WAR Analysis of the Kurds by the great Col. Kratman

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Highly relevant given the recent withdrawal by the God-Emperor Trump of U.S. troops from N. Syria.

http://mydailykona.blogspot.com/2019/10/post-about-kurds.html

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2019
Post about the Kurds...


"I shamelessly cribbed this from the "GodFather" Tom Kratman. Apparently the Neocons and the media are using President Trump's decision to pull out of Syria and the Kurds, and they all are having meltdowns"Orange Man Bad". I am of the mindset, Obungler shouldn't have put us in the middle of the clown circus to begin with. Sure the Kurds are allies, but which Kurds? There are Iraqi Kurds, Syrian Kurds and Turkish Kurds. I am not a peacenik by any means, but we can't be the worlds Policeman. Nobody over there is our friends, well perhaps the Kuwaitis and the Israelis. The others.....well not so much. The "GodFather" posted this on Facebook and it was a worthy rant."

Our Gallant Allies, the Kurds (and other fairy tales)

Ah, the Kurds. How can mere words render a proper appreciation? They’re trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous…um…no; no, they’re not. Oh, sure, as individuals they can be fairly boon companions, but in the main and in the mass? Not so much.

My first experience of the Kurds – rather, of how the rest of the area thinks of and feels about them – was before I’d ever met my first one. This was at a majlis, in the town of Judah (or Goodah), Saudi Arabia, sometime in December or so, 1990. Citizenship is kind of an iffy and flexible concept in that part of the world, so there were folk from Saudi, from Oman, from the Emirates. There was even one Arab who insisted he was a citizen of the Gulf Cooperation Council, since he was a fully documented citizen of so many places in the GCC. I had my doubts right up until he pulled out a bilingual ID card which, indeed, did seem to list him as a citizen of the GCC. One of the attendees had brought with him a book detailing the results of the chemical attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja by the army and air force of Saddam Hussein.

It was really heartbreaking, all those picture of gassed, dead, discolored, and decomposing Kurdish kids, who are, in fact, every bit as cute as the papers and television made them out to be. At least when they’re not dead they are. My team sergeant, Sig, and I were duly appalled and sickened.
The Arabs, though, didn’t seem to understand. To paraphrase, “What’s the problem? Don’t you understand that these were _Kurds_ who got gassed?”

At the time, I found that attitude completely inexplicable.

Fast forward a few months; we’ve incited the Kurds and Shia to rise up and overthrow Saddam. They didn’t, of course, while such an uprising would have looked difficult and might have done us some good. Oh, no; instead the Shia – whose rebellion was spontaneous, anyway – waited until it looked like the Iraqi Army was crushed and such an uprising would be easy. The Kurds – who were organized – waited even longer.

Sorry, boys, but when we offer you a quid pro quo, that doesn’t translate into “free lunch.” Moreover, when we’ve already offered someone a cease*fire it’s a bit late to try to get us to start hostilities again. In short, we owed them nothing.
Fast forward, again, to late May, 1991. I’d come home from the Middle East, hung around a while, and been sent back, this time to Operation Provide Comfort, the Kurdish Rescue, there to quasi govern a few towns, run refugee camps, coordinate humanitarian relief, and such like. While we’re waiting in the camp on the Turkish side of the border, not too far from Silopi, overwatched by a Turkish police fort on a hill, some Kurds got in position to fire at the fort such that, should the fort return fire, the Turks will be shooting at us. So much for gratitude from people you’re trying to save, eh?

Fortunately, Turkish discipline held firm and enlightened Kurdish dreams of advancing the cause of having a homeland of their own by getting their rescuers killed came to naught. After a couple of days at the camp, the crew I’m with and I are ordered forward to link up with the British Marines and their Dutch counterparts, already inside Kurdestan. We’re riding in on the back of a British Bedford Lorry, one which, based on the comfort of the ride, probably crossed the Rhine with Monty in 1945…after enduring the entire war in North Africa. If it had a suspension it was tolerably hard to see, and impossible to feel.

Sitting next to me is a Staff Sergeant Farnsworth. Farnsworth and I are both grunts, so we’re doing what grunts do when there’s nothing better to do and neither sleep nor playing cards nor reading are possible; we’re analyzing the terrain. It is fiercely rugged, with winding roads going through narrow passes between hills and mountains difficult enough to climb on foot and impossible for vehicles. Reverse slopes were of such an angle as would make defenders largely invulnerable to artillery and would make even high angle mortar fire of much reduced effect. In any case, at a certain point, looking over a particularly defensible pass, Farnsworth and I looked at each other. I no longer remember who spoke first but the conversation went like this: “If the Kurds*“ “*couldn’t defend themselves*“ “*in this kind of terrain*“ “*they don’t deserve*“ “*their own country.” And that was before we even knew how much they used mines.

