The Kurds-- Betrayed Again, This Time By The World's Most Dishonorable Figure

Hole-in-One by Nancy Ohanian

There are between 30 and 40 million Kurds in the world but their homeland stretches across northwest Iran, northern Iraq, northern Syria and southeast Turkey. They are the world's largest ethnic group without a state. The end of World War I and the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire brought with it the establishment of their own states, the Republic of Ararat in Turkey, the Kingdom of Kurdistan in Iraq and the Republic of Mahabad in Iran, together the core of a hoped for Kurdistan. Both republics and the kingdom were suppressed and short lived.

The U.S. has manipulated the Kurds with promises of a homeland in return for fighting in Americans wars in Iraq and Syria. U.S. administrations have always abandoned the Kurds after they were no longer needed. No one has done this more cruelly and blatantly than Trump is doing. (It's worth noting that although German has taken in over a million and a half Kurds, France 150,000, Sweden over 80,000, Holland 70,000, Belgium and the U.K. 50,000 each and tiny Denmark 30,000, the U.S. has only given refuge to 20,591 Kurds.)

Finally a sitting Republican congressman with the guts to break with Trump-- except he's retiring, so not running for reelection. Staunch conservative John Shimkus (R-IL) didn't say he would vote for impeachment but did say on a local radio station that he told his staff "to take my name off the I support Donald Trump list" and that he's "saddened for the Kurdish people."

Yesterday the New York Times reported that Pentagon officials are losing their minds over the latest betrayal, after "more than five years of fighting alongside Kurdish troops in Iraq and Syria has now given way to standing aside as those same allies are attacked." Some reports from inside the officer corps say there is "more anger than they had seen at any point" since Señor Trumpanzee managed to come to power.

2 authoritarian pieces of shit

On op-ed by Air Force Major Jason Baker in USA Today, I fought alongside the Kurds. The United States can't abandon our fierce allies to Turkey illustrates the problem. "As a major in the Air Force who has flown combat missions against the Islamic State," he wrote, "I have seen firsthand the capability of Kurdish fighters. During my missions in 2016, they made up a critical mass of the ground forces flushing ISIS from its strongholds across Iraq and Syria. Together with a small number of U.S. special operators and others making up the moderate Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurds were instrumental in ending the Islamic State’s territorial caliphate. Now is no time to abandon them to the designs of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has just launched a military offensive into Kurdish-controlled parts of Syria... [T]he president did not object to an attack that Turkey launched Wednesday against Kurdish forces in the area-- the same forces that were so critical in liberating large swathes of Iraq and Syria from ISIS control."

The administration's overnight announcement drew an immediate and almost universal rebuke from the foreign policy and military community, even including condemnation from some of the president’s closest usual allies. In the fight against ISIS, it has been U.S. policy to back the Kurds in Syria, and their extremely capable fighters. This week’s decision to turn this policy on its head now puts an extremely valuable partner in jeopardy, risks creating space for the reemergence of the Islamic State, and leaves the status of thousands of captured ISIS fighters uncertain.

America has a long-standing relationship with the Kurdish people, despite a history of overpromising, underdelivering, and often supporting the Kurds when it was helpful and convenient and ignoring them when it was not. After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, President Woodrow Wilson supported the idea of an independent Kurdish state, but this dream fell apart when Turkish borders were redrawn in 1923. Denied a homeland of their own, the Kurdish diaspora came to be spread across Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran, facing pressure and often outright hostility in countries that viewed them with suspicion.

The United States supported Kurdish factions in an attempt to overthrow Iraq’s government in the 1970s  but abruptly broke off relations in the 1980s, creating an opening for Saddam Hussein’s brutal repression. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, the United States imposed "no-fly" zones that prevented further aggression against the Kurds by Hussein, and President Bill Clinton's administration later helped bring an end to the Iraqi Kurdish civil war. The Kurds in Iraq supported the U.S. invasion of 2003, and were quite possibly the most effective allied fighting force on the ground in the battle against ISIS.

They did all this with the hope-- despite past disappointments-- that America would repay the Kurds by continuing to support Kurdish ambitions in the region. Tragically, they’ve been let down once again, causing many to fear for a humanitarian disaster. With an effective green light from the United States, Erdogan feels empowered to take military actions to sweep the Kurds from territory near the Turkey-Syria border. The repercussions for America and its allies could be huge.

The moral failure of the decision would be bad enough were it not for the strategic implications as well: An invasion by Turkey could roll back allied successes and provide ISIS with space to operate. Kurdish-run camps for detained ISIS fighters-- like the one at Al Hol-- will be in fresh jeopardy, as the Kurds are forced to divert manpower and resources to engaging with the Turks. As a result, not only will ISIS recruiters have an easier time infiltrating their message but also an easier time exfiltrating their new recruits.

This is no way to treat a longtime ally and strategic partner. The Kurds have proved time and again their capability as a disciplined, effective fighting force and their commitment to the kind of stable, moderate governance that is sorely lacking in the region.

