There’s simply no getting around it. Violence resulting from sectarian tensions and the presence of Mujahideen, which didn’t exist within the country prior to the occupation, is something that is going to plague Iraq for some time to come. The second that the country was occupied that reality became inevitable.

With US forces pulling back to various locations outside of Iraqi cities under the conditions of the Status Of Forces Agreement, violence has increased throughout the country. Unfortunately, such bloodshed cannot be used to justify the continued presence of occupational forces, for it has been the occupation of Iraq that has led to not only the rise of sectarian divisions, but also turned the country into one of the foremost destinations for foreign fighters that have little to no regard for what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people.

Sectarian divisions will, without question, play a significant role in the post occupational environment. As an example, Kurdistan’s parliament is moving forward with plans to hold a regional referendum regarding the implementation of a new constitution different than that of Iraq’s central government. The key factor, of course, is the acquisition of those territories within the region in which oil and natural gas are prevalent, a move that is being challenged by both the central government and various ethnic groups. The issue was supposed to be mediated by the UN and US, but the Kurdish parliament has pushed ahead with its plans despite negotiations.

No matter what happens in Iraq following the withdrawal of occupational forces – and make no mistake, withdrawal is inevitable – the people of Iraq will be faced with dealing with the fallout of the fracturing of their nation, the divisions that have been exploited within it, and, sadly, a significant amount of violence because of it. But as I’ve already stated, all of those things became an inevitability in 2003.

July 10, 2009

I was sent a scathing email this morning for posting an Op-Ed piece yesterday that suggested there are similarities with regards to the recent independence of Kosovo and the Kurdish struggle for independence, which is by no means a new notion as far as the Kurdish people are concerned.

As many of you are aware, the Turkish armed forces have recently crossed the northern frontier of Iraq in force to engage the PKK, a group that has been internationally labeled as a terrorist organization. Elements of the PKK operate in three different countries, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, all of them with the same state goal – an independent Kurdistan.

The PKK’s ideology is Marxist-Leninist, which, of course, immediately calls into question their desire to see a ‘free’ Kurdish state established. Then again, for those that are actually familiar with the ideology that they espouse, you’re aware that it cannot simply be discarded as being comparable to that of the Soviet State and Western perceptions regarding it, as the Soviet Union was nothing more than a mass corruption of Marxist-Leninist principles used to justify an autocratic regime, primarily following Lenin’s death.

That said; the PKK’s use of terror tactics does not excuse them, nor does it bode particularly well with regards to their quest for an independent Kurdistan. But that stated; to what standard should they be held? For that matter, to what standard should Iraqi Kurds be held that also wish to see an independent Kurdistan?

To adhere to the position that freedom can only be attained under certain circumstances that are recognized by the West is to completely disregard the reality that freedom is not something that is the sole property of a single political ideology. Like it or not, freedom is not the property of democracy, as even the world’s foremost democracies are nothing more than bastardizations of it at best. Show me a modern example of a democratic state that is not, in truth, ruled by the principles of the plutocratic and I might be willing to alter my view. But the fact remains, the initial quest for freedom, no matter the ideology of those seeking it, ultimately faces the overwhelming pressures of a post-revolutionary reality that inevitably alters the basic principles upon which freedom was sought.

As an example, both the United States and Cuba share this similarity.

After the establishment of the United States, a crucial occurrence steeped in the economic dualities of the colonies pitted the agrarian realities of most of it against the commerciality of its established northern cities. In the end, Alexander Hamilton’s vision would win out, the agrarian traditions of the colonies steadily enslaved by the ambitions of concerted economic interests placated in many ways by the state itself, giving birth to the plutocratic reality that has infected American democracy ever since, one that would go on to affect the world as a whole.

From a public perspective, this reality is rarely, if ever, confronted, with most labouring under the misconception that pure democratic principles still govern the way in which government functions.

The Cuban Revolution, undertaken to overthrow a wholly corrupted regime, shares similarities with the initial struggle for American independence in that it sought to establish a government free from foreign influence that would better serve the average citizen. Obviously the political ideologies behind each were different, but the goal was the same – freedom from interference, and that is not something that can be defined by a single ideology.

