When does diplomacy become dangerous? The answer: when it is not sincere. Now that may sound a tad naïve, but give me a moment of your time to explain. The purpose of diplomacy is to allow nations to settle differences through talk rather than war. It can work, and it can fail miserably. The most often cited case of diplomacy failing is the now infamous peace plan brokered by British Prime Minister Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler just prior to the outbreak of World War Two, and Chamberlain's famous words "Peace in our time". More often than not diplomacy solves small issues between nations, while the more serious, or strategic issues generally have ended in military action.
In todays world we have all kinds of "diplomacy" happening every day, and all day long, but we also have wars raging during the same period. In fact, diplomacy has been reduced to acts of one-up-man-ship for some theoretical "moral high ground" rather than its intended purpose of resolving disputes. The peril that results from this kind of behaviour leaves mankind with no real dispute mechanism other than war, or the "Law of the Jungle" - might is right and the end justifies the means.
Just recently I had the unfortunate privilege of watching the Israeli military Chief of Staff give a brief interview regarding a possible Kurdish state being formed from the countries of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. Although that push to create a Kurdish state from these countries is not news, his particular delight in the idea, and his "too cute for words" pronouncement that Israel wouldn't be opposed to such a development, as he smiled into the camera, was in a word shocking. It wasn't shocking because he believed in the idea, but rather it was shocking because he showed no respect for the territorial integrity of the three nations already at war for their survival. In other words, while Israel sits somewhat quietly on the sides of these conflicts, feigning if you will diplomacy, in reality Israel isn't uninvolved or sincere.
Similarly, while the United States sits at one UN Security Council meeting after another, in many cases over Syria, and attempts to diplomatically pressure the Syrian government and its allies, one of its senior Generals recently pronounced that the Syrian army and its allies would not be permitted to cross the Euphrates River to enter Eastern Syria. Take a moment and consider that General's pronouncement. The Syrian army would not be permitted to enter the eastern half of its own country... Where in the rules of international law could this statement be rooted? The idea that a sovereign power cannot exercise sovereignty over its own territory is an affront to the very foundation of nationhood. An exception to this rule can me made in cases of genocide, such as Rwanda, but that is clearly not the case in Syria.
In fact, with the establishment of at least two US airbases in eastern Syria, and according to the Turkish government at least ten US bases of all types in the same area, it is clear that the American government is occupying eastern Syria in order to reinforce the Kurdish annexation of that area in order to establish a Kurdish state. The impending independence vote of the Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq, an area also heavily aligned with the US government, reinforces the notion. Yet, and here comes the dangerous diplomacy, the Americans continue to posture internationally that they want a peaceful settlement of the Syrian civil war.
The question then becomes, obviously, how sincere are the US diplomatic pronouncements about peace in Syria? The answer quite clearly is they are not serious what-so-ever. That leads to a greater problem: if the US is not serious about its diplomacy in Syria, then is it serious in its diplomacy toward Iran, North Korea, or even Russia and China? Should these countries take American diplomacy seriously at all, or should they rely on military means to resolve their inevitable national clashes of interests? Therein lies the danger of diplomacy without sincerity, and diplomacy that ignores its fundamental foundation which is international law. How nations must act toward other nations.
Real diplomacy has resolved some of the world's most anxious moments. The Cuban missile crisis comes to mind. There was also the fall of the Berlin Wall. These were crisis that, once resolved by diplomacy, gave nations a chance to move forward without the direct use of force. Yes, they had their origins in force, but sincerity and adherence to international law overcame the threat of war, because the nations involved sincerely did not want such a confrontation. That is missing today. On a daily basis we here one side or the other threatening nuclear war, or "limited" nuclear strikes as doable. The aim is not to restore international law, or for that matter international order. The goal quite clearly appears to be the reverse - "strategic interests or national interests" trump (pardon the pun) the law of nations. The same type of scenario the world witnessed just before World War Two and the "peace in our time" declaration. It was not "appeasement" that didn't work in 1939, but the sincerity behind the "appeasement". The exact same conditions exist today. So, yes, dangerous diplomacy is alive and well, and ruling the hearts of men and women who lead their nations, but conveniently toss the lessons of history to the side - at all our peril.
Showing posts with label Kurds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kurds. Show all posts
Saturday, September 16, 2017
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Syria is for Syrians
You could be excused for thinking the world has taken a madness pill, and jumped off the deep end. Whether it is the schizophrenic American political scene, the deep and divisive European internal political battles, the Middle East in turmoil, or the fact that the stock markets continue on as if nothing is happening, the place has lost the plot. Speaking of lost the plot, this post focuses on the almost unbelievable actions of foreign nations in Syria, and what may well come next.
Let's start with the rules. The Laws of Wars encompassed within the Convention of the Hague, 1907, specifically defines how a war amongst nations must be declared:
"Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."
The United States and Turkey signed this Convention. Ironically, Syria did not. Now Syria is the victim of hostilities perpetuated upon it by two countries who have solemnly sworn not to do so. All the rest flows from this. When the Syrian "uprising" began it was people on the streets - unarmed people. They didn't have small arms, artillery, tanks, or anti-aircraft weapons. Where did all that come from? They didn't have bank accounts with hundreds of millions of dollars to fund a 4 year long conventional war against their own government. Where did that come from? It came from the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia - that's where.