Previous U.S. presidents have recognized this and committed themselves to standing side by side with the Kurds. The administration’s plan of abandoning them now would not just be a reversal of long-established policy, it also would be a betrayal of one of America's few reliable regional partners.

On MSNBC, Tom Donilon, Obama's national security adviser, told Andrea Mitchell that "We have given a green light to the Turks to come and fight our allies… It's a real stain on the reputation of the United States." Even Bernie, the peace candidate in the 2020 election, was horrified by how Trump betrayed the Kurds. "The President of the United States should not make significant national security decisions impulsively, by tweets after a single phone call. I strongly condemn Trump's reckless decision to abandon our Kurdish allies to their fate at the hands of Turkish President Erodogan. This is not a case of sending American troops there. They are already there and Trump is withdrawing them, giving the Turkish Army permission to invade. Kurdish fighters have fought and died in our joint effort to eliminate ISIS. They should not be abandoned in this way. Congress must assert its important responsibility over foreign policy and serve as a check on our unstable president." Many Republicans agree with Bernie on this. 

As Turkish planes pounded Kurdish positions from the air and with artillery, CNN reporters on the ground in Syria reported smoke billowing from several large explosions as desperate civilians -- women, children and men-- fled the area on foot, some pushing others in wheelchairs, many crammed into the back of pickup trucks.

With humanitarian groups reporting the bombardment could displace as many as 300,000 people, Erdogan's top adviser told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that Trump knew in advance about the scope of the Turkish attack.

"President Trump and President Erdogan have reached an understanding over precisely what this operation is," Gulnur Aybet said from Ankara on Wednesday. "He knows what the scope of this operation is."

The news trickling out of Syria fed increasing Republican anger, as lawmakers, former officials and analysts reacted throughout the day, and the US military stayed conspicuously silent.

"News from Syria is sickening," Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the third-ranking Republican in the House, tweeted Wednesday, echoing lawmakers across the spectrum. "Turkish troops preparing to invade Syria from the north, Russian-backed forces from the south, ISIS fighters attacking Raqqa. Impossible to understand why @realDonaldTrump is leaving America's allies to be slaughtered and enabling the return of ISIS."

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio noted that "at request of this administration the Kurds served as the primary ground fighters against ISIS in Syria so U.S. troops wouldn't have to." Then, he charged, the administration "cut deal with Erdogan allowing him to wipe them out. Damage to our reputation & national interest will be extraordinary & long lasting."

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland on Wednesday announced a framework to place immediate sanctions on senior Turkish government officials, ban all US military business and military transactions with Turkey, and immediately activate 2017 sanctions on the country until Ankara stops its operations against the Kurds.

"This unlawful and unwarranted attack against an American friend and partner threatens the lives and livelihoods of millions of civilians, many of whom have already fled from their homes elsewhere in Syria to find safety in this region," Graham and Van Hollen said in a statement.

"This invasion will ensure the resurgence of ISIS in Syria, embolden America's enemies including Al Qaeda, Iran, and Russia, and launch yet another endless conflict in what had been, until today, one of the most safe and stable areas of Syria and a region experimenting with the best model of local governance currently available in that war-torn country."

Brad Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies-- a veteran with 15 years active duty service-- reflected the sentiment of many other Republicans CNN spoke with, describing the day as "a sickening and shameful moment in US history and I put that at the foot of the President."

Both Pentagon and State Department officials had advised Trump against making the move, arguing a US presence is needed to counter ISIS and keep Iran and Russia, both influential inside Syria, in check.

Syrian Democratic Forces said in a statement Wednesday that they were suspending military operations against ISIS in northern Syria following the "Turkish aggression."

On Sunday, after Trump's phone call with Erdogan, the White House said US troops would move out the way and would not support or be involved in the operation. Trump downplayed Turkey's move in comments to reporters at the White House Wednesday.

He shrugged off the likely escape of ISIS fighters from Kurdish prisons, essentially saying it is Europe's problem, not his. "Well, they're going to be escaping to Europe, that's where they want to go," Trump said. He added that "we have no soldiers in the area."

Trump downplayed the alliance with the Kurds, 11,000 of whom died fighting to help the US mission against ISIS. "They didn't help us in the second World War, they didn't help us with Normandy for example," Trump said. "They're there to help us with their land, and that's a different thing." Normandy is an area of France, not the US.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Wednesday that it was "false" that the US withdrawal of troops from northeastern Syria was a green light for the slaughter of the Kurds, but did not explicitly endorse them as US allies.

Analysts such as Bowman say part of the outrage is driven by the fact that "we would have not defeated ISIS' Caliphate... without their help" and that the Kurds had just recently lowered their defenses, trusting the US to protect them from Turkey.

Since August, the US has been pushing the Kurds to dismantle their defensive fortifications and pull back their troops along the border that Turkey is now attacking as part of a "security mechanism" framework. The goal was to appease Turkey enough so they wouldn't invade. Kurds agreed to participate "presumably because they trusted the US to restrain the Turks diplomatically," Bowman said.