*****
A little digression is in order here. As mentioned previously, Kurdish kids are adorable. (The women are also quite fetching, right up until they’re worn out, usually by age twenty-*four or so, from being used like mules, which is to say, beasts of burden, but who, unlike mules, can still bear young…and must.) Most people shy away from or are at least ignorant of the reason so many of those adorable kids died. It’s simple; the Kurds starved them to death themselves. It’s a cultural imperative among them, when times get hard, to let the little girls die of starvation (first, of course), and then the little boys. Good guess, dear reader; why, no, I didn’t like that for beans. As a matter of fact, now that you ask, I’m not much for multiculturalism, in general, either.
*****

Interestingly, before we even arrived in our area, there had been an incident – a firefight resulting in several Iraqi dead – between the British Marines and some Iraqi troops guarding one of Hussein’s palaces in that part of Iraq. I asked a British officer about it and his answer was to the effect that, “As near as we can figure, as one of our patrols was passing, two Kurds, from different positions but surely with coordination, took a shot each, close to simultaneously. One shot was at our patrol, the other at the Iraqi on the gate to the palace. Both shots missed, but the Iraqis and our men, thinking they were under attack, reacted as one would expect. We were just a lot better shots, better led, than they were. Poor bastards. One of the reasons we’re quite sure that the Iraqis didn’t shoot first was that, as our men passed, they waved at each other, as soldiers will who have no particular reasons for enmity.”
*****

The main town I ran was Assyrian and Christian, Catholic, actually, having their own rite but being in full communion with Rome. It was an experience to attend mass held in Aramaic, the language of Jesus, a memory I rather cherish despite not understanding a word of it. They are nice people, the Assyrians, seriously nice people. I’ve dealt with a lot of different kinds of foreigners, over the years, even married one, for that matter, and liked almost all of them. But the Assyrians have a special place. They’re also amazingly hardworking. They can’t defend themselves or, at least, they don’t think they can, which amounts to the same thing.

Everyone knows about the Armenian genocide. The genocide of the Assyrians, around the same time period, was about as bad and may have been worse, as a percentage of the pre*massacre population. And among the chief agents of that genocide? Of both of them, really? You guessed it, the Kurds.
I asked my Assyrian translator there, once, what he and the other Assyrians really wanted. He answered, “We’d like the British to come back and run the place, permanently. Failing that, we’d be very happy to be subjects of the American Empire, if you would just declare one. If that’s not possible, then letting the Iraqis back would be minimally acceptable. Under no circumstance, however, do we want to be under the Kurds.”

That main town was the only one in which no Kurdish babies died, of the smallish number that the Kurds didn’t let starve anyway, and the only one in which there were no political or ethnic murders in that time period. Part of that was probably my own rather forthright approach to domestic harmony – “One incident, just one, and I’ll cut off your food, medical care, and other goodies, causing all your followers to desert you for other groups and leaders I haven’t proscribed!” – but part of it, too, at least for the long term maintenance of the thing, was probably the perception among themselves that the various Kurdish groups needed one safe area in which to engage in local diplomacy, and, since this one area was peaceful, well, why not? That meant a lot of luncheons, meaning, yes, I had the chance to meet most of the bright lights of Kurdish domestic politics and self*-determination of the day. I’ve long since forgotten their names, but am pretty sure I could identify most of them in a police lineup and wouldn’t, of course, mind doing so. One in particular stands out in my mind, a rather distinguished looking middle aged barbarian who had once, over what amounts to a domestic dispute, murdered some thirty-*seven Christian men, women, and children. And then there was the day the Kurds demanded to be paid. Paid? Why, yes, we were providing free food, free medical care, free shelter, and free security, but they saw no reason not to be paid for unloading the free food and other goodies. I sent the trucks back with the food until they knuckled under.
*****

Thus, it might be better for the United States, before pinning too much hope and faith on the Kurds, to understand that they’re military imbeciles with an unearned and undeserved reputation, that their culture is barbaric, they their one talent seems to be propagandizing and manipulating liberal Western opinion, which is eager to be manipulated, anyway, that any kids who die usually do so because of their own neglect of those kids, that they have no sense of gratitude for any help you give them, that they treat women like donkeys, and that they place zero value on the lives of those who try to help them.

