GYANOPROBHA

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?

According to a STRATFOR intelligence briefing that was passed on to me (presumably available only to subscribers), entitled "Why the PKK is baiting Turkey", the PKK's attacks on Turkish troops are intended to draw Turkey into an incursion into northern Iraq. The eventual aim is to revive the revanchist hopes of unifying the Kurdish people, now spread over Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, into one nation. But the Kurds of northern Iraq are not really interested, according to this report. They have tasted prosperity and comparative peace, and wish to enjoy the prospects of growing rich with the oil that they have in their own territory, preferably in a federal Iraq that allows the Kurds to sell their own oil to the international market. Hence the desperate attempts to provoke a Turkish attack into northern Iraq, "in hopes that the confrontation between Turkey and the PKK will become a confrontation between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds". The PKK expects that once this happens, the US will support the Kurds against the Turks.

The problem with this analysis is that it leaves out of account the fact that both the US and Israel have, for reasons of their own, been supporting the Kurds, initially against Saddam Hussein, and now against Iran, for some time. Not only do the US and Israel hope the oil resources of Mosul and Kirkuk will fall into the laps of their oil companies, but it will hopefully split up Iraq permanently, and give them a friendly power right at the border with Iran and the Sunni provinces of Iraq. Sen. Joe Biden has already proposed a bill to divide Iraq into three areas, according to the relative local majorities - partition and rule, in the grand colonial manner familiar to South Asians from their recent history. US and possibly Israeli special forces have been operating inside Iran alongside Kurds trained by them, planting spying devices to detect signs of nuclear activity, and also encouraging the Mujahedin-i-Khalq, an armed group of Iranian "terrorists" (in the US State Department definition) dedicated to the overthrow of the present Islamic regime in Iran.

Moreover, the PKK that’s attacking Turkish military units inside Turkey has little popular support among Turkish Kurds. The latter have benefited from the investment in the local economy and the greater cultural freedoms that the AKP government has been providing in the region over the last few years. They also have rather dire memories of the last disastrous confrontation with the Turkish army in the 1990’s. Former PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan too has reportedly lost interest in confronting the Turkish state. (No surprises there!)

For some reason that I don’t entirely understand, the possible role of Israel in promoting the recent surge of violence from the PKK is being ignored even by al Jazeera. It’s probably not a direct role, and may well be a spillover that the Israelis did not intend, but are not in a position to control. The Kurds in northern Iraq have received arms from the US and training and other kinds of support from Israeli special forces and academics and politicians because Israel is interested in cultivating the Kurds to gain a foothold within Iran. In fact, Israeli support for Kurdish revanchist aspirations was already the subject of a long investigative piece by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker on June 28, 2004. Some of this support has spilled over into groups operating under the name of PKK in Turkey and PJAK in Iran.

Turkish-Israeli “friendship” is now as fragile as Turkish-US friendship, primarily because the redrawing of the borders in the region to the advantage of Israel has long been an ambition of both the US and the Israelis. [See “The Clean Break” document and its analysis.] Ankara has opposed a break up of Iraq (along for instance the Biden proposal) right from the beginning, because they perceive it as a potential source of support for attempts to create Kurdistan at their expense. Israel on its part has not taken too kindly to Ankara wooing Basharul Asad, inviting Khaled Meshal of the Palestinian Hamas to visit Ankara from his sanctuary in Damascus to publicize the plight of the Palestinians, and the new alignment with Iran under the AKP against Kurdish attempts to revive attacks on both these countries.

The US is easily in a position to control the Kurds if they wanted to, either directly or through their puppet al Maliki in Baghdad. So why don’t they? It can't be out of sympathy with Kurdish national aspirations. After all, as the Kurds were reminded by Henry Kissinger, no less, when he refused to send arms to the Iraqi anti-Saddam resistance, "the US government is not an eleemosynary institution." Probably because they have their hands full just dealing with the failing or failed “surge”, and the renewed bisectarian unity that is forming among the Iraqis against US occupation. Besides, if the US foreign policy advisers had a clue, they would have figured out long ago the real cost of the support for the Armenian genocide resolution in the Senate, in terms of increased popular hostility against the idea of supporting the US through the base at Incirlik.