"We are breaking faith with the Kurds," Bowman said. "The SDF did everything we asked them to do. This will have ramifications for every individual soldier, every squad, every platoon operating in a dangerous place trying to earn the trust of their partners."

Earlier Wednesday, Trump took angrily to Twitter to push back on criticism. The President appeared to reference the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was premised on faulty and manipulated intelligence that former leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

"There were NONE!" Trump tweeted. "Now we are slowly & carefully bringing our great soldiers & military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE!"

But analysts and lawmakers of all stripes argue that the big picture and benefits to the US of standing its ground are exactly what Trump is missing. They pointed to the ramifications for future US alliances and the fight against ISIS, which remains a threat, among other issues.

They said the move was strategically shortsighted in Syria and internationally, that it will lend credibility to the narrative-- often pushed by Iran and Russia-- that the US is an unreliable partner making it harder to build future coalitions. That could mean that the US may have to send its own forces into harm's way more often.

"People will come to see the United States as untrustworthy or transactional," Bowman said. "The net result is that the next time we need friends allies partners, they won't be there."

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah pointed to the sense that once Trump pulled the US back, the Turkish attack was inevitable.

"Reports indicate Turkey is predictably attacking the Kurdish allies we abandoned," Romney tweeted. "It's a tragic loss of life among friends shamefully betrayed. We can only hope the President's decision does not lead to even greater loss of life and a resurgence of ISIS."

The wave of criticism-- including from a usually acquiescent Republican Party and in particular from some staunch Trump allies-- seemed to sting the President into damage control mode. On Wednesday afternoon, he released a statement that did not mention his role in giving Erdogan the green light or the fate of the Kurdish fighters.

"From the first day I entered the political arena, I made it clear that I did not want to fight these endless, senseless wars-- especially those that don't benefit the United States," Trump said.

Trump said Turkey had "committed to protecting civilians, protecting religious minorities" and "ensuring no humanitarian crisis takes place," and said Ankara "is now responsible for ensuring all ISIS fighters being held captive remain in prison and that ISIS does not reconstitute in any way, shape, or form."

Graham, usually a stalwart Trump ally, is predicting his sanctions legislation on Turkey will have a veto-proof majority in the Senate, making it impossible for Trump to stop.

Trump responded to talk of the bipartisan legislation saying "Lindsey and I feel differently."

"I think Lindsey would like to stay there for the next 200 years and maybe add a couple a hundred thousand people every place. But I disagree with Lindsey on that. But I will tell you that I do agree on sanctions."

Trump claimed he has stopped Erdogan from moving into Syria "from virtually the first day" he was in office. "They wanted to fight, and that's the way it is," Trump said.

Turkish garbage meets American garbage; bonds

Aside from the dishonor of abandoning the Kurds to Erdogan's genocidal instincts, the Pentagon is also worried about what will happen with the 12,000 ISIS fighters-- the world's largest concentration of terrorists-- being guarded by the Kurdish army. "If those fighters are set free," reported NBC News, "officials fear a replay of what happened in Iraq between 2010 and 2013, when the core group who founded ISIS were released or escaped from detention after U.S. forces left the country. Some of the very people who broke out of Iraqi prisons helped turn ISIS into a movement that not only seized territory in Iraq and Syria, but also orchestrated and encouraged terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States. Asked what would happen if ISIS fighters escape and pose a threat elsewhere, Trump told reporters Wednesday, 'Well they are going to be escaping to Europe, that's where they want to go. They want to go back to their homes.'"

More broadly, current and former officials say, a large Turkish military incursion into northern Syria will have the effect of removing the single greatest source of counterterrorism pressure against ISIS-- a Kurdish force that has been crucial to defeating and containing the terror group.

...Asked about the risks, U.S. intelligence officials chose their words carefully Wednesday, not wanting to say anything publicly that appears to criticize Trump's policies. But they did not dispute what one of the top counterterrorism officials in the government told NBC News last month-- that ISIS remains a dangerous threat, and that reduction of counterterrorism pressure on the group would "set the conditions for potential reemergence in a very powerful way."

"They are absolutely still a viable external operational threat globally," the official, who chose not to be identified, said.

Just days before Trump ordered U.S. troops to withdraw from the border region of northern Syria, a bipartisan team appointed by Congress, the Syria Study Group, issued a report warning that an American pullout would take the pressure off the terrorists.

"There's ample evidence ISIS is still very much active, it has access to tremendous resources, its brand still has international appeal," said Dana Stroul, co-author of the Syria Study Group report and a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank.

"We know that ISIS is looking for opportunities to reconstitute and certainly the lifting of pressure on ISIS is likely to provide the organization with that opportunity."

The report said that ISIS had lost its grip on territory in Syria and Iraq but had "morphed into an insurgency with the will, capability, and resources to carry out attacks against the United States."

Apart from ISIS, al Qaeda-linked groups and other extremists are active in Syria, taking advantage of the chaos of the country's civil war, according to the report.

"Areas of Syria have become safe havens for al Qaeda and its fellow travelers and home to the largest concentration of foreign terrorist fighters since Afghanistan in the 1990s," the report said.