intention of the AKP, Turkey's government under Erdogan was directed to fighting Syria. He stated, "We would support a motion on the struggle against the ISIS terrorist organization. This was also what the Western coalition was looking for. But this is not the motion that came to the Parliament. On the contrary, it is about fighting against Syria. "We know of the clear aid and support that the AKP Government provides ISIS. We are giving arms, money and moral support to the very organization that wants to kill our own relatives there [i.e. in Kobane].... There cannot be a massacre there. If our neighbors and relatives are massacred and the AKP government watches it happening, they will pay a high price for this."[MEMRI] CHP MP Faruk Logoglu, in addressing the Turkish parliament said on Oct 2, that the AKP government was using ISIS as a "cover" and that the "vital arteries of ISIS" are in Turkey. Instead of joining or not joining any coalition against ISIS, Turkey must firstly execute an effective war against ISIS and all terrorist organizations within Turkey. Because the vital arteries of ISIS, which was born in Iraq, grew in Syria, and became an international problem, are in Turkey. By cutting all these arteries, Turkey can make the greatest contribution to the anti-ISIS coalition... Turkey's borders must cease to be a transit way for terrorists. Turkish land must stop being a base for logistical support for these terrorist organizations, the activities of recruitment of sympathizers and resources by these organizations within Turkey must be prevented. In other words, cleaning up the Turkey extension of the ISIS swamp would make Turkey the most effective contributor to the anti-ISIS coalition."[MEMRI] If these charges were not grave enough,Firat Epozdemir, Chairman of the Association for the Libertarian Lawyers indicates the Turkish government on behalf of his association is filing complaints about President Erdogan, and Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Daavutoglu to the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, accusing them and the Turkish government of "instigating ISIS to eliminate an ethnic or religious group (i.e. Kurds) partly or completely, as part of a plan, and incitement to kill or injure a community or deprive it of freedom as part of the same plan, for religious or political motives." The association also accused the Turkish government of dispatching weapons to Islamist groups in Syria, citing as evidence the Turkish military police's interception, in January 2014, of numerous trucks en route from Turkey to Syria that were found to be carrying arms and ammunition. In panic, the government removed the prosecutor involved in the case, blocked further investigation, and brought a gag order to prevent media coverage of it. [MEMRI] AKP founder and former deputy chairman Dengir Firat also stated plainly that the Turkish government had armed extremist groups in Syria, including ISIS.

