Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A radical group within the Kurdish area, the PKK, and a few other groups have been at war with the Turk's for over 40 years now. PKK roughly translates to Kurdish Worker's Party and their politics is exactly what the name infers, they are a far left Marxist organization that is listed as a terrorist organization by the UN and other like institutions. They are fairly large with an estimate of over 30,000 fighters. They were based primarily in Northern Iraq.
With the rise of ISIS they turned their attention to that particular terrorist organization and as ISIS was pushed out of Iraq into Northern Syria they followed along. They made up a large part of the Kurdish "Allies" that we were using as surrogates in the fight against ISIS.
So these "Allies" received training, weapons, and supplies from the Special Forces teams that were sent in to specifically do that training.
With the collapse of ISIS these US trained and equipped terrorists could turn their attention back to their primary enemy, Turkey.
Turkey may not be the best neighbor on the block but they are still a NATO ally. Starting to get the picture now?
The politics of the Mid-East are seriously complicated. As if being primarily tribal in nature isn't bad enough there are tribes within tribes. And this is the dort of situation that nations that engage in proxy wars (the US in this instance) end up in. It's not as if Machiavelli didn't warn leaders of nations about the problem some 600 years ago.
Anyway, what is the US to do? Create a "safe haven" for terrorists targeting a NATO ally or get the hell out and let the local belligerents sort their differences out?
NATO needs to step up and tell Turkey to stop because they are involving the interests of their allies in their cross-border actions inside Syria.
The Kurds are a Syrian issue. When and if the Kurds invade Turkey, THEN it becomes a Turskish issue. Until then, Turkey shouldn't be involved in military actions inside Syria.
Why would the Kurds invade Turkey?
Are you...?
No, no one can be that dumb. Can you?
You even said "if".
The Kurds have wanted their own country since the end of the First World War when the Turkish Empire collapsed. They were denied that by the British/French partition of that area and now live in parts of what is modern Turkey, Syria and Iraq.
They had been oppressed by Turkey and Saddam Hussein. They hoped for assistance in Iraq from the US-led coalition after the second Iraq war. They didn't get it.
They saw leading the fight against ISIS as US allies as a way to get support for their aspirations but now they have been abandoned by the US they are vulnerable to Turkey's massive armed forces.
They feel betrayed after years of fighting a proxy war on behalf of the US.
NATO needs to step up and tell Turkey to stop because they are involving the interests of their allies in their cross-border actions inside Syria.
The Kurds are a Syrian issue. When and if the Kurds invade Turkey, THEN it becomes a Turskish issue. Until then, Turkey shouldn't be involved in military actions inside Syria.
The Kurds have wanted their own country since the end of the First World War when the Turkish Empire collapsed. They were denied that by the British/French partition of that area
Hard to do when the US and Russia veto them.
Unfortunately, the ultimate responsibility for their welfare falls upon them and they have insisted on autonomy rather than unity.
When you fight with your neighbors, you'd better be expecting them to fight back. Trying to involve ever changing and nebulous allies in your internecine battle is stupid when you keep picking the fight.
The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend. Nor is he my "ally". At best he is a useful tool to be used and discarded.
And the US has done just that - discarded the Kurds. The Kurdish rebellion in Turkey has been low key and containable, or solvable by diplomatic means. The Kurds in Syria have NOT been fighting the Turks - until Turkey invaded.
If the Kurds are defeated in Syria they might decide on an asymmetric guerrilla war inside Turkey. They are a significant minority there and could cause consireable damage.
And the US has done just that - discarded the Kurds. The Kurdish rebellion in Turkey has been low key and containable, or solvable by diplomatic means. The Kurds in Syria have NOT been fighting the Turks - until Turkey invaded.
If the Kurds are defeated in Syria they might decide on an asymmetric guerrilla war inside Turkey. They are a significant minority there and could cause consireable damage.
You're mistaking the UN for NATO. Russia has no voice in NATO.
NATO cooperated with Russia until April 2014 when they voted to suspend cooperation due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The recent veto in which the US joined Russia was in the UN security council, not NATO.
Hence, as I said, NATO should tell Turkey to knock it off because it's straining their treaty alliance.
Yes, we all root for Kurds, whose nation was arbitrarily split and divided between four nations. Moreover, they're more secular.
But this is how Turkey sees things:
Turkey has been pushing for months for a safe zone between the autonomous territory led by PKK (their mortal enemy), and the Turkish border. Negociations with the EU/US have been unfruitful, because opinions within the US/EU govt. are split re the width of that safe zone.
Russia/Iran (following their own interests, of course) suggested the 1998 Adana pact between Turkey and Syria, as an alternative:
=====================================
Why is the 1998 Adana pact between Turkey and Syria back in the news?
Sinem Cengiz, January 2019
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1441931 (Saudi Arabia newspaper)
"The Adana agreement was signed by Turkey and Syria in 1998 [...]
Damascus had been allowing Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — who is now serving a life sentence on the Turkish island of Imrali — to take shelter and direct the activities of the terrorist organization from within its borders for several years.
When Turkey threatened military action, Damascus deported Ocalan and closed the PKK camps in the country.
Article 1 of the Adana agreement states: “Syria, on the basis of the principle of reciprocity, will not permit any activity that emanates from its territory aimed at jeopardizing the security and stability of Turkey.”
Under the 1998 agreement, Damascus agreed that it would not allow the PKK to operate on its soil. Now, however, the YPG has claims for an autonomous administration in northern Syria based on the political ideals promoted by Ocalan."
Yes, yes you ARE that dumb. Amazing.
Step up with facts of why I'm dumb. Just one?
And the US has done just that - discarded the Kurds. The Kurdish rebellion in Turkey has been low key and containable, or solvable by diplomatic means. The Kurds in Syria have NOT been fighting the Turks - until Turkey invaded.
If the Kurds are defeated in Syria they might decide on an asymmetric guerrilla war inside Turkey. They are a significant minority there and could cause consireable damage.
https://twitter.com/brett_mcgurk/status/1183112864908894208?s=21Turkish state-backed media hails a “successful operation” to “neutralize” an unarmed 35-year old woman working to unite Arabs, Christians, and Kurds in NE Syria. Ms. Hevrin Khalef was reportedly dragged from a vehicle and shot to death. That’s a war crime. twitter.com/yenisafak/stat…
In Turkey the Kurds have been seen, and increasingly treated by the current government, as second-class or non-citizens with no rights. That makes the Kurds more determined to fight back.