Having abandoned the very basic convention of declaring a war on Syria, there was no reason to believe that the rest of the war would be any different. No rules. No holds barred. The law of the jungle where might is right seeped into the country of Syria. Hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered in the name of ... regime change. That's really what it boils down to. The Russians and Iranians want to keep a strategic ally in the region, and the Americans, Turks and Saudis want them gone. Let's not disgrace the name of democracy and liberty by suggesting the war in Syria has a thing to do with those tenants of freedom.
So where are we going from here in Syria? The map below will tell you where we are now:
As you can see, the blue area in the top to middle part of this picture is the area of Northern Syria controlled by Turkey after it invaded with armed militia supporters. The yellow areas are controlled by essentially the Kurds (backed with armed Americans). The green areas are controlled by the Syrian, Russian, and Iranian forces. Several things come to mind. Firstly, the Kurds are quite divided in the territories they hold. To the west they hold large parts of northern Aleppo. To the east they hold the areas around Manbij. In between them the Turks hold the area around Al-Bab. What makes things tricky for the Kurds is they cannot unite their territories in the east and west without engaging Turkish forces, which would give Turkish President Erdogan the excuse he needs to go full in with large military forces. So, realistically, the Kurds have no hope of holding the area of Northern Aleppo.
They also have no realistic hope of holding their territories on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River centered on Manbij. As I write this, Syrian and Russian forces are making big advances shown as pink on the map. (see operational map below) They are pushing to and reaching the Euphrates River to the southern flank of the Kurds Manjib beach head. It is now only a matter of time before the Kurds will have to withdraw from the Manbij area to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. Here their position is far more defensible from the Syrian army, and to a lesser extent the Turkish Army.
That makes the Euphrates River the new dividing line in the battle for Syria - the divide between the Kurds/Americans and everyone else. There is, however, a weak link in that line of defence - Deir al- Zour. This city and nearby airbase is controlled by the Syrian army, and is located to the south of Al- Raqqa (the ISIS self declared capital on the Euphrates. This map gives you a good idea of the area and the cities involved:
Deir al- Zour bridges the Euphrates and leaves any Kurdish partition of North Eastern Syria highly vulnerable. In fact, it makes such a complete partition almost impossible to defend. Currently, the Kurds and Americans are concentrating their forces on the battle to retake Al-Raqqa. They have it surrounded on three sides with its back to the Euphrates. The US has just deployed 2200 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, and 1000 reservists to Kuwait in preparation for the final battle of Al-Raqqa. They have also deployed air mobile artillery, and the 400 troops that go with it, directly to the Al-Raqqa front. As of this morning the Americans and Kurds were within 50 km of the northern gates to Al-Raqqa. It may be a grind, but ISIS has no hope of winning that battle. Al-Raqqa will be laid to waste by American artillery and air strikes.
What comes then? Well, if the American and Kurdish intention is to create a Kurdish territory out of North eastern Syria, which this writer considers a foregone conclusion, then a battle for Dier-al-Zour will be next. It is a strategic must to seal a gaping hole in the Euphrates River defence concept. That will involve the Americans and Kurds attacking the Syrian and Russian military located there. A dangerous proposition indeed.
It has always been the case, since the ISIS advance was halted on the door steps of Bagdad, that the real danger of foreign powers throwing international law to the wind would play itself out once their common menace had been eliminated. We are almost at that point now. Mosul is essentially finished for ISIS. Al-Raqqa is surrounded. It's like the final weeks of Nazi Germany for ISIS right now. What unfolded after Nazi Germany fell was the iron curtain, the Berlin Wall, and the Cold War. Will that happen in Syria? Will the Americans put the brakes on and hold the Kurds to the eastern banks of the Euphrates? Will the Syrians and Russians be prepared to allow that to happen while they turn their attention toward the areas around Damascus and Ibdib that still require action to rid them of Islamic and Turkmen militias? Would that be a fatal move for Syria? And what of Turkey? Would it be prepared to allow a new Kurdish region to be added to the autonomous Kurdish region in Northern Iraq? That would leave just the South Eastern area of Turkey for the Kurds to capture and form their treasured vision of a united Kurdistan - one that already has the implicit and military backing of the United States.