Kobane symbolizes Turkish duplicity

Kobane symbolizes Turkish duplicity. Ostensibly a US ally, and a member of NATO, Erdogan's government has played a double game and reneged on any moral obligations and what are arguably, its defacto military obligations. It has refused to prevent more genocide and, under cover, to selfishly pursue its own regional ambitions confirming in the process that twentieth century realpolitik, contrary to former secretary of State Hillary's "reset button", is alive and well. Turkey's perfidy aside, to the US and the coalition, Kobane symbolises the illusionary nature of President Obama's 60 nation "coalition of the willing" when set against competing strategic objectives. Shadi Hamid, a Middle East scholar with the Brookings Institution said "The coalition partners have very different conceptions about the regional order and don't even agree on what the primary threat is." He added "You have all these different actors who want different things and in some cases also strongly dislike each other." " Liz Sly of the Washington Post reports that Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Daavutoglu said "We don't approve of one dimensional policies," alluding to the US singular focus of destroying ISIS. And until the US accedes to his viewpoint, Turkey will continue to refuse US requests for military support against ISIS and deny the US the strategic use of the US's military airport at Incirlik for airstrikes. Furthermore, Turkey has also stipulated that Turkish assistance for Kobane is conditional on The Kurdish Democratic Union (PYD) breaking of its allegiance allied with the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) an organization it still deems an enemy in spite of concluding a peace treaty with it a year ago. "With friends like these..." MEMRI reports that President Al Sissi of Egypt, while supporting the coalition, is sceptical about the real goals of the war and, voicing suspicions that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States also share, fears that Syria may splinter if attacked, benefiting Turkey's regional geo-economic and strategic ambitions. Consequently, with an army of over 470,000 troops, President Al Sissi will not supply men. Cryptically, the Egyptian President states "the symbolism of a united coalition is very important." And further suggests that the coalition's targets should include the Muslim Brotherhood which is the "umbrella movement of all global terrorism." To the United States, Kobane has become a symbol, if an unhappy one for the above reasons. They know that Kobane is the next place ISIS forces want to "put its flag" and that ISIS also view Kobane as a symbol. If they can take Kobane and they can continue their Sunni Jihad conquest of the Middle East (ME) in spite of US airpower, with a strategy of embedding their heavy weapons and Jihadis in built up civilian areas. The US is equally keen to prove ISIS wrong. US airstrikes on ISIS targets around Kobane have slowed ISIS's advance but they have also coincided with Turkey's bombing of Kurdish "rebels" members of the Kurdish Workers Party (KKP)-an organisation still designated by both the US and Turkey as a terror group- who led a 30-year insurgency in in Turkey's Kurdish dominated South-East, and are demanding Turkish action to save Kobane. Strategically Kobane is vital to ISIS for geopolitical reasons as control of Kobane would, according to Jonathan Spyer, a ME analyst and author for Fathom Forum enable ISIS to move its capital from Raqqa city to Aleppo province, thus giving it a "much more contiguous area of territory" with unimpeded direct access to continue its north west advance. Tragically, Kobane symbolically encapsulates much more. It illustrates the US's seeming inability to distinguish between friend and foe. The Kurds notably the Peshmerga have proven over and again that they are the only effective fighting force against ISIS, but like the Kurds of Kobane who are viewed by many "as the tip of the spear against ISIS" they are only being supplied with small arms. Additionally we ask, why does Washington accede to the Shiite ruled Bagdad government demands that all arms shipments to the Kurds arrive first in Baghdad? The salient fact is Iraqi officials have regularly blocked or delayed these shipments to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Erbil who are assisting the Syrian Kurds at Kobane. Moreover, Joseph Puder reports that U.S. State Department regulations bar the KRG from purchasing U.S. made weapons without "end-user certificates" issued by Baghdad. MEMRI adds that the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, stated, "Baghdad is bent on wielding this authority to prevent the KRG from developing anti-tank and anti-aircraft arsenals." This tactic denies the Kurds the ability to effectively defend themselves and to go on the offensive. Ironically, Shiite Baghdad's obstructionism assists ISIS. Contrast this poorly US supported Kurdish resolve and lack of success with Foreign Policy reports that Sunni al Nusra militants overran the last remaining strongholds of US backed "moderate" rebels in Syria's northern province, Idib, representing another humiliating setback for US attempts to build a "proxy army" to combat ISIS forces. Liz Sly also reports that "moderate" rebels armed and trained by covert CIA programme have either "fled or defected to the "extremists." On all fronts these US backed and well equipped "moderates" are on the run and are a singular failure. The US has repeatedly armed "moderates" who are in fact hostile "militants." One mistake is a tragedy, but to repeat it is a farce. When will the US admit to its inability based on current policy, to discern friend from foe? This is not to mention the fresh US financial and military input to the disgraced Iraqi army's retreat of 600,000 soldiers in the face of 30,000 ISIS forces despite being propped up at a total cost of $25 US billion over eight years. Kobane represents in degree a microcosm of the delicately poised political alliances of the East. In a nutshell, the Kurds as a nation are divided into two main political groups or movements, the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), led by Masoud Barzani and the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), led by Abdullah Ocalan. Additionally, there is the Kurdish Democratic Union (PYD) which represents the Kurdish forces fighting in Kobane. The PYD is allied to President Assad of Syria through its affiliation with the Kurdish Workers Party (PPK). However rival Masoud Barzani, the President of Iraqi Kurdistan, is hoping to rupture this alliance with Assad and knit the PYD with the Kurdish National Council (KNC) uniting all Kurdish factions in opposition to Assad in the hope of securing some form of Turkish commitment for Kobane. Moving from Kobane to the broader context Richard Fontaine, president of the Center of a New American Security said that President Obama's strategy was "based upon the singular goal of defeating the Islamic State". Questions must however be asked as to the efficacy of this sole and it must be said, simplistic, focus. It is tantamount to keeping your eye on one ball in a game of billiards when you need to be watching them all. Additionally President Obama is continuing to actively enlist Iran, the first Shiite Islamic State (IS) established in 1979, as an ally in the region despite Iran's own regional strategy which has been to consistently "fund any group that keeps Iraq in chaos, (to) prevent a stable Iraq allied to the US government and establish Iranian control over Iraq". (Honor) Depending if you are Right or Left in the political spectrum, one blaming Obama the other Bush respectively, the reality is they both have a share, albeit an unequal one in the Iraq quagmire. President Bush failed to prevent growing Iranian penetration of the Iraqi government and, even more importantly, Obama prematurely withdrew US combat troops creating a power vacuum. Iran now controls the sectarian Shiite Iraqi government as it does in the other Arab capitals, Beirut, Damascus and Sana'a of Yemen which govern the "oil straits"-Bab Al Mandeb- at the entrance to the Red Sea. Any assistance rendered to Shiite Iraq, is assistance given directly to Iran and to Iran's growing hegemony in the region. Armed Iranian backed Shiite Iraqi militias are now using the fight against the Islamic State as a pretext to expand their areas of control destroying Sunni Arab communities across the country, razing entire villages and expelling whole Sunni communities in a continuing seesaw of sectarian displacement and dispossession. Furthermore, to continue to treat political Syria and Iraq as unitary states is vacuous. These paper entities have been subsumed into rival religious and ethnic sub groups and have ceased to exist as nation states. Mordechai Kedar reminds us that the original borders were defined by colonialists who chose to overlook the dominating or defining character of the Arabs which is traditional loyalty to their tribe, and their traditional ethnic and sectarian identities, not Arab nationalism. In the writers view, Jonathan Spyer's analysis that the war being fought over Iraq, Syria and Lebanon must be seen on a "canvas" of a "single sectarian war... fought mainly between two forms of political Islam," Shia led by Iran and Sunni led in the main, by ISIS and al Nusra. A war for borders and control over resource", accurately sums up the dynamics of the situation. Unless a comprehensive coherent plan is developed that addresses or contains both fundamentalist Shia or Shiite and Sunni forces, specifically dealing with Iranian sponsored terrorism, then one can only expect more war, not peace. Military men will state that Obama's "degrade and destroy" policy "cannot nor will not destroy ISIS from the air. Spyer argues "you must have boots on the ground and you have to go for the heart of ISIS, Raqqa city, its capital. But who, he asks, is going to do this? An equally unpalatable fact is "any move to degrade ISIS will enhance Iranian control."

