The PKK is a terrorist organization
Absent from the "will they, won't they" discussion over whether the Turks will cross the Iraqi border, it seems rare that anyone mentions the actions of the PKK. Facing this current complex diplomatic situation between the Turks, Kurds, US, and Iraqis, what does the PKK do?
I'm willing to accept arguments about their motives or definitional implications of the terminology, but there can be no real question that the PKK is using tactics that we call terrorism. In the face of the Turkish threat, they are increasing their acts of provocative violence, attempting to draw the Turks into this cross border operation.
They want this. They want the Turks to cross that border. They want their fellow Iraqi Kurds to take up the fight. They are trying to ignite a larger war.
The only question to me is the degree to which the Kurdish leadership in Iraq supports this.
At least nine Turkish soldiers were killed in fighting with Kurdish militants after midnight on Sunday, and more soldiers were reported missing, prompting Turkey’s prime minister to call an emergency security summit. The deaths dramatically increase the pressure on the government to launch a military offensive into Iraq.
I'm willing to accept arguments about their motives or definitional implications of the terminology, but there can be no real question that the PKK is using tactics that we call terrorism. In the face of the Turkish threat, they are increasing their acts of provocative violence, attempting to draw the Turks into this cross border operation.
They want this. They want the Turks to cross that border. They want their fellow Iraqi Kurds to take up the fight. They are trying to ignite a larger war.
The only question to me is the degree to which the Kurdish leadership in Iraq supports this.
posted by mikevotes at
7:42 AM
6 Comments:
I wonder how Bush would react if the Turks and the Iraqi Sunnis got organized and grabbed Kirkuk?
By
Anonymous, at 9:32 AM
there can be no real question that the PKK is using tactics that we call terrorism.
I wouldn't equivocate. The PKK are terrorists. So you raise a great point - why is the MSM limiting itself to the question of whether Turkey will cross the border? The question really is, why aren't US and Iraqi forces going after the PKK? Media silence...
By
Anonymous, at 10:02 AM
Anon, That would be an interesting alliance, especially with Syria voicing very public support for the Turks. The question is really, how do you mass the personnel? If Syria's on board, they might allow arms and personnel across the border if they're willing to risk the blowback, but it would be tough to get the assets in place in Kirkuk without the US or Kurds (who would tell the US) noticing.
....
Abi, I don't lknow the full history of the Turks and Kurds which I assume stretches back to WWI, so, I'm a bit cautious about my language (When are terrorists "freedom fighters?",) but they are indisputably using terrorists tactics trying to force the Turks into action.
And, I would guess the US isn't going after the PKK because it so desperately needs the Kurdish authorities to maintain the government of Iraq. They now make up half of Maliki's slim ruling coalition, and if they were to turn, the US could quickly be on the wrong side of the government.
The thing I don't know is the level of involvement and support the official Kurdish authorities are giving the PKK. They seem intent on at least protecting them, but how far does that extend?
By
mikevotes, at 10:21 AM
Interesting post.
The U.S. backed mujahadeen "terrorists" against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and more recently we backed fifth-column Baluchi terrorists in Iran. The "contras" in Nicaragua are another example that springs to mind. Despite the rhetoric, we are really only against "terrorists" when they don't back our interests. Usually we can find other means to advance our interests, though. The PKK are terrorists, and they don't do anything to advance U.S. interests.
To the Kurds, however, the PKK are a neccesary evil. There are about a million Kurds in Syria, and more in Turkey. Iraqi Kurdistan sees itself much more as an independent country than it does an Iraqi province, and this is what scares Iraq, Turkey, and Syria, which all want their Kurdish populations to see themselves as citizens of their respective countries rather than as a minority ethnic group. An independent Iraqi Kurdistan gives Kurds "uppity notions" that don't coincide with our regional interests.
And, as you point out, the Kurds are just about the only ethnic group in Iraq that doesn't hate us on a visceral level. Kurdistan is the most stable province, and most of the Iraqi military are Kurdish. The blunt answer is that we are using the Kurds until it is no longer in our interests, in which case they will become a "terrorist" state. Kurdistan's neighbours would eagerly support "action" at that point, so we just have to stall them.
Officially, Kurdish authorities denounce the PKK, but out of the other side of their mouth, they denounce the repression and genocide that inspired them in the first place.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 1:38 PM
Good summary todd. The Kurds are just pawns in a much bigger game...but of course they don't see it that way.
By
Anonymous, at 1:45 PM
Todd, exactly. The terminology is largely defined by where you sit.
That's why I'm trying to be so careful in my language. I don't know enough of the history of the conflict to make a blanket designation, however, it's undeniable they are using terrorist tactics as defined by the US State Dept. (Acts of violence intended to change politics.)
As for the Kurds and their larger aspirations, It seems clear that the Kurdish leadership in Iraq is sympathetic to the cause of a broader Kurdistan, spanning even into small parts of Iran, but the relationship between the Iraqi Kurdish leadership and the PKK still seems ill defined to me.
They're definitely not against them, but their degree of union is unclear to me.
...
Anon, no terror group ever does.
By
mikevotes, at 2:05 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home