Why we, or anyone, would place our faith and trust in them…well, it eludes me. To help that lesson stick in your mind I offer a Kurdish National Anthem, written by my team sergeant, Sig, in a moment of complete disgust with them. Every line tells a story: (Tune: O Tannenbaum)

A voice without a hint of shame
Cries, “It’s all your fault; you’re all to blame.
We must be clothed, we must be fed
And when that’s done build our homesteads”

Chorus:

A Kurd can have no greater love
Than his brand new Kalashnikov;
O Kurdestan, my Kurdestan,
Do what you want; grab what you can.
You gave us shelter overhead
Doctors and blankets for our beds.
You’ve saved us from Iraqi raids,
Now tell us when do we get paid?

Chorus

We fought the Turks, we fought Iran
We fought Iraq for Kurdestan.
And now you’ve made us free and strong,
We’ll kill the Christians when you’re gone.

Chorus
 

jward

passin' thru
So self interest rules them too, eh?

Might have read it w/o as much eye rolling had he not came charging out of the chute insulting my intelligence?
..and after doing so offers nothing in return to further my education or undrrstanding?

Ok.
 

summerthyme

Administrator
_______________
So self interest rules them too, eh?

Might have read it w/o as much eye rolling had he not came charging out of the chute insulting my intelligence?
..and after doing so offers nothing in return to further my education or undrrstanding?

Ok.

Huh? Did you read the same essay I did? I usually agree with you, but I'm completely confused by your response to this one. To me, it was eye opening, enlightening, and sobering. Hard to highlight just one point summarizing what I think more Americans should know, but this come close:

Thus, it might be better for the United States, before pinning too much hope and faith on the Kurds, to understand that they’re military imbeciles with an unearned and undeserved reputation, that their culture is barbaric, they their one talent seems to be propagandizing and manipulating liberal Western opinion, which is eager to be manipulated, anyway, that any kids who die usually do so because of their own neglect of those kids, that they have no sense of gratitude for any help you give them, that they treat women like donkeys, and that they place zero value on the lives of those who try to help them.

Why we, or anyone, would place our faith and trust in them…well, it eludes me.

Summerthyme
 

CaryC

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Eye opening on a first hand account, for sure.

It also backs up, at least, my thinking in that with Israel getting 77% of their oil from the Kurds, where is the money going to? That should be a lot of money, millions, billions, and they don't even have a single tank. All they got is guys in jeans and AK's with a few of what looks like, home made Toyota pickup's with a big gun bolted down in the back. Really that's it? Where did the money go?

Ans. in the pockets of the leadership. And if the leadership doesn't care for their own people, enough to buy tanks, much less, now learning, food, and medicine. They knew this was coming for the past 20 years, we were never going to stay there forever, and didn't prep for it. This is on their heads, not ours.

Even Haroldo Riveria (sp?) the bleeding heart liberal on Fox said they have been killing each other for 4,000 years, we should never have been there to start with.

Place reminds me of Haiti, and Afghanistan, cotton pickin' quagmire's.

Sec. of the Army said the other day that they were only at 60% of the forces needed around the world. Only at 60% of forces needed AROUND THE WORLD. Think about that.
 

jward

passin' thru
Huh? Did you read the same essay I did? I usually agree with you, but I'm completely confused by your response to this one. To me, it was eye opening, enlightening, and sobering. Hard to highlight just one point summarizing what I think more Americans should know, but this come close:



Summerthyme

Lol, yes, we read the same article. I guess the difference is in our life experiences, maybe?

I had a cousin by marriage who was a 'geologist' in the 80s & 90s, who thus spent a great deal of time in the middle east, plying his trade. He never set me down with a text book and chalk board and taught me about Nam, the ME or anything else. But he was brilliant, and experienced, and we did spend a lot of time communicating, as he wanted me to have an opportunity to join him out of state and be mentored by the writers, publishers and editors in his social circle. I learned much from what he did, and did not say, over those years. The nonverbals were telling.

Later he remarried an Israeli born and raised lady who likewise was a "geologist" and had a great deal of interest in how my college classes were teaching the subjects, vs her experiences etc. She too had a lot of influence in the world view that developed between my ears.

Other relatives by marriage were orthodox Russians, and lent their experiences and POV to the hodge podge broth that was my understanding of that area...

Additionally I have learned family systems models and social science theories that undoubtedly shape my world views. Thus, when I know a culture has been without a land of their own, a certain cluster of assumptions are created. Further inform me that they are a tribal culture, A landlocked, tribal culture, and my picture grows clearer, and those things mentioned in your paragraph are not news, but simply a picture of how I would expect to see the masculine principals expressed.