Dubious allies playing a double game of deceit, seemingly indifferent to friends, presenting a fragmented alliance with a simplistic strategy

LT. Col. (ret.) Michael Segull, in an excellent article quoted the deputy commander of the IRGC, Hussein Salami whose analysis of the strategic situation in the region unambiguously states that Iran is "capable of controlling the political developments in the region without using military force and without having a direct presence on the ground." Salami noted the US' palpably waning influence over the main events in the region, commenting that " the U.S. policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Libya had suffered a complete failure. Juxtaposing US decline with Iran's rise, Michael Segull again quoted Salami who concluded, "Iran is on the verge of reaching a new level of power.... Today our conflict with the West has expanded to the Mediterranean and this indicates a change in the regional power equations, an increase in our power, and a narrowing of the range of our enemies' power," along with the rising power of Islam and the Muslims. Questions must be asked. With the massive firepower available to the ME nations in the neighbourhood [Turkey 500,000 troops, Saudi Arabia, 233,000 troops with 1,100 tanks and the world's fourth largest military spender; Iraq with over 200,000 troops freshly equipped courtesy of the US tax payer; Egypt, 470,000 troops; Jordan, 110,00 troops and Syria, pre 2011 civil war, 220,000 troops, and Iran, with 545,000 troops], why are the relatively small armies of the western bloc continuing to pick up the tab, risking life and limb and eroding hard pressed home tax base revenue in these seemingly unending Middle Eastern sectarian civil wars? Who are our real friends and who are our foes? What in the last 10 years have we achieved in the ME and do we have a coherent policy that will bring geopolitical and economic stability to the region and make the "local actors" more accountable? In a word, where is the coherence to a sustained, unambiguous and effective ME foreign policy? Thus Kobane is symbolic in a number of ways. The most poignant question is how many more innocent martyrs will suffer in the face of a resurgent and vicious Islamic sectarianism ripping through ancient eastern communities and spreading westwards? And what becomes of the chacteristically prodigal US response with its men and money as it must increasingly deal with dubious allies playing a double game of deceit, seemingly indifferent to friends, presenting a fragmented alliance with a simplistic strategy that will only further erode western leadership and confidence whilst gifting a prospective nuclear Iran with regional hegemony?


View Comments

Paul McGoverne -- Bio and Archives

Paul McGoverne is a freelance writer living in “Down Under,” Napier, New Zealand. He is a trained ESOL and Secondary School Teacher.


Sponsored