The most plausible scenario, given the pragmatic chess strategy of Russian President Putin, is that the Syrians take the western bank of the Euphrates, and the Kurds/Americans take the Eastern bank - for now. Then the Russians and Syrians will turn their focus to the pockets of resistance in North Western Syria, and isolated pockets around Damascus and their border with Lebanon (Hezbollah and Iran likely playing a predominant role there). It seems Putin is willing to forestall any one-on-one confrontation with the US until after his rearmament program is finished - around 2020. In the mean time he is in the defensive mode, as is clearly demonstrated in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The problem with his strategy, as can be quite clearly seen in the Ukraine conflict, is that it gives the Americans time to establish positions in the area, and reinforce/bolster the local military. Now, instead of Russia taking on an isolated Ukrainian military of 50,000 it faces an unofficially NATO aligned country with over 200,000 troops. The same scenario is almost certainly going to play out in the Kurdish territories. In some ways, if you're Putin, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The real lesson in all of this is that abandoning the rules of order for expediency can never be sanctioned, and that to see it any other way is to invite chaos to the orderly conduct of societies around the world. It has to be said, because it is patently obvious, that the Americans hold the full responsibility for chaos that their cavalier actions have created in the world. They have changed the term "national interest" into the all encompassing "national right". They have claimed the world as their own with no right to do so. An unfortunate, but predictable consequence of the fall of the Soviet Union. A living case of power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. They have perverted the "peace dividend" that was so greatly lauded when the Berlin Wall fell into a "we'll take what we want when we want dividend", and in doing so turned the world against them. It is the Americans who were not invited into Syria to help fight ISIS. Just as it was the Americans that fanned the flames of the civil unrest in Syria to begin with, and it was the Americans, in conjunction with the Saudis, that financed it.
The only solution for Syria is that Syrians decide what their country will be. To demand otherwise is to place yourself in a type of arrogance not befitting the average person. Always remember it is not righteous people who start wars, it is the self-righteous. The ones that place their beliefs above all others and enforce them over all others. Recent history has shown that the Americans will not allow the Syrians to decide the future of their country, and that is a terrible indictment upon them. It is also a terrible indictment against the rest of us that we allow this type of "God syndrome" to have a place in the civilized world we claim ours to be. In that way, Syria today is a reflection on all of us - our greed, our arrogance, our uncaring hypocrisy. The very same traits that have their roots in all our conflicts of the past. It shows that despite all our achievements as a species, when all that is stripped away, we continue to act as though we still carry clubs and dwell in caves. That's the really sad part of it all.
Let's start with the rules. The Laws of Wars encompassed within the Convention of the Hague, 1907, specifically defines how a war amongst nations must be declared:
"Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."
The United States and Turkey signed this Convention. Ironically, Syria did not. Now Syria is the victim of hostilities perpetuated upon it by two countries who have solemnly sworn not to do so. All the rest flows from this. When the Syrian "uprising" began it was people on the streets - unarmed people. They didn't have small arms, artillery, tanks, or anti-aircraft weapons. Where did all that come from? They didn't have bank accounts with hundreds of millions of dollars to fund a 4 year long conventional war against their own government. Where did that come from? It came from the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia - that's where.
Having abandoned the very basic convention of declaring a war on Syria, there was no reason to believe that the rest of the war would be any different. No rules. No holds barred. The law of the jungle where might is right seeped into the country of Syria. Hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered in the name of ... regime change. That's really what it boils down to. The Russians and Iranians want to keep a strategic ally in the region, and the Americans, Turks and Saudis want them gone. Let's not disgrace the name of democracy and liberty by suggesting the war in Syria has a thing to do with those tenants of freedom.
So where are we going from here in Syria? The map below will tell you where we are now:
As you can see, the blue area in the top to middle part of this picture is the area of Northern Syria controlled by Turkey after it invaded with armed militia supporters. The yellow areas are controlled by essentially the Kurds (backed with armed Americans). The green areas are controlled by the Syrian, Russian, and Iranian forces. Several things come to mind. Firstly, the Kurds are quite divided in the territories they hold. To the west they hold large parts of northern Aleppo. To the east they hold the areas around Manbij. In between them the Turks hold the area around Al-Bab. What makes things tricky for the Kurds is they cannot unite their territories in the east and west without engaging Turkish forces, which would give Turkish President Erdogan the excuse he needs to go full in with large military forces. So, realistically, the Kurds have no hope of holding the area of Northern Aleppo.
They also have no realistic hope of holding their territories on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River centered on Manbij. As I write this, Syrian and Russian forces are making big advances shown as pink on the map. (see operational map below) They are pushing to and reaching the Euphrates River to the southern flank of the Kurds Manjib beach head. It is now only a matter of time before the Kurds will have to withdraw from the Manbij area to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. Here their position is far more defensible from the Syrian army, and to a lesser extent the Turkish Army.
That makes the Euphrates River the new dividing line in the battle for Syria - the divide between the Kurds/Americans and everyone else. There is, however, a weak link in that line of defence - Deir al- Zour. This city and nearby airbase is controlled by the Syrian army, and is located to the south of Al- Raqqa (the ISIS self declared capital on the Euphrates. This map gives you a good idea of the area and the cities involved:
Deir al- Zour bridges the Euphrates and leaves any Kurdish partition of North Eastern Syria highly vulnerable. In fact, it makes such a complete partition almost impossible to defend. Currently, the Kurds and Americans are concentrating their forces on the battle to retake Al-Raqqa. They have it surrounded on three sides with its back to the Euphrates. The US has just deployed 2200 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, and 1000 reservists to Kuwait in preparation for the final battle of Al-Raqqa. They have also deployed air mobile artillery, and the 400 troops that go with it, directly to the Al-Raqqa front. As of this morning the Americans and Kurds were within 50 km of the northern gates to Al-Raqqa. It may be a grind, but ISIS has no hope of winning that battle. Al-Raqqa will be laid to waste by American artillery and air strikes.
