Two US allies in the Middle East: Israel, Turkey. Correlative neighbors, Lebanon (a Democracy the US supports), and Iraq (a Democracy the US has "created" and of course supports). So, now we have somewhat parallel disputes between four countries, all of which the US supports in some way.
How does this define itself in US foreign policy, and how does it sort itself out?
Briefly:
In July, 2006, a border skirmish between US recognized "terrorists," Hizbullah, and Israeli soldiers resulted in a massive attack by US ally, Israel, on Lebanon, the results we all know.
What makes the difference in the way the US is treating the looming Turkish threat against the Kurdish region in northern Iraq, and the way it treated the Israeli's threat and eventual action when that crisis occurred?
One difference of course is the US is allied with Kurdish leaders, not just supportive of the general democracy and its participants as it was in Lebanon, of which the political Shiite south (Hizbullah) leaders were of course elected members. Technically the PKK terrorists are Kurds, and they are given a haven by the Kurds. So there are some parallels there, as we had the differentiation between the Hizbullah militia, considered the terrorist group, and their more legitimate political component in Lebanon.
But on an international scale, the definitions for what has taken place and the support for the different allies involved by the US has much the same structure in both incidents, it seems to me.
Some remarks from Juan Cole in an interview with Amy Goodman today:
AMY GOODMAN: Let's go today's top story: tension remaining high on the Turkish-Iraq border, following the killing of seventeen Turkish troops by Kurdish militants over the weekend. How significant is this?
JUAN COLE: Well, it’s extremely significant. I mean, imagine what would happen in this country if a guerrilla group based in a neighboring country came over the border and killed seventeen US troops. That would be a war. And the Kurdish guerrilla movement, the Kurdish Workers Party, based now in Iraq, but originally from Eastern Anatolia, from the Turkish regions, is conducting a guerrilla war against the Turkish military. It is being given safe harbor by Kurdish politicians on the Iraqi side.
And, in essence, the United States has created this situation in which a NATO ally -- people forget Turkey fought alongside the United States in Korea; it’s got troops in Afghanistan -- a NATO ally of the United States is being attacked and its troops killed by a terrorist organization, so designated by the State Department, that essentially has US auspices. The US is responsible for security in Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: And how connected is the US to the PKK, or is it at all?
JUAN COLE: Well, the United States doesn’t like the PKK and doesn’t have much connection to it, but the United States has allied with the Iraqi Kurdish leaders, who are the most reliable allies of the United States in Iraq: Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani. And Barzani, in particular, it seems to me, just de facto, is giving harbor to, giving haven to, these PKK guerrillas. So the United States needs Barzani and needs his support. He’s doing an oil deal with Hunt Oil, which is close to the Bush administration. His Peshmurga paramilitary is the backbone of the most effective fires of the new Iraqi army. They do security details in other cities like Mosul and Kirkuk. So the US really desperately depends on the Kurdistan Regional Authority and its paramilitary and can’t afford to alienate Barzani. And since Barzani is -- behind the scenes seems to kind of like the PKK and does -- giving them a haven, the US is politically complicit in these attacks.
------>
JUAN COLE: Well, I really here would underline that, as a historian, I think it’s important that everybody understand the horrible things that were done to the Armenians during World War I. On the other hand, it’s my duty also to try to understand the Turkish contemporary response, which is that the United States has made enormous trouble for this close ally. Turkey has put itself out over the last decades to help the United States. It was an ally in the Cold War. It was an ally in the Gulf War.
And in return, the United States seems to have told Turkey, “Drop dead,” I mean, they invaded Iraq against Turkish advice. They have unleashed Shiite fundamentalism, Sunni fundamentalism, Kurdish separatism on Turkey's doorstep. There is now a resurgence of the PKK and terrorism against Turkish citizens. And now, on top of all this trouble the United States is making for the Turks, the US Congress was set to condemn the Ottoman government of Turkey, the predecessor government to the present one, for this genocide against the Armenians.
So, the Turks are hurt and confused. In Bill Clinton's last year, 56% of the Turkish public thought well of the United States. That number is down to 9%. So it’s not entirely clear what motive the United States has in so alienating a country that has been a valued and close ally.