Like the corruption of the base ideology of the American Revolution, the Cuban Revolution was also ultimately corrupted, though largely due to continued foreign pressures and attempts to eliminate the country’s leading figures. Castro had initially worked to affect change through democratic means by supporting Eduardo Chibás, his mentor, but ultimately came to the realization that the odds of real change occurring given the corruption of the system and American political influence was futile. Chibás would shoot himself in the stomach during a live radio interview in 1951 while campaigning. In 1952 Castro ran for a seat in Parliament, which would ultimately led to nothing after General Batista’s successful coup placed him in power, rendering the elections moot. Not surprisingly, the United States immediately recognized Batista’s government as legitimate. Thus, known for his nationalistic views, and anti-American fervor, Castro turned to revolutionary means with which to affect change, which, as we’re all aware, was successful in toppling Batista’s regime, ultimately leading to the ill-fated, and US backed, invasion of the country in 1961 which failed after President Kennedy refused to supply Cuban exiles involved in the invasion with American air support.

This chain of events, and continued US pressure, led to the establishment of relations with the Soviets as a counter measure, and the rest is, as they say, history. Unable to see the ultimate promise of the revolution fulfilled, Castro remained the country’s de facto leader until mere days ago. During his time in power, the corruption of the revolution’s promise obviously occurred, producing the sort of results that are apparent in every failed attempt at pursuing freedom.

Yet, like many Americans and their view of US democracy, many Cubans still believe in the promise of the revolution. After it was announced that Castro would be stepping down, the BBC interviewed numerous Cubans about the state of affairs in their country, and all of them, even despite complaints to do with the economy and other issues, all maintained that ‘the revolution’ should continue.

Both Cuba and the United States are obviously guilty of transgressions, the US obviously having a much longer, and darker, track record being that theirs have coveted the entire planet over the last 60 years. But the similarity in the corruption of the base idea that both nations perceive to be their bedrock remains.

Therefore, how does one differentiate between the freedom sought through the creation of an independent Kosovo and the freedom sought through the creation of an independent Kurdistan?

The answer is, in truth, very simple. We adhere to those explanations provided us based on our own ideology, not the truth of the pursuit of freedom itself. We can condone the creation of an independent Kosovo because Western governments back the idea, despite both the historic and legal convolutions involved. In a region in which the specter of the Cold War still stalks the land, it serves our purposes just as much as our sly involvement in other regional uprisings – Georgia, Ukraine, etc. That is certainly not to say that the Russians are any more justified in doing the exact same thing, only that the game which many believe ended in the early 90’s still lingers in that part of the world.

That said; how long did it take for the world to recognize the Armenian genocide? Obviously Turkey still refuses to admit that it occurred, even though upwards of one million Armenians somehow disappeared between 1915 and 1917. This is, of course, the same country that recently crossed the border into northern Iraq, the only part of Kurdistan that is internationally recognized as an autonomous federal entity, to engage the PKK. They can do this, of course, because we live in a day and age in which the word ‘terrorism’ provides a blank cheque. The United States has half-heartedly condemned the move, rendering the condemnation of Iraqi government bodies inconsequential. The reason? The US has an air base in Incirlik, just east of Adana, and that is of far greater importance. So too are US hopes that Iraq will not adopt a federalist infrastructure.

Kosovo, on the other hand, has been on the NATO menu for some time now. KFOR and UNMIK have been in Kosovo for years, making secession from Serbia entirely plausible. Kurdish independence, on the other hand, poses a very real threat, as Simon Tisdall aptly pointed out in a piece in 2005…

“Turkish concerns focus on the area around multi-ethnic Kirkuk, where the Brotherhood slate allied to the Kurdish Alliance of Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani won 59% of the provincial council vote. The Turkoman Front, representing a minority that Ankara has vowed to protect, took 18%.

Turkey ruled Kirkuk until 1923, and nationalists still regard it as Turkish territory.

Mr Erdogan has warned that Turkey will not stand by if Kurds try to realise their objective of including Kirkuk in the Kurdish autonomous region.

He complained last month that tens of thousands of Kurds had moved into the area since the war. Many want to reclaim land and property lost to the forcible “Arabisation” policy pursued by Saddam Hussein.

But Ankara protested yesterday that resulting “imbalances” had skewed the Kirkuk poll. “Some people are looking the other way while mass migration takes place,” Mr Erdogan said, in a dig at the US. “This is going to create major difficulties in the future.”