What comes then? Well, if the American and Kurdish intention is to create a Kurdish territory out of North eastern Syria, which this writer considers a foregone conclusion, then a battle for Dier-al-Zour will be next. It is a strategic must to seal a gaping hole in the Euphrates River defence concept. That will involve the Americans and Kurds attacking the Syrian and Russian military located there. A dangerous proposition indeed.
It has always been the case, since the ISIS advance was halted on the door steps of Bagdad, that the real danger of foreign powers throwing international law to the wind would play itself out once their common menace had been eliminated. We are almost at that point now. Mosul is essentially finished for ISIS. Al-Raqqa is surrounded. It's like the final weeks of Nazi Germany for ISIS right now. What unfolded after Nazi Germany fell was the iron curtain, the Berlin Wall, and the Cold War. Will that happen in Syria? Will the Americans put the brakes on and hold the Kurds to the eastern banks of the Euphrates? Will the Syrians and Russians be prepared to allow that to happen while they turn their attention toward the areas around Damascus and Ibdib that still require action to rid them of Islamic and Turkmen militias? Would that be a fatal move for Syria? And what of Turkey? Would it be prepared to allow a new Kurdish region to be added to the autonomous Kurdish region in Northern Iraq? That would leave just the South Eastern area of Turkey for the Kurds to capture and form their treasured vision of a united Kurdistan - one that already has the implicit and military backing of the United States.
The most plausible scenario, given the pragmatic chess strategy of Russian President Putin, is that the Syrians take the western bank of the Euphrates, and the Kurds/Americans take the Eastern bank - for now. Then the Russians and Syrians will turn their focus to the pockets of resistance in North Western Syria, and isolated pockets around Damascus and their border with Lebanon (Hezbollah and Iran likely playing a predominant role there). It seems Putin is willing to forestall any one-on-one confrontation with the US until after his rearmament program is finished - around 2020. In the mean time he is in the defensive mode, as is clearly demonstrated in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The problem with his strategy, as can be quite clearly seen in the Ukraine conflict, is that it gives the Americans time to establish positions in the area, and reinforce/bolster the local military. Now, instead of Russia taking on an isolated Ukrainian military of 50,000 it faces an unofficially NATO aligned country with over 200,000 troops. The same scenario is almost certainly going to play out in the Kurdish territories. In some ways, if you're Putin, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The real lesson in all of this is that abandoning the rules of order for expediency can never be sanctioned, and that to see it any other way is to invite chaos to the orderly conduct of societies around the world. It has to be said, because it is patently obvious, that the Americans hold the full responsibility for chaos that their cavalier actions have created in the world. They have changed the term "national interest" into the all encompassing "national right". They have claimed the world as their own with no right to do so. An unfortunate, but predictable consequence of the fall of the Soviet Union. A living case of power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. They have perverted the "peace dividend" that was so greatly lauded when the Berlin Wall fell into a "we'll take what we want when we want dividend", and in doing so turned the world against them. It is the Americans who were not invited into Syria to help fight ISIS. Just as it was the Americans that fanned the flames of the civil unrest in Syria to begin with, and it was the Americans, in conjunction with the Saudis, that financed it.
The only solution for Syria is that Syrians decide what their country will be. To demand otherwise is to place yourself in a type of arrogance not befitting the average person. Always remember it is not righteous people who start wars, it is the self-righteous. The ones that place their beliefs above all others and enforce them over all others. Recent history has shown that the Americans will not allow the Syrians to decide the future of their country, and that is a terrible indictment upon them. It is also a terrible indictment against the rest of us that we allow this type of "God syndrome" to have a place in the civilized world we claim ours to be. In that way, Syria today is a reflection on all of us - our greed, our arrogance, our uncaring hypocrisy. The very same traits that have their roots in all our conflicts of the past. It shows that despite all our achievements as a species, when all that is stripped away, we continue to act as though we still carry clubs and dwell in caves. That's the really sad part of it all.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Turkey Changes Sides.
They say that a week in politics is a long time, but for Turkey it was just a few short hours. First, scattered reports of soldiers blocking bridges. Then tanks at the Parliament. Fighter jets and helicopters appearing over the capital. Suddenly all hell was breaking loose on the streets - all covered by social media with main stream media playing catch up. Deathly silence from the US government for several hours. Ditto for Turkey's NATO allies. And then it all failed. Erdogan wasn't killed, and his call to supporters filled the streets. The mutineers were overwhelmed and the world went into damage control.
It was immediately evident to me, at least, that the attempted coup was a result of Erdogan's attempt at reconciliation with Moscow over Syria, and the role it had played there - including shooting down a Russian bomber. It was also clear to me that Erdogan was making such moves, because his allies in the West were supporting the Kurds wholeheartedly in Syria. Essentially the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and for Turkey there is no bigger national security threat than the Kurds as they attempt to form a Kurdistan partially out of southern Turkey.