I think there are some interesting things to unravel in this brewing mess.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: /rén,
Originally posted by /rén: I don't get it, how about you make the connection so it makes sense.
The connection seems obvious to me. So I will ask that you read the thread (and dialogue above-Link?) or tell me you did and I will try to explain it in some manner.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Here's what I'd like you to do, I'd like you to tell me what problem you think your links address. That probably will entail you explaining in your own words what you see as the problem I've presented, and then drawing a conclusion from the articles about how they address the problem, just a summary conclusion, nothing elaborate. That way we will both have some clue about what you are linking about. Does that seem unreasonable? It's the way I'm used to discussing things with people. If that's too much for you then maybe this isn't a discussion you want to join? Just a thought.
Of course it is not too much to ask for. I just thought I wanted us to be on the same page and as such I wanted to know with my vastly limited ability that you read the thread or was willing to admit that you had knowledge on the subject and thus stated that you had in fact read the thread. But since I have been known to be stubborn, I will try to answer your question in the most direct way I can. But one last point, you really do not need to blow smoke. I know my limited skills in the language area. And thus it is a constant struggle. Even in high school and college I also thought my talents were better suited for science. But I digress.
Simply, it is that Amy can not decide what the PKK is. And since I feel that she should know these issues more than any other reporter on TV/Radio then I expect her to be able to tell the whole truth and not blow in the wind.
Is it a glorious revolutionary party that wants autonomy for the Kurds or a terrorist organization? She basically fawned over the group when the leader was sentenced to death for terrorism and then after she found out the USA may be supporting them indirectly she painted it the opposite.
Thus from my looking at it, I conclude that she is Anti-USA. Sometimes it is not what she reports but what she does not report that is the clue to me. I know many organizations do not tie in the PKK/PJAK to Communism Ideology but I would expect Amy to do so. Is she hiding facts from her readers?
Lastly, you must know me by now. That I will look at your initial post to expand the scope of it to broader and broader aspects. Oooops
Perhaps you could explain how nihilism fits into that explanation you just made, and why you see it to be an important contribution to the original problem in the first post, which has absolutely nothing to do with Amy, other than she interviewed Juan Cole.
I have yet to read anything you've linked to nihilism that has any correlation to the nihilism I understand. I don't understand what you mean when you use the term. It must be important to you, it seems to enter into just about every post you make after one of mine. I simply don't understand what you mean by it.
I will post something later to the best of my abilities. But for now, I wanted to post a link out of the many sources I was looking at today along with a map. Let the Americans Try and Stop Us! …
Just a lot of saber rattling. I found this of interest though:
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Ronald, I'm willing to follow each and every one of the springs that fly off in each and every direction, but I'd prefer it if we could follow them one at a time until they come to rest.
If you are going to introduce a new one, please tie it to the fairly simple thesis and the set of questions I've asked. I have yet to determine what you think about the original thesis, let alone how your first post ties in with its reference to nihilism, and thus I have no way of following the above post in any reasonable way other than to see it as data.
I need some whys when data is posted.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: /rén,
ren, this seems a little presumptions: "Here's what I'd like you to do...". As usual maybe I misdirected my post instead of directly saying that your framing sucked (IMHO). As you framed it as:
quote:
How does this define itself in US foreign policy, and how does it sort itself out?
So I have to wonder why you started out with an interview by Amy Goodman with Juan Cole. Since she is now part of the dialogue it seemed natural that my little thread was related to what conclusions are already subjectively drawn in the first post.
She rejects everything that represents her country and every action involved in the world. Her navel gazing is to the extreme. She will never produce a piece that is critical of China, Iran, North Korea. etc unless it has some angle of the USA implications she can go with. Her coverage of Burma clearly shows the same pattern also.
I hope you are not imag(ining) anything about my actions that you can not know.
quote:
I have yet to read anything you've linked to nihilism that has any correlation to the nihilism I understand.
I really do not understand this. I would like if you could elaborate on it. Maybe it is just me though...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Perhaps you could explain how nihilism fits into that explanation you just made(link to post with explanation), and why you see it to be an important contribution to the original problem in the first post, which has absolutely nothing to do with Amy, other than she interviewed Juan Cole.