Today's Zaman, a Turkish news daily sympathetic to the ruling AKP, has reported that Erdogan will press Olmert to give up Israeli support for the Kurdish militants in Turkey. Let's see how far Olmert will comply. He will probably plead ignorance, or that the Israeli government have no control since those training and arming the Kurdish fighters are private military contractors. After all, instant and plausible deniability is why governments hire PMC's in the first place.

THE TERROR WARRIORS

US Code Title 18 Section 2331 defines "international terrorism" as "activities that
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum..."

Now which part of this definition does NOT apply to Blackwater, or to similar firms engaged in similar activities?

Use the last link to read the revealing interview by Wajahat Ali with P W Singer, author of Corporate Warriors , especially for the account of the Blackwater CEO Erik Prince's defence of his firm to the US Senate.

View also Keith Olbermann's interview with Jeremy Scahill, where he refers to the report that the State Department investigation on Blackwater's activities was written by a Blackwater employee.

And you thought you had seen it all?

IRAQI DEATH SQUADS HAVE A US TRAINER

Following a lead from the Cuban News Agency ACN, I turned to the web page of US Congressman Dennis J Kucinich, where I find that he has revealed details reported in the US media of operations conducted by death squads in Iraq that appear to have links with the Iraqi Interior Ministry. The revelations are contained in a letter to Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of "Defense" who has been responsible for the invasion and its aftermath, although of course he has never acknowledged responsibility for the disasters that are being daily reported from Iraq.

Again, Kucinich's letter refers to the similarity of the operations as well as its historical links with those that were conducted by death squads trained by US Special Forces in Central America during the 1980's, including the association of John Negroponte, present Homeland Security Chief and former US Ambassador to Iraq under the Coalition Regime, and US Colonel James Steele, a former trainer of death squads who is now doubtless dishing out his grisly advice to the Iraqis. The details are sickening, but the world has got used to such horrors. Steele is apparently an accomplice of yet another unsavoury character Luis Posada Cariles. Here are some more details about Steele.

If Kucinich ever received a response to his request is not known.

Why would the US be interested in using death squads? Firstly, because they can. They are simply doing what US administrations, indeed most states, are historically good at - a core competence, to use some business jargon. Secondly, by keeping up the kill rate between Shias and Sunnis, it helps drive a wedge in the resistance to the occupation. Thirdly, it also gives the US and Britain an excuse to remain in Iraq, ostensibly on the grounds that they need to, because the Iraqis will destroy each other without them - the same excuse the British used to delay the end of their rule over India. Fourthly, it also prepares the ground for furthering the Greater Middle East Project , and maintaining a permanent military presence in Iraq. Finally, the influence of the MICT (military-industrial-congressional-think tank) complex on US political decision-making will ensure that with the last two factors in action, at least the weapons production sector (and ancillary sectors) of the US economy will sustain the buoyancy it has enjoyed since 911. Why try and build peace when so many powerful actors have so much to gain from war?

THE US MILITARY AND CULTURAL RESPECT

In the context of daily revelations of fresh horrors about the behaviour of the US military in Iraq, this document - essentially a guide to middle eastern cultures written for the US military - is likely to strike one as...well, "quaint".

Here are some extracts from it (thanks to tokoloshe's posting June 3, 2006 11.42 AM in response to Richard Norton Taylor's My Lai's Untaught Lessons).

"Recognise that manners and customs in the Middle East go back to the beginnings of civilisation. Long-established practices and conventions - fashioned over centuries.. - govern interaction between individuals... Any particular conduct is tolerated or accepted if it is civilised (i.e. considerate of others) and respectable (inoffensive to the individual and the community)... Most cultures generously accept people who show consideration of others, who maintain fairness in clarifying their views, and who model a tolerant approach which seeks peace... The Qur'an mentions those who show charity, kindness and peace among men as the ones whose counsel is valid... Practice humility. Seek moderation. A kind, honest, humble approach - free of an arrogant and overbearing attitude - naturally opens the way for agreeable exchanges. "

I suppose the American commanders in Iraq and Washington have read the stuff they feed the troops, just as Mr. Gonzales must have read the Geneva Conventions.