It must have become evident to Erdogan that US special forces embedded with the Kurds, and a US air base being constructed in Kurdish controlled areas of northern Syria was as big a signal as you will ever need - the US was an ally of the Kurds. You would have to be completely blind not to see that, and apparently the Turkish President is not blind. So, after giving an ultimatum to his Western allies of "the Kurds or us". Erdogan made good and shuffled toward Russia - the one country that could still turn the tide against the Kurds. I wrote about this eventuality last year here .
As ISIS is destroyed in Iraq and Syria the focus becomes the end game. The Kurds already controlled the northern region of Iraq as an "autonomous Kurdish area". ISIS put a large dent in that with its capture of Mosul, but the Iraqi army is positioning itself to assault ISIS in Mosul, and it's only a matter of time before it recaptures it - months even. So Turkey has positioned itself now, with Syria and Russia, to turn on the Kurds even before the war with ISIS is finished. In fact, this week saw the first major clashes between the Syrian army and the Kurds. It also witnessed the US scramble fighter jets against Syrian bombers hitting the Kurds. This is a foreboding of things to come.
The Americans are in northern Syria for good. Their construction of an airbase there is a signal of that. By doing so, the US has signalled not just to Syria, but to Iraq and Turkey, that they intend to assist the Kurds in the creation of a Kurdistan that takes territory from all three countries. This naturally concerns countries like Russia and Iran that are allies of Syria, and becoming very close allies of Iraq. Now Turkey is leaving the American club and heading over to the Russian club to take care of its own interests. Hence the often repeated word Erdogan uttered during his speech to the Turkish nation after the failed coup: " independence". Turkey is not saying that it is leaving NATO yet, but in effect it has "quit and stayed on". It is negotiating to allow Russia to use the massive air force base currently used by the US just 65 miles from the Syrian border - an unprecedented move for a NATO ally, which spurred the US to remove its nuclear weapons from the base this week.
It is becoming ever apparent that the West has really blown its own strategic legs off in the Middle east over the last two decades. Russia, and Eurasia in general, are simply filling the spot left in many ways. The US did the heavy lifting for them by its policies in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and now Turkey. Speaking of Eurasia, China announced this week it will be massively upping its commitment to the Syrian conflict with "advisers", and supplies (read weapons, ammunition, etc). Rather than isolating Russia, and by ricochet Eurasia, in the Middle East, the US is now isolated in a land locked spot in between three countries - a hopeless position. The coup-de-grace is that it is also severely alienating itself from all these extremely important and strategically desirable nations.
As Turkey gravitates now toward Eurasia, slow at first but then very quickly, the West will only have itself to blame. It's hard to see it any other way. The fact that it is in northern Syria without the consent of the Syrian government would normally be considered in international law as an act of war. The fact that it is directly assisting the Kurds to overthrow the elected Syrian government is a blatant violation of internal law. You can't claim to be the world's superpower rooted in democracy and the rule of law, and then blatantly toss those principles to the side for expediency whenever the notion suits. It's that very attitude, that very "real polik" that has been the undoing of US foreign policy and influence over the last 20 or so years. Yet, it appears to be a hard habit to break.
In any case, Turkey is on the verge of becoming a new Iran. An Islamic state that asserts its independence through a distinctly national defence industry and close ties to powerful friends to its north and east. A realignment that will be all consuming. Gone will be the German political and economic influence in Turkey. A relationship that is being tested by Turkey as I write this post. It's the "you're either with us or against us moment" or, as Erdogan put it:
"The PYD (Kurds) has been getting closer with both the United States and Russia of late. We view the PYD as a terrorist group and we want all countries to consider the consequences of their cooperation."
Apparently the ever wise Putin did, and the ever self-righteous US administration did not. This monumental shift in geo-politics is far greater than most people on this side of the world are giving it credit for. Turkey isn't just " another hot-headed country in the Middle East" as our media seems to paint it. It has one of the largest standing armies in the world, but far more importantly than that, Turkey is the southern flank of Russia and the bridge between Europe and the Middle East. That should signal something to western governments. What has been lost, and what has been gained? A sobering thought indeed.
It was immediately evident to me, at least, that the attempted coup was a result of Erdogan's attempt at reconciliation with Moscow over Syria, and the role it had played there - including shooting down a Russian bomber. It was also clear to me that Erdogan was making such moves, because his allies in the West were supporting the Kurds wholeheartedly in Syria. Essentially the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and for Turkey there is no bigger national security threat than the Kurds as they attempt to form a Kurdistan partially out of southern Turkey.
It must have become evident to Erdogan that US special forces embedded with the Kurds, and a US air base being constructed in Kurdish controlled areas of northern Syria was as big a signal as you will ever need - the US was an ally of the Kurds. You would have to be completely blind not to see that, and apparently the Turkish President is not blind. So, after giving an ultimatum to his Western allies of "the Kurds or us". Erdogan made good and shuffled toward Russia - the one country that could still turn the tide against the Kurds. I wrote about this eventuality last year here .
