Isis

The fact is people don't like compromise positions. They either want a president to say he is going to annihilate ISIS or one who says he will not get involved but will spend the money on our own infrastructure.

But what Obama is doing is fighting the war against ISIS in a sustainable way. He has said he will not commit ground troops because he does not want us to be an occupying force for another decade with all the costs and liabilities, but he has also not said it is not our concern when people are being killed the way they are. Reports out of Kobani are that hundreds of people (or tens, it is not clear yet) have been beheaded in the street.

I only wish there were an international force that could be put together...or that there were some way to better equip the Kurds for what is going on in Kobani right now. They seem more than willing to fight to defend their homes and way of life, but it would be nice if they were as well equipped as ISIS appears to be.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-9791199.html

This shouldn't be surprising given what we already know about ISIS, but I still think it's relevant to the thread. Wherever they gain the upper hand, this will be the scene for those who tried to repel them.

And meanwhile as the Turks sit on the border and watch this, instead of taking action against ISIS they are reported to have launched air attacks against their own Kurdish communities. I think they have forgotten they are members of NATO. For those with a knowledge of Turkish history this is rather reminiscent of the genocide of the Armenians - which of course the Turks still deny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

And meanwhile as the Turks sit on the border and watch this, instead of taking action against ISIS they are reported to have launched air attacks against their own Kurdish communities. I think they have forgotten they are members of NATO. For those with a knowledge of Turkish history this is rather reminiscent of the genocide of the Armenians - which of course the Turks still deny.

---

The Turks are in a difficult position, but it is one they created for themselves. From its inception, the whole point of Turkey was that it was a national project, but that by definition to take part citizens had to become Turks, but as with all nationalist projects it begged the qustion -are you one of us? Do you belong here? This was great for those people who had migrated out of the European colonies (from Bulgaria to the Balkans) who had been Ottoman subjects but who now could re-invent themselves as Turks and be equal with the other ethinic identities in Anatolia.
But the idea that Armenians would stop being Armenian, or that Kurds would stop being Kurds was absurd then and remains so today. The solution to the 'Greek problem' was the mass expulsion of the Greek Orthodox community and the immolation of Smyrna in 1922, subsequently renamed Izmir. The fate of the Armenians, well documented by now, was virtual obliteration. Note too that many Armenians in the south-east of Turkey were murdered by Kurds not Turks at various times between 1900 and 1923 (a massacre in the Cilicia region in 1909 was but one of many which took place between the 1890s and the end of the Empire).

Secular Turkey is hostile to religion, or was -this not only meant the ban on Islamic dress begun in Kemal's day, but also present day limitations on Christian and Jewish worship so that Christians are only allowed to worship in designated churches, of which new ones rarely get planning permission and are not permitted to be taller than a mosque. It is a crime to make any criticism of 'Turkishness' or to (allegedly or otherwise) insult Mustapha Kemal the 'Father of Turkey' (=Ataturk) and Turkey per capita has more journalists in prison than any other country in the world.

The attempt to restore Islamic principles to Turkey has been opposed by many inside and outside the military who view themselves as the custodians of Kemal's secular legacy, but the hostility to Christians and Jews is also now extended to Turkey's non-Sunni Muslims such as the Alevi who, along with the Christians and the Jews, and atheists -are not entitled to any benefit derived from the Directorate of Religious Affairs, which promoted a law that now allows religious schools, but again only for the Sunni population.

Crucially, by denying Kurds the right to be Kurds, to use their own language in public affairs, to express various customs and rituals, Turkey created an opposition movement within the state which it has never been able to control. The attacks referred to in Prospero's post in effect break the ceasefire agreed with the PKK in 2012, but send a powerful if dismal message -Kurdish identity and Kurdish separatism is a greater threat to Turkey than IS across the border, even though IS militants in one of Vice News videos have threatened to take their struggle into Turkey itself.

The theory, advanced by Mark Urban on Newsnight last week, is that Turkey might consider using ground forces to create a 'buffer zone' not dissimilar to the one that Israel created in southern Lebanon in the 1970s, and that this zone would include the tomb of Suleyman Shah, the father of Osman I and founder of the Ottoman Empire. He is (assuming it is in fact his remains) buried not far from Kobani and under an agreement with the French Mandate in 1921 which subsequent Syrian governments have retained, the Turkish state maintains a Turkish armed presence at the tomb (which was re-located after a flood in 1973).

That agreement, and logistics aside, this presents the problem of Turkey encroaching on territory from which the Ottomans were expelled in 1918-1919, and could also revive the issue of Hatay province further west which includes the charming port city of Iskenderun -this 'province' used to be the Sanjak of Alexandretta and was one part of the Ottoman Empire the Turks failed to capture in the campaign led by Kemal at the end of the war. The Syrians have always claimed it should have been incorporated into the French Mandated territory in 1920-21. It was a mixed province of Arabs, Turks, Greeks, Armenians and other minorities, but the Turks used various methods, mostly violent to increase the Turkish population, expel the non-Turks, particularly the Armenians and the Greeks, and thus confront the Arabs -until in 1938 they simply annexed the place having made it clear to Britain and France that any attempt to prevent it would lead Turkey to either being neutral in any forthcoming war, or seek an alliance with Germany, as it had done in 1914. Most of the Arabs subsequently left to live in Syria.

For these rather complex reasons, a Turkish move south of the border brings many toxic issues with it, and the potential to create new problems in an area which has more than enough, but it does in its own way relate to this whole argument about the future of the 'Sykes-Picot' states that were created in the Middle East after 1918, or at least where their boundaries might be.

By fighting ISIS, we're aiding Bashir. Probably Iran also.
The only people in the US who swear they know what's going on are guys like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, .......unnyuuhhh

Judging from Stravros' last post this is way to complex for Lindsey Graham and well beyond the ken of John McCain to fathom. I say we buy them both a matching pair of pearl handled pistols and send 'em over there. Oh Mercy Me!

It would take much more bravery to fight the fight the Kurdish villagers are fighting, against a force of militants who are better armored and have more sophisticated weaponry than they do than it would be to be part of a U.S ground force. The Kurds who do not flee are facing a cruel and near certain death.

Anyone who wants to fight with the Kurds is just as able as the thousands from western countries who have joined Isis. I think there have been a few American ex-military who have joined the Kurdish forces...but one would be joining a group of very courageous but under-equipped fighters facing long odds in the near term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

By fighting ISIS, we're aiding Bashir.

---

My sense is that we have to put that aside...for if Isis gained ascendancy over all Syria they would not be any more merciful than Assad has been. They also don't even have the appearance of a governing body or established order, so eliminating Isis members does not run the same risk of destabilization that attacking Assad would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Judging from Stravros' last post this is way to complex for Lindsey Graham and well beyond the ken of John McCain to fathom. I say we buy them both a matching pair of pearl handled pistols and send 'em over there. Oh Mercy Me!

---

I think Lindsey Lohan with a half a bag on would come up with better foreign policy than Lindsey Graham.

Remind me, ......who are the good guys then? The Iraqi troops who ran away leaving their tanks and weapons? Israel?


Stavros really does shine on this thread, but I miss the background story because of the hit and miss nature of the internet.
Stavros, did you say you visited the Middle East, or have relatives or friends there? Do you have a personal stake in this or are you really really up on world events?