Do you have any kind of answer for that Ronald? I don't know why you brought nihilism into your first post, saying "Amy Goodman is a nihilistic tool." I don't know what statement that means in itself, nor how to evaluate it. I don't know what that could possibly mean to you, and what relationship that has to the problem I posed (see re-posing below) or the person she was interviewing, who actually gave some information and opinion regarding this concern I've raised.
Original problem:
quote:
Two US allies in the Middle East: Israel, Turkey. Correlative neighbors, Lebanon (a Democracy the US supports), and Iraq (a Democracy the US has "created" and of course supports). So, now we have somewhat parallel disputes between four countries, all of which the US supports in some way.
Briefly:
In July, 2006, a border skirmish between US recognized "terrorists," Hizbullah, and Israeli soldiers resulted in a massive attack by US ally, Israel, on Lebanon, the results we all know.
Sunday, two days ago, a Kurdish terrorist group (recognized as such by the US) crossed over the Iraq/Turkey border into Turkey and killed at least 17 Turkish soldiers. Iraq crisis mounts as Kurd raid kills 17 Turkish soldiers.
What makes the difference in the way the US is treating the looming Turkish threat against the Kurdish region in northern Iraq, and the way it treated the Israeli's threat and eventual action when that crisis occurred?
One difference of course is the US is allied with Kurdish leaders, not just supportive of the general democracy and its participants as it was in Lebanon, of which the political Shiite south (Hizbullah) leaders were of course elected members. Technically the PKK terrorists are Kurds, and they are given a haven by the Kurds. So there are some parallels there, as we had the differentiation between the Hizbullah militia, considered the terrorist group, and their more legitimate political component in Lebanon.
But on an international scale, the definitions for what has taken place and the support for the different allies involved by the US has much the same structure in both incidents, it seems to me.
So we have two parallel situations in US Middle East foreign policy involving four countries, all four in some way positively connected to the US, and all four some version of democracy. that's the setting. Lots of things can be said about it that might answer the following:
quote:
How does this define itself in US foreign policy, and how does it sort itself out?
Do you have anything to say about that? If not, why post? If so, why not say it? (This is the thirteenth post following the lead, and I still haven't found out what you meant by your first one.)
That's what I'm interested in looking at, US foreign policy with regards to the Turks who are roughly in the same position as the Israelis in July of 2006. What if Turkey actually attacks Iraq? for instance. Would the U.S. take the same position with Turkey they did with Israel, allow them to go into northern Iraq? Why or why not? There are structural and political differences involved worth looking at to help make sense of this situation.
Juan Cole offered some of his thoughts in response to questions from Amy Goodman (who offered nothing of her own on the subject, it was an interview of Juan), and I put them down in the first post, I just added the link to the interview, which I'd neglected to include when I'd posted it earlier, so anyone can review everything Juan Cole said if interested. They were intended only as starter comments, something to work off of. In his comments he noted some of the political complications of the situation for the US. Those could be used as a point of discussion, either explain why he's wrong, why he's right and what that might mean if he is, or whatever.
Originally posted by /rén: Ronald, I'm willing to follow each and every one of the spings that fly off in each and every direction, but I'd prefer it if we could follow them one at a time until they come to rest.
If you are going to introduce a new one, please tie it to the fairly simple thesis and the set of questions I've asked. I have yet to determine what you think about the original thesis, let alone how your first post ties in with its reference to nihilism, and thus I have no way of following the above post in any reasonable way other than to see it as data.
I need some whys when data is posted.
I can't give up the chance... Why ask why?
The data may be irrelevant to how you see the issues but I see the accumulation of data just as important as the ongoing dialogue. When the picture gets more complete we start to see the relevance of individual data items. Just as I use the metaphor of the group is painting a picture that no one person controls. The beauty is in seeing cooperation toward a goal. Of course no guarantee it won't look like Picasso's work.
Since you are framing our debate as springs that fly off, then I guess only you will know when they come to a rest. That seems something beyond what I can know.
Lastly on your original thesis, I am nearly ready to conclude that I reject it for being too narrowly focused. Mine would have to be along the lines of:
quote:
How does the USA resolve possible conflicts of interest and holding to different policies with respect to different identities? [And importantly] How do other groups, Nations, actors, etc interact to influence USA foreign policy? What other parties/entities do we need to keep track of also?