As ISIS is destroyed in Iraq and Syria the focus becomes the end game. The Kurds already controlled the northern region of Iraq as an "autonomous Kurdish area". ISIS put a large dent in that with its capture of Mosul, but the Iraqi army is positioning itself to assault ISIS in Mosul, and it's only a matter of time before it recaptures it - months even. So Turkey has positioned itself now, with Syria and Russia, to turn on the Kurds even before the war with ISIS is finished. In fact, this week saw the first major clashes between the Syrian army and the Kurds. It also witnessed the US scramble fighter jets against Syrian bombers hitting the Kurds. This is a foreboding of things to come.
The Americans are in northern Syria for good. Their construction of an airbase there is a signal of that. By doing so, the US has signalled not just to Syria, but to Iraq and Turkey, that they intend to assist the Kurds in the creation of a Kurdistan that takes territory from all three countries. This naturally concerns countries like Russia and Iran that are allies of Syria, and becoming very close allies of Iraq. Now Turkey is leaving the American club and heading over to the Russian club to take care of its own interests. Hence the often repeated word Erdogan uttered during his speech to the Turkish nation after the failed coup: " independence". Turkey is not saying that it is leaving NATO yet, but in effect it has "quit and stayed on". It is negotiating to allow Russia to use the massive air force base currently used by the US just 65 miles from the Syrian border - an unprecedented move for a NATO ally, which spurred the US to remove its nuclear weapons from the base this week.
It is becoming ever apparent that the West has really blown its own strategic legs off in the Middle east over the last two decades. Russia, and Eurasia in general, are simply filling the spot left in many ways. The US did the heavy lifting for them by its policies in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and now Turkey. Speaking of Eurasia, China announced this week it will be massively upping its commitment to the Syrian conflict with "advisers", and supplies (read weapons, ammunition, etc). Rather than isolating Russia, and by ricochet Eurasia, in the Middle East, the US is now isolated in a land locked spot in between three countries - a hopeless position. The coup-de-grace is that it is also severely alienating itself from all these extremely important and strategically desirable nations.
As Turkey gravitates now toward Eurasia, slow at first but then very quickly, the West will only have itself to blame. It's hard to see it any other way. The fact that it is in northern Syria without the consent of the Syrian government would normally be considered in international law as an act of war. The fact that it is directly assisting the Kurds to overthrow the elected Syrian government is a blatant violation of internal law. You can't claim to be the world's superpower rooted in democracy and the rule of law, and then blatantly toss those principles to the side for expediency whenever the notion suits. It's that very attitude, that very "real polik" that has been the undoing of US foreign policy and influence over the last 20 or so years. Yet, it appears to be a hard habit to break.
In any case, Turkey is on the verge of becoming a new Iran. An Islamic state that asserts its independence through a distinctly national defence industry and close ties to powerful friends to its north and east. A realignment that will be all consuming. Gone will be the German political and economic influence in Turkey. A relationship that is being tested by Turkey as I write this post. It's the "you're either with us or against us moment" or, as Erdogan put it:
"The PYD (Kurds) has been getting closer with both the United States and Russia of late. We view the PYD as a terrorist group and we want all countries to consider the consequences of their cooperation."
Apparently the ever wise Putin did, and the ever self-righteous US administration did not. This monumental shift in geo-politics is far greater than most people on this side of the world are giving it credit for. Turkey isn't just " another hot-headed country in the Middle East" as our media seems to paint it. It has one of the largest standing armies in the world, but far more importantly than that, Turkey is the southern flank of Russia and the bridge between Europe and the Middle East. That should signal something to western governments. What has been lost, and what has been gained? A sobering thought indeed.
Monday, February 8, 2016
The Phoney War
We are living at a time of phoney war - at least that's my theory. A phoney war is a period where war-like moves are made, but the major powers of the day are not yet engaged in actual fighting. The most recent example of this was Hitler's moves in Europe before 1939 - like the Czech and Slovak Republics, etc. Acts that really ought to be considered acts of war, but for "pragmatic" reasons the world over looked them in hopes they would satisfy the aggressor. Those moves are happening today.
Consider Turkey for a moment. Turkey is at once fighting the Kurds on its own territory, and in northern Iraq, supporting ISIS and others against the Kurds in Syria. The problem in the geo-strategic sense is that Turkey is asserting its own perceived interest at the expense of world peace. It is breaking international law by fighting a "hybrid war" against Syria, and is on the verge of making that a very real conventional war in Syria - along with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is making similar moves in Yemen. In the Yemen case, Saudi has already invaded with conventional forces so there was not much pretense there of a phoney war.
In the big picture, however, today we are in a world scale phoney war. For some time I have thought on the reasoning the United States has "betrayed" its long time partner Saudi Arabia and allowed fracking to undermine the world price of oil. Purely examining today's events might leave you scratching your head. The US breaks its long time agreement with the Saudis, world control of oil for using US dollars in its purchase and sale. However, take a step outside the box, look at the many places of near war in the rest of the world, and a very real strategic move may be afoot.