Throw in the fact that there's been a lot of male on male violence and murder in my environment these past months, and that ive reached the stage in my "prepping" that it's time to expand my capabilities to dealing lethal force. I have really been rassling with that underlying theme of masculinity, efficacy, how and when a culture impinges upon and shapes a person or a people, and how and when, & how and why, they choose to sanction lethal force. And, of course, the price paid by those men who kill for a society, and more specifically the costs and benefits i will find in choosing to rise to this level of capability and responsibility.

As to their lack of military ability, one of the books recommendations on this board was long shot which was a homogenized so lily white as to be nearly useless, account of a kurd kid who escaped to Europe to avoid fighting for the Iranians against his people. He came back and trained briefly as a sniper before joining ygp(?) forces and assisting with the fight to get Isis out of Kobani. I learned to see the land, and people, as real, and thus the tale touched me. However, the snipping skills and protocols were nothing i didn't already know or wouldnt have thought of...which told me just how basic their skills and knowledge were, militarily wise.

I too am an old contrarian...any time anyone takes that condescending tone towards me, my response will probably be the same: kiss my pearly pink patootie! Thats just me. Had he gone on and told us something we did not know, I would have set aside the eyerolling and made notes...but reading things here, elsewhere, my past experiences and world view meant that he did not.

I do not disagree that Americans need know this, i just thought we already did, i guess. I recall bush going to war, and the news full of happy grateful Kurds, naming their children after him. At the time when we were spending a fortune buying allies for that effort. That made it clear that all those happy faces must have felt well paid for their part in the fairy tail, and even then, I knew TV for the social programming tool it is.

Anyways. Gee thanks lol. Fun for me to get that straight in my head! Promise that I will not always be so wordy, so don't stop asking ?s.
 
Last edited:

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
The history of Kurdistan helps explain the Kurds’ current conundrum.
By The Globalist, October 14, 2014
More at https://www.theglobalist.com/kurdistan-and-the-kurds/

Takeaways

WWI’s conquerors divided up the Kurds among four countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey

Kurdistan has long been subjected to military, linguistic, and cultural invasions, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Kurdish identity includes Shiite and Sunni Islam, Yazidism, Chaldean and Assyrian Christianity and Judaism.

1.
Kurdistan today is almost equal to the size of Germany and the UK combined.

2.
Today’s 30 million Kurds constitute one of the world’s largest ethnic groups – without a country.

3.
World War I’s victorious powers drew maps with no regard for ethnicities, religions, geography or logic.

4.
WWI’s conquerors divided up the Kurds among four countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

5.
Kurdistan, though an unofficial region, is a crossroads of civilizations.

6.
Kurdistan has been subjected over millennia to military, linguistic and cultural invasions, and genocide and ethnic cleansing — from all sides.

7.
The Kurds have somehow survived in their mountainous region and preserved their culture and language.

8.
Kurdish identity encompasses many languages, including Sorani, Kurmanji and Zazaki.

9.
Kurdish identity includes many religions – Shiite and Sunni Islam, Yazidism, Chaldean and Assyrian Christianity and Judaism.

10.
The Kurds have political organizations in each of Kurdistan’s four parts. Kurds account for a fifth of Turkey’s population.
===========

Some things to recall about Kurds in the list above.

Part of my job back when I had one was to help get Special Forces troops being deployed, spun up for the missions upon which they were about to embark. Some of these troops were personal friends and all were at minimum my job, and it was important to me to do as well as I could at my job.

US Army Special Forces have had dealings with Kurds for a long time, there was some involvement in the 1960s that I have heard old timers talk about (I always understood it was some kind of anti-communist guerrilla training stuff, but that was never made clear to me and at the time One Did Not Ask Questions). There was a legendary mission by a legendary SF soldier named Larry Thorne very high into the Zagros Mountains to recover a Highly Classified Object and bodies from a plane crash site- whether or not that involved Kurds I do not know, but the crash site was in the heart of what is sometimes called Kurdistan.

And we sent SF troops back into Kurdish areas in the Sandbox Wars as well, which is where I started looking into things Kurdish.

All the SF soldiers I knew who worked with the Kurds pretty much liked them. It has been my experience FWIW that SF troops generally like any indigenous people who will keep their weapons pointed at the designated Bad Guys (as opposed to designated friendlies), and shoot when told.