Sorry if this is too broad. But as we can see from my last link of an editorial from Turkey, Ozkok felt that any conflict between USA and Turkey would quickly escalate.
I think he forgets that the EU may not force any direct military actions but may punish them in their application for membership. And the others are unlikely to come to Turkey's defense.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
So your intention is to accumulate data on a thread, without responding to a question or bothering to explain why?
quote:
When the picture gets more complete we start to see the relevance of individual data items. Just as I use the metaphor of the group is painting a picture that no one person controls. The beauty is in seeing cooperation toward a goal. Of course no guarantee it won't look like Picasso's work.
So discussion of the data collected is of no importance? Understanding what the other person means and and from what perspective comes that meaning is of no importance? Just put down some raw data, splash it on a canvas like paint and see if there's a picture somewhere? What goal? How do you define "goal" in this melange of yours? Even Picasso worked with form. Does this relate to nihilism in some way?
I think a picture is beginning to emerge. Seems to me you've just manufactured an excuse for spamming a thread.
I can do that without you, Ronald.
quote:
quote:
How does the USA resolve possible conflicts of interest and holding to different policies with respect to different identities? [And importantly] How do other groups, Nations, actors, etc interact to influence USA foreign policy? What other parties/entities do we need to keep track of also?
Sorry if this is too broad. But as we can see from my last link of an editorial from Turkey, Ozkok felt that any conflict between USA and Turkey would quickly escalate.
All those options are open if you will simply read the first post.
Why would there be a conflict between the USA and Turkey, Turkey is a US ally? Why wouldn't the US back Turkey? The editorial does not explain how that would occur and why the US wouldn't back Turkey as it did Israel. It seems Turkey should be able to go into Iraq and with the US backing.
As Juan Cole said about this invasion by the PKK into Turkey and the killing of 17 soldiers:
quote:
Well, it’s extremely significant. I mean, imagine what would happen in this country if a guerrilla group based in a neighboring country came over the border and killed seventeen US troops. That would be a war. And the Kurdish guerrilla movement, the Kurdish Workers Party, based now in Iraq, but originally from Eastern Anatolia, from the Turkish regions, is conducting a guerrilla war against the Turkish military. It is being given safe harbor by Kurdish politicians on the Iraqi side.
Maybe you could explain why the US wouldn't back Turkey, its ally? After you explain the other thing you didn't explain?
quote:
I think he forgets that the EU may not force any direct military actions but may punish them in their application for membership. And the others are unlikely to come to Turkey's defense.
Seems like Turkey is pretty wound up about this, and very concerned about the future threat of an autonomous Kurdish Region in northern Iraq. It may seem more threatening to them than the Hizbullah to Israel. I would think that might have a powerful influence on their decisions about invading.
If you think the EU would put that kind of pressure on Turkey, why not show some sources of evidence? Seems like a reasonable argument, should have some info relevant to it out there to support it, no need to throw random data in when there's a question on the table, is there?
ren, these approaches are most challenging to me. So I am not sure I can live up to your standards.
quote:
So your intention is to accumulate data on a thread, without bothering to explain why?
If you want to believe that, it is fine with me. It just seems strange to me to not have some reference material to start with and a map has seemed to always be a starting point for you in your discussions with others.
quote:
I think a picture is beginning to emerge.
I can do that without you, Ronald.
Well good, the smog here is blocking my vision I guess. But as many minds that look at the situation will be equal to or greater than the number of pictures to emerge. So I will continue to paint my picture also.
More later. I only have so many brain cells.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
So your intention is to accumulate data on a thread, without responding to a question or bothering to explain why?
It has a question mark, and it's asked as a question that you could clarify. I also asked these questions to go with it. It would help if you could clarify what this is about to you:
quote:
So discussion of the data collected is of no importance? Understanding what the other person means and and from what perspective comes that meaning is of no importance? Just put down some raw data, splash it on a canvas like paint and see if there's a picture somewhere? What goal? How do you define "goal" in this melange of yours? Even Picasso worked with form. Does this relate to nihilism in some way?
I can Google the internet and read all the articles I want to read. I don't need to have anyone help me collect data.
quote:
So I will continue to paint my picture also.