My theory is this: the US is weaning itself off Saudi oil, and putting itself in a position of self-sufficiency, to insulate itself against a Middle east war that will see Saudi, Iraq and Iran lose the ability to export oil. Really its the only sensible conclusion to come to. The transition period was the last five years. Mass fracking in the US has resulted in over 4800 capped oil wells. Over production of oil has resulted in mass storage of oil reserves. Together, the result is a stockpile of strategic oil in the US, but also in Russia. The two big foes are insulating themselves against oil shortages at the same time in this phony war.
If that theory holds true, then I would expect a Middle East war to break out really at any time. Certainly the flash points are Iraq and Syria. Turkey, along with Saudi Arabia and some other minor allies will make a move on Sunni Iraq and northern Syria at the same time leaving rival Iran to address two fronts at once. Clearly that will bring in the Americans and Russians - although I would bank on the Russians being there in large numbers first. In any case, the damage to the oil fields of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would be on a massive scale. Given the technology and weapons possessed by both sides, massive damage to oil infrastructure is only a logical result.
It's funny how today's phoney war eerily points toward the biblical prophecies of the Battle of Armageddon. It's something that nobody wants to think is possible, but the signs seem to be growing all the time. It's as if we have a little self-destruct mechanism and are programming ourselves toward this fate. Of course you could always argue it's the will of God as expressed in the Bible. We have a hard time seeing it from that point of view, because we can't believe God would wish that upon us. But, God is God for a reason. We have human minds which are but a spec in the big picture. That being said, I hope I'm wrong in my observations, and analysis. Nobody should want or thirst over a phoney war. They always lead to the bigger one.
Consider Turkey for a moment. Turkey is at once fighting the Kurds on its own territory, and in northern Iraq, supporting ISIS and others against the Kurds in Syria. The problem in the geo-strategic sense is that Turkey is asserting its own perceived interest at the expense of world peace. It is breaking international law by fighting a "hybrid war" against Syria, and is on the verge of making that a very real conventional war in Syria - along with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is making similar moves in Yemen. In the Yemen case, Saudi has already invaded with conventional forces so there was not much pretense there of a phoney war.
In the big picture, however, today we are in a world scale phoney war. For some time I have thought on the reasoning the United States has "betrayed" its long time partner Saudi Arabia and allowed fracking to undermine the world price of oil. Purely examining today's events might leave you scratching your head. The US breaks its long time agreement with the Saudis, world control of oil for using US dollars in its purchase and sale. However, take a step outside the box, look at the many places of near war in the rest of the world, and a very real strategic move may be afoot.
My theory is this: the US is weaning itself off Saudi oil, and putting itself in a position of self-sufficiency, to insulate itself against a Middle east war that will see Saudi, Iraq and Iran lose the ability to export oil. Really its the only sensible conclusion to come to. The transition period was the last five years. Mass fracking in the US has resulted in over 4800 capped oil wells. Over production of oil has resulted in mass storage of oil reserves. Together, the result is a stockpile of strategic oil in the US, but also in Russia. The two big foes are insulating themselves against oil shortages at the same time in this phony war.
If that theory holds true, then I would expect a Middle East war to break out really at any time. Certainly the flash points are Iraq and Syria. Turkey, along with Saudi Arabia and some other minor allies will make a move on Sunni Iraq and northern Syria at the same time leaving rival Iran to address two fronts at once. Clearly that will bring in the Americans and Russians - although I would bank on the Russians being there in large numbers first. In any case, the damage to the oil fields of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would be on a massive scale. Given the technology and weapons possessed by both sides, massive damage to oil infrastructure is only a logical result.
It's funny how today's phoney war eerily points toward the biblical prophecies of the Battle of Armageddon. It's something that nobody wants to think is possible, but the signs seem to be growing all the time. It's as if we have a little self-destruct mechanism and are programming ourselves toward this fate. Of course you could always argue it's the will of God as expressed in the Bible. We have a hard time seeing it from that point of view, because we can't believe God would wish that upon us. But, God is God for a reason. We have human minds which are but a spec in the big picture. That being said, I hope I'm wrong in my observations, and analysis. Nobody should want or thirst over a phoney war. They always lead to the bigger one.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Kurdish Roulette
Once again the Kurds find themselves in the middle of things. Back during the first Operation Desert Storm vs Iraq, the Kurds of Northern Iraq rebelled against Hussein and fought with the allies. There were promises made to the Turks that the allies would protect them, and guarantee their autonomy - in Northern Iraq only. The US imposed a "no-fly-zone" on the airspace above the Kurds for awhile after the war, but, and it's a big but, they abandoned the Kurds on the ground. Hussein took the opportunity to exact severe revenge. In Desert Storm 2, and with Hussein defeated, the US established a state of autonomy for the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Turkey was unimpressed.