The issue has dominated the Turkish media for weeks amid reports of sporadic assaults and intimidation of Turkomans. Turkomans and Iraqi Arabs have vowed to resist Kirkuk’s assimilation amid talk of possible civil war.

“Kirkuk is the number one security issue and public concern right now,” a Turkish diplomat said. “Kirkuk is a potential powder keg. For us it has special status. It is like Jerusalem. It belongs to all the people. We do not want to intervene in Iraq. But we have red lines – Kirkuk and attacks on ethnic minorities.”

Other considerations are in play. Whoever controls Kirkuk potentially controls oilfields representing 40% of Iraq’s proven reserves. Such wealth could render an independent Kurdish state economically viable.”

If freedom is of the choosing, then we must also be enlightened enough to understand that its implementation has very much become something that is of our choosing, even as it pertains to those on the other side of the world. Where we stand to lose because of the aspirations of others with regards to their freedom, we categorize it as anything but, which ultimately says a more about our own state of emancipation than anything else.

February 27, 2008 1 Comment

There are things that you see, and there are things that you do not. For example, we all know that our current government is rather friendly with the Bush Administration. What you might not know, for example, is that we signed an agreement with the United States that allows us, and them, to send troops across the border in the event of an emergency. The problem is, of course, that the United States does not allow foreign commands to direct the actions of their troops. There’s a lot more to it as well, which you should probably take a look at, being that this agreement was signed on February 14th but was never publicly announced by either the government or the military.

The same can be said of what is currently transpiring in the Balkans and its impact with regards to events elsewhere, as Justin Raimando points out…

“The violent reaction from the Serbian “street” to Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is “blowback” – as the writer Chalmers Johnson terms it – with a vengeance, and we have not yet experienced the worst of it.

The U.S. attack on Kosovo has come back to haunt Washington, and not just with the burning of the American embassy in Belgrade. A chain reaction is setting in, and its effects cannot be confined to the Balkans. The unrest is already spreading to Austria – and beyond.

For if the Kosovars can have their own “nation,” then why not the South Ossetians? Why not the Abkhazians? Why not the Transdniester Republic? And why not the Kurds?

The rule the U.S. has set up is as follows: restive peoples who find themselves transferred from one great “prison house of peoples” to newer, U.S.-supported prisons named Georgia – and Iraq – have no right to self-determination. The Kosovars have a special status: they enjoy the protection of the EU and the U.S. armed forces, and the West recognizes their national aspirations. The others, however, must endure being ruled by a central authority that has the support of the U.S. government.

Why? Because Washington says so.

This is the new essence of “international law” – an edict from Washington. The UN, the EU, and other international bodies all must rubber-stamp decisions made essentially by the American president and his advisers.

Yet peoples yearning for freedom and self-determination are not about to cave in the face of this arbitrary power. The Serbs of northern Kosovo, who have been all but pushed out of their ancient land, are in open rebellion. They, too, want the right of self-determination. Will the U.S. and its allies use force to keep them in the newly independent state of Kosovo? If the American president sends troops to the Balkans – again – to enforce his will, Americans will begin to ask questions, and they are not going to like the answers.

As 8,000 Turkish soldiers pour into Iraq’s Kurdish region, hunting down guerrilla fighters of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), the consequences of American support for Kosovo’s declaration of independence are clear. America’s alliance with Turkey is threatened, as is the tenuous stability of the Iraqi government – and U.S. occupation forces have made new enemies out of their only reliable Iraqi friends. The Christian Science Monitor reported that “Peshmerga Gen. Muhammad Mohsen took down his American flag, folded it up, and placed it in his office corner Sunday, reflecting the growing anger in Iraq’s Kurdish north with U.S. support for Turkey’s campaign against separatist rebels operating in the region.” One hopes symbolic actions such as these are sufficient to express the full extent of his anger at his erstwhile American allies, but somehow I doubt it.