MILITARY DIPLOMACY

As if the damage done by the film Kurtlar Vadisi Irak (The Valley of the Wolves Iraq) to Turkish perceptions of Americans wasn't bad enough, now the Turkish newspaper Radikal reports that Tommy Franks used some "military" language to speak of the Turks and their resistance to the idea of letting US troops transit through their country on their way to Iraq. That'll go down REALLY well with public opinion here!

BBC WAKES UP TO ISAHAQI

The BBC has just woken up to the Isahaqi massacre by US troops in Iraq.

"The BBC has uncovered [emphasis added] new video evidence that US forces may have been responsible for the deliberate killing of 11 innocent Iraqi civilians."

This prime news organization has apparently been asleep at its job, because of course the news about Isahaqi has been at the very least on Chris Floyd's Empire Burlesque since goodness knows when.

This is what happens when a topnotch media organization spends its time whitewashing or averting its gaze from the crimes of those whom it is supposed to watch.

HADITHA, ISAHAQI, MY LAI...

Do these names mean anything to anyone? Well, currently Blogworld is buzzing with commentary about Haditha. But the same questions appeared when Isahaqi hit the headlines - is this Iraq's My Lai?

On March 26, 2006 TIME first reported the massacre at Haditha, which occurred on November 19 2005, .

I first read about the massacre at Abu Sifa (Isahaqi) in Empire Burlesque a month or so ago. There I found that it had occurred around March 14, 2006, and reported in Knight Ridder Washington March 19, The Guardian UK March 21, and The Times UK on March 26. (The images are NOT for the sensitive or for children!)

Why does Haditha merit an investigation and prosecution by the US government, but I haven' t been able to trace any reference to an investigation of Isahaqi? Like Abu Ghraib, it certainly makes one wonder what else we haven't heard of. So, as the TIME article observes, the revelations of another My Lai will damage US and British credibility even further, just as Bush-Blair admit to mistakes in their conduct of the war (Oops! We just trashed another country, caused maybe upto 250,000 innocent people to be killed - and that's only since March 19, 2003! My bad!! But it was all for God, Democracy and Israel, so like Madeleine Albright earlier, we too think "the price was worth it"...).

Perhaps we should be grateful to TIME for being the first to report this crime. But the language of the reporting seems to contain some clues that even they find it difficult to digest the enormity of the events.

TIME writes: "The possibility [emphasis added] of a U.S. massacre of Iraqi civilians could have major ramifications." As if a US massacre of civilians is an aberrant exception. How about the possibility that the US army has functioned this way in Iraq because the grunts got the message loud and clear from those civilian higher-up that it's all OK to treat Iraqis like untermensch? In fact, the much advertized efforts of US troops to "win hearts and minds" by organizing soccer games with the local children, opening up hospitals and schools, and performing other acts of charity and mercy HAVE been the aberrant exceptions.

Again, in the article: "In recent days, Marine Corps Commandant Michael Hagee, has flown to Iraq to deliver speeches to troops re-emphasizing that they must adhere to international law." But how can anyone in the US government RE-emphasize adherence to international law, when what has been emphasized over and over again - in word AND deed - is the irrelevance of international law to deal with what is regarded in the administration as an "unprecedented" threat?

The subtext of incredulity in the TIME article can only spring from an implicit and unquestionable assumption that the US army only went into Iraq to do good - massacres and tortures of civilians weren't on the cards, they just happened in fits of absent-mindedness! To hold on to and re-affirm this assumption in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary - as Bush, Blair and their minions and supporters do everytime they open their mouths about Iraq - must reveal a major psychological sickness, for which words like "cognitive dissonance" seem like euphemisms. Is there any possibility that the people in Washington who ordered up this war in pursuit of their blood-dimmed plans, and paid for it with the lives of American and Iraqi citizens, will ever face justice?

KILLING THEM SOFTLY...