To understand Turkey's almost hatred of the Kurds it's necessary to understand that the Kurds claim the southern, mountainous region of Turkey as a part of their homeland. That home also includes Northern Iraq and North Eastern Syria. In other words, they are in the middle of it. Here is a picture of their "homeland":
From their autonomous area in Northern Iraq the Kurds have moved west, and into Syria. Ostensibly they are fighting President Assad of Syria, along with several radical Islamist groups. In reality they engaged an overly ambitious ISIS army that attempted to conquer their Iraq territory - until the US air force put an end to it. Now the Kurds fight with those same ISIS formations to overthrow Assad. But is their goal to overthrow Assad, or is it more like carving North East Syria up, and adding it to their "historic homeland"? I suggest the latter to be true.
Turkey seems to understand this ambition extremely well. It has fought a decades old guerrilla-type war against the Kurds to keep its territory intact. Now, with the Kurds again working with the allies to topple another middle eastern head of state, Turkey has become very alarmed. So much so that today it released the following statement:
"The PYD (Kurds) has been getting closer with both the United States and Russia of late. We view the PYD as a terrorist group and we want all countries to consider the consequences of their cooperation."
In other words, the Kurds are an enemy of the state of Turkey, and cooperation/legitimization of their interests will be considered an act of war by Turkey. Now some may say that is reading into it too much, but consider the US response - the withdrawal of all Patriot missile systems from Turkey today. Those systems were meant to safeguard turkey from Syrian aircraft, but they also kept the peace (relatively) between Syria and Turkey during the 5 year old conflict. Now there is no such buffer. In another development today, it was reported Turkish forces, equipped with armor and bulldozers, entered Northern Syria. Right where the Kurds are. You get the idea. Turkey is putting its national interests first, which are defensive in nature, before those of its allies or adversaries - economic and otherwise.
Meanwhile, the Russians are faced with a predicament. On the one hand they have no beef with the Kurds, and perhaps even see the Kurds as being useful in the interim to fight other Islamic groups in Syria. Perhaps they have even done a quiet handshake deal with the Kurds to look after them with some territory in Syria if the Kurds play ball in saving Assad. That wouldn't be too surprising. The problem is that to keep that promise would mean going to war with Turkey - the 4th largest military in the world. All very complicated and messy. That means the Kurds become expendable at the right time, and there is all smiles around the table of great powers within the region.
That in a nutshell has been the nature of the Kurds dilemma for along time - too small a player swimming against a tide of geo-political interests that only match theirs on a temporary basis. Each time their young people lay down their lives in this or that conflict, with the ever lasting hope that a great power will deliver them their complete homeland as compensation, they get betrayed. The nature of the game known as Kurdish Roulette.
To understand Turkey's almost hatred of the Kurds it's necessary to understand that the Kurds claim the southern, mountainous region of Turkey as a part of their homeland. That home also includes Northern Iraq and North Eastern Syria. In other words, they are in the middle of it. Here is a picture of their "homeland":
From their autonomous area in Northern Iraq the Kurds have moved west, and into Syria. Ostensibly they are fighting President Assad of Syria, along with several radical Islamist groups. In reality they engaged an overly ambitious ISIS army that attempted to conquer their Iraq territory - until the US air force put an end to it. Now the Kurds fight with those same ISIS formations to overthrow Assad. But is their goal to overthrow Assad, or is it more like carving North East Syria up, and adding it to their "historic homeland"? I suggest the latter to be true.
Turkey seems to understand this ambition extremely well. It has fought a decades old guerrilla-type war against the Kurds to keep its territory intact. Now, with the Kurds again working with the allies to topple another middle eastern head of state, Turkey has become very alarmed. So much so that today it released the following statement:
"The PYD (Kurds) has been getting closer with both the United States and Russia of late. We view the PYD as a terrorist group and we want all countries to consider the consequences of their cooperation."
In other words, the Kurds are an enemy of the state of Turkey, and cooperation/legitimization of their interests will be considered an act of war by Turkey. Now some may say that is reading into it too much, but consider the US response - the withdrawal of all Patriot missile systems from Turkey today. Those systems were meant to safeguard turkey from Syrian aircraft, but they also kept the peace (relatively) between Syria and Turkey during the 5 year old conflict. Now there is no such buffer. In another development today, it was reported Turkish forces, equipped with armor and bulldozers, entered Northern Syria. Right where the Kurds are. You get the idea. Turkey is putting its national interests first, which are defensive in nature, before those of its allies or adversaries - economic and otherwise.
Meanwhile, the Russians are faced with a predicament. On the one hand they have no beef with the Kurds, and perhaps even see the Kurds as being useful in the interim to fight other Islamic groups in Syria. Perhaps they have even done a quiet handshake deal with the Kurds to look after them with some territory in Syria if the Kurds play ball in saving Assad. That wouldn't be too surprising. The problem is that to keep that promise would mean going to war with Turkey - the 4th largest military in the world. All very complicated and messy. That means the Kurds become expendable at the right time, and there is all smiles around the table of great powers within the region.
That in a nutshell has been the nature of the Kurds dilemma for along time - too small a player swimming against a tide of geo-political interests that only match theirs on a temporary basis. Each time their young people lay down their lives in this or that conflict, with the ever lasting hope that a great power will deliver them their complete homeland as compensation, they get betrayed. The nature of the game known as Kurdish Roulette.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)