The Kurds have every reason to expect support from the U.S. After all, they have been our most enthusiastic allies in the “liberation” of Iraq, and we have supported them with billions in tax dollars, as well as the lives of American soldiers fallen in battle. While it’s true that the Kurds claim a lot more territory than the current “Kurdish Regional Government” now commands, the same is true of the Kosovars, whose “Greater Albania” encompasses parts of Macedonia, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia. As the U.S. and its EU allies do everything to encourage this ultra-nationalist expansionism by recognizing Kosovo, why shouldn’t the Kurds join in the fun and put “Greater Kurdistan” on the agenda?”

One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist, and visa versa. Of course, that’s hardly a new development in human affairs, and is something that should not be casually disregarded.

Lastly, one small bit of intriguing justice occurred in the UK today…

“The British government was Tuesday ordered to release the minutes of crucial cabinet meetings in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Britain’s Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, said the papers should be released under the Freedom of Information Act because of the “gravity and controversial nature” of the discussions.

The unprecedented move is interesting as it affects two cabinet meetings in March, 2003, where the legality of going to war – without a second United Nations resolution – was discussed.

The former government of Tony Blair always insisted that Peter Goldsmith, the former Attorney General, had ruled that Britain’s joining of the invasion of Iraq was legal.

Up to now, the cabinet office at Downing Street had refused publication on the grounds that the papers were exempt from disclosure as they related to the formulation of government policy and ministerial communications.”

February 26, 2008 13 Comments

2 AM, sirens down the street, nothing out of the ordinary. Haven’t been sleeping much, not really for the last 26 hours or so. Been recording a lot, can’t get God Only Knows out of my head, the Wrecking Crew, lush 60’s sonics. Came across a tribute to Ike Turner earlier today, didn’t mention him beating the shit out of Tina.

The Turkish air force bombed PKK targets in northern Iraq yesterday. They’ve claimed that the United States gave them “tacit approval by opening Iraqi airspace for the operation”. That doesn’t come as surprise, nor do US denials that it backed the raid. According to the Turks, 50 planes spent three hours pounding targets inside Northern Iraq. The Iraqi government’s response was to summon the Turkish ambassador and remind him that such actions could result in strained relations – which is pretty much the Iraqi government’s authoritative limit. A US embassy official later remarked that they knew it was going to happen – and that’s about it.

The Turks, it seems, didn’t get the memo to keep their mouths shut in time…

“Turkey’s most senior general, Gen Yasar Buyukanit, said the US had given “intelligence” that aided the operation.

“But what is more important is that the United States last night opened northern Iraqi airspace to us. By doing that, the United States approved the operation,” he said.”

What to watch next…

Just watched The Queen for the second time. Got over 500 films and I’ve seen them all so many times that trying to pick something has become exhaustive. I dunno, maybe some South Park. Funny how one of the only genres left that speaks truth to power is animation. Then again, maybe it’s not so funny.

December 17, 2007 37 Comments

There have been some alarming reports about Turkey’s intention to conduct combat operations in Northern Iraq in an attempt to confront the PKK. In a recent statement, the Turkish Prime Minister called on US and Iraq forces to destroy PKK bases in the Kandil Mountains, claiming them havens for terrorists. A recent bombing in Ankara that killed six Turkish soldiers, which has been blamed on the PKK, has prompted the Turkish government to consider undertaking cross-border military operations, something that the United States opposes.

According to Turkey’s The New Anatolian newspaper, The US is preparing to hand over security operations in Northern Iraq to Kurdish Peshmerga forces, which means that Turkey will have to take up the issue of dealing with the PKK within Iraq with the Erbil government. Nonetheless, according to The State, a South Carolinian daily, Turkey is already in the process of reinforcing its border with Iraq…

“Turkey has reinforced its border with Iraq with large contingents of soldiers, tanks and armored personnel carriers as it urged the U.S. to crackdown on Kurkish rebel bases there and debated staging a cross-border offensive.
For weeks, television stations have broadcast images of military trucks rumbling along the remote border with Iraq’s Kurdish zone, and trains transferring tanks and guns to bolster an already formidable force in the area.

The Turkish military has said it routinely reinforces the border with Iraq in the summer to prevent infiltration by the guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan urged the United States and Iraq to destroy PKK bases in northern Iraq, and did not rule out a cross-border operation.

“The target is to achieve results,” Erdogan said Tuesday. “Our patience has run out. The necessary steps will be taken when needed.”

For information on the PKK, click here.

May 31, 2007 6 Comments