New Scientist has this moving example of concern among the US security forces for Iraqi lives - "lasers to dazzle drivers who fail to slow down at military checkpoints". This is one of the great boons of the US occupation - technology dedicated to saving lives and making the occupation a kinder, gentler occupation for both the occupier and the occupied.

But in order to get a "fair and balanced" picture, also read this extract from the transcript of an Italian documentary called Star War in Iraq. (View the video here) where deaths are reported with mysterious injuries sustained, it is suspected, from testing of new weapons that burn rather than cause invasive injuries.

What's the point of missing out on all that freedom to shoot and kill with the impunity that can only come from being the global bully?

ECHOES OF HISTORY

T E Lawrence in The Sunday Times, August 22, 1920
The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster.

Proclamation of Lt. General Sir Stanley Maude at Baghdad, March 19, 1917

To the People of Baghdad Vilayet:

In the name of my King, and in the name of the peoples over whom he rules, I address you as follow:-

Our military operations have as their object the defeat of the enemy, and the driving of him from these territories. In order to complete this task, I am charged with absolute and supreme control of all regions in which British troops operate; but our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Since the days of Halaka your city and your lands have been subject to the tyranny of strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunk in desolation, and your forefathers and yourselves have groaned in bondage. Your sons have been carried off to wars not of your seeking, your wealth has been stripped from you by unjust men and squandered in distant places.

Since the days of Midhat, the Turks have talked of reforms, yet do not the ruins and wastes of today testify the vanity of those promises?

It is the wish not only of my King and his peoples, but it is also the wish of the great nations with whom he is in alliance, that you should prosper even as in the past, when your lands were fertile, when your ancestors gave to the world literature, science, and art, and when Baghdad city was one of the wonders of the world.

Between your people and the dominions of my King there has been a close bond of interest. For 200 years have the merchants of Baghdad and Great Britain traded together in mutual profit and friendship. On the other hand, the Germans and the Turks, who have despoiled you and yours, have for 20 years made Baghdad a centre of power from which to assail the power of the British and the Allies of the British in Persia and Arabia. Therefore the British Government cannot remain indifferent as to what takes place in your country now or in the future, for in duty to the interests of the British people and their Allies, the British Government cannot risk that being done in Baghdad again which has been done by the Turks and Germans during the war.

But you people of Baghdad, whose commercial prosperity and whose safety from oppression and invasion must ever be a matter of the closest concern to the British Government, are not to understand that it is the wish of the British Government to impose upon you alien institutions. It is the hope of the British Government that the aspirations of your philosophers and writers shall be realised and that once again the people of Baghdad shall flourish, enjoying their wealth and substance under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws and their racial ideals. In Hedjaz the Arabs have expelled the Turks and Germans who oppressed them and proclaimed the Sherif Hussein as their King, and his Lordship rules in independence and freedom, and is the ally of the nations who are fighting against the power of Turkey and Germany; so indeed are the noble Arabs, the Lords of Koweyt, Nejd, and Asir.

Many noble Arabs have perished in the cause of Arab freedom, at the hands of those alien rulers, the Turks, who oppressed them. It is the determination of the Government of Great Britain and the great Powers allied to Great Britain that these noble Arabs shall not have suffered in vain. It is the hope and desire of the British people and the nations in alliance with them that the Arab race may rise once more to greatness and renown among the peoples of the earth, and that it shall bind itself together to this end in unity and concord.

O people of Baghdad remember that for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have ever endeavoured to set on Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your dissensions. This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her Allies, for there can be neither peace nor prosperity where there is enmity and misgovernment. Therefore I am commanded to invite you, through your nobles and elders and representatives, to participate in the management of your civil affairs in collaboration with the political representatives of Great Britain who accompany the British Army, so that you may be united with your kinsmen in North, East, South, and West in realising the aspirations of your race.

THE DEATH OF IRONY

Even while his armies ontinue to rain down death and destruction on Iraq, in a war that is being waged on the basis of lies, George W. Bush has ordered ethics briefings for his staff!

Here is one account of what might be going on. (Thanks for the link, Mustafa!)