It seems to me the reason for even bothering to have a discussion is to share each other's pictures, which generally can evolve as things go along, as each is developing one from their own interpretation of the issue being discussed. How is that to happen without each offering some explanation in the process?
Seems like Turkey is pretty wound up about this, and very concerned about the future threat of an autonomous Kurdish Region in northern Iraq. It may seem more threatening to them than the Hizbullah to Israel. I would think that might have a powerful influence on their decisions about invading.
If you think the EU would put that kind of pressure on Turkey, why not show some sources of evidence? Seems like a reasonable argument, should have some info relevant to it out there to support it, no need to throw random data in when there's a question on the table, is there?
For what basis do you say they are "pretty wound up"? Other my link I don't see that as being supported by your evidence. Thus it looks like my link was useful after all. If you want I will try to get some information on the EU/Turkey situation tomorrow. I have read quite a few articles on that but always just background stuff. Although I have not heard what the latest situation is.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
In response to the ambush, Mr Erdogan said: "We are very angry. ... Our parliament has granted us the authority to act and within this framework we will do whatever has to be done.
Turkey Shells Northern Iraq As Border Tensions Remain High Tension remains high on the Turkish-Iraqi border following the killing of 17 Turkish troops by Kurdish militants over the weekend. Turkey has been threatening to invade northern Iraq for days and on Monday Turkish troops shelled 11 towns across the Iraq border. The Guardian newspaper reports dozens of Turkish military vehicles loaded with soldiers and heavy weapons are heading toward the Iraq border. Kurdish fighters with the PKK have offered a ceasefire if Turkey abandons plans to launch cross-border raids but Turkey has refused to negotiate with the PKK which it considers to be a terrorist organization. Sunday's attack on the Turkish troops came just days after the Turkish parliament gave the green light for the country's forces to invade Iraq. In Baghdad, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani urged Turkey to show restraint.
quote:
* Jalal Talabani: "America is trying to delay the attack and the PKK has taken a wise move and said that they will announce a ceasefire this evening. They will also withdraw their units from the conflict area with the Turkish army and God willing peace and stability will prevail in the region."
Talabani also demanded that the PKK disarm and commit itself to peaceful politics, or else get out of Iraq. In Washington, White House spokesperson Tony Fratto said the Kurdish militants must stop its attacks inside Turkey.
quote:
* Tony Fratto: "I think we are all unified -- the Turks, the United States, the Iraqi government -- in asking the PKK, not asking but addressing the situation with the PKK, to stop these attacks on the Turkish people and the Turkish army. It's a unified position. We want to see swift action and we want these attacks to stop."
Earlier today Turkey and Iraq agreed to work together to deal with the Kurdish PKK rebels in northern Iraq.
We have talked about this before. I really do not consider putting question marks behind a written sentence as a question. But even then I choose to answer some and not others. I also see you have the same standard. Ultimately I gave you the option of providing the answer since that way you would be correct with your knowledge you already obtained.
quote:
I can Google the internet and read all the articles I want to read. I don't need to have anyone help me collect data.
Then why?...
quote:
If you think the EU would put that kind of pressure on Turkey, why not show some sources of evidence? Seems like a reasonable argument, should have some info relevant to it out there to support it, no need to throw random data in when there's a question on the table, is there?
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
If you think the EU would put that kind of pressure on Turkey, why not show some sources of evidence? Seems like a reasonable argument, should have some info relevant to it out there to support it, no need to throw random data in when there's a question on the table, is there?
That, along with the hypothesis you raised about the EU putting pressure on Turkey, would help to bring your picture together for others in the discussion. It would be a contribution as part of a narrative as an answer to a question about the forces involved in this international incident. Your narrative, your picture, for which you could explain why you think it might be influential in the process. That brief paragraph was pretty much your only contribution of anything that might involve your perspective that I can see so far. And it was made without any back up sources. But it was the only thing that gave me a chance to picture something of what you are developing I can use to work into to my own.
It seems to me, in my discussional environment, at least, that these independent picture developments do not need to be set in concrete. They do not need to be defended, they can be shared and developed mutually, but each will have an individual vision, that's by default. All anyone can share is a map of their vision, not the actual vision.
It appears to me at this point that you read Amy Goodman in the first post, and pretty much ignored everything else. Yet the first post had nearly everything you've
Discussion Community 