I do know Kurds are tough people. For that matter so are Turks. One of the often unsettling parts of my job was the returning visits from the troops who Went There and Did That. Some came home with photos. Turks butchered Kurds, and Kurds butchered Turks (or whoever they were fighting). And vice versa of course. That included women children and babies, who are of course seldom excluded from being victims of butchery in any conflict. But these were the worst atrocity photos I saw in my life. The events recorded were atrocities of course, the photos were just documentation.

I happen to enjoy Kratman's brand of military influenced science fiction, fwiw, and believe he is as entitled to an opinion on the region and its people as anyone (and more entitled than many, including yours truly).

And Syria was never a 'party' to which the ZUSA had an invitation, the whole Syrian conflict and the rise of ISIS can be laid at the feet of the Chocolate Messiah and his satanic henchbeast Hillary. JMHO of course, YMMV but there should never have been Americans in country there to start with. But the globalists and neocons want wider wars and any back alley approach will do to get us into one, including arming islamic extremist terrorists. So in that regard I agree with getting out of Syria- and staying out. Let the Russians provide help to the Syrian Kurds if needed. Most Kurds know how to run an AK already anyway.

See https://www.amazon.com/Tom-Kratman/e/B001IXNZFA?ref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
for Kratman's books-
 

jward

passin' thru
Just a quick thank you for bringing out the impact of the land itself.

All truth is, by necessity, grey. Black and white is a luxury, by necessity. Once we needed to fill space praising, and so it was done. (It was politically expedient).

Now it is expedient to tell a differently slanted story, and so it was done. ::Shrug::
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
I would also suggest reading ANYTHING written by Gen Jay Garner about the engagement with the Kurds during the First and Second Sandbox Wars(TM) (HT-Doz)
 

TerryK

TB Fanatic
Thanks Doz for adding some truth to the learned propaganda many here are saying.
The fact is that we first went in to Syria to assist in the overthrow of Assad Jr..
Only after Obama's hurried withdrawal from Iraq and the resultant formation of ISIS did we decide that "Oh yeah, we need to destroy the monster we created." We used the Kurds to do the majority of the fighting and dying to accomplish that. Trump took on that unfinished Obama problem and was happy to declare we were destroying ISIS as long as it didn't entail too many US casualties. Which it didn't thanks to the majority of the dirty ground fighting using the Kurds.
Once ISIS was 95% destroyed, Trump decided to call it good and make good on another campaign promise before 2020. BUT do you surgically remove 95% of a cancer and call it good?

FWIW here is some more info about Kurdistan, that autonomous region is Iraq that was allowed to become autonomous when the new Iraqi government was formed.
They do have their own military and even their own border control.
There are a few former American military who were once stationed in Iraq and even operated within the Kurdistan borders while fighting ISIS.

The autonomous area of Kurdistan is home to many religions. I've included a video below of an American Jew who now lives there. But they have all half dozen sects of Isam, multiple Christian sects including those who still worship in Aramaic. They have Yasidis who also claim the area as their homeland and the place where Noahs arc was supposed t have landed. The bottom line, they manage to have just about every religion all living together peacefully, contrary to the bullshit you have been fed.
Their political spectrum runs from very religious conservative to very liberal and encompasses all beliefs to no belief.
Women there are not required to wear Islamic garb and make up 1/3 of the representatives in the Kurdish parliament. They have full equality in the Kurdish military or Peshmerga. The word means "those who face death".
During the war these women took particular pleasure in killing ISIS because ISIS religious custom was that to be killed by a woman meant you were denied entry to paradise. Women are in politics, women command men and women in the military, women are entrepreneurs in business and lead many businesses.
By the way, Iraqi Kurdistan has about 1/4 of all the Iraqi oil.
Iraqi Kurds are not fanatic about their religion like in other places because they have been betrayed and massacred by moslems.
Oh and Kurds are not arabs. They are related to Persians and the ancient ancestors are mentioned in the old testament.
There are former American soldiers who returned to Kurdistan and married Kurdish women and they didn't convert. In fact when Americans were stationed on the Kurdistan border fighting ISIS, they would go into the Erbil the capital of Kurdistan in civilian cloths and walk around the city in safety.
The place is relatively safe and their tourism rate is over a million western tourists a year.

Kurdistan was initially established after WWI and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, as part of the artificial country of Iraq. Iraq was supposed to consist of 3 regions, Kurds, Sunni, and Shia. All of the Middle Eastern countries were invented and had their borders drawn by the English. I've posted a video below that explains what happened.

Anyway if you talk to people who have fought at the side of the Kurds, and not just stationed in the same general area, you will see that almost all have a respect for them and don't denigrate them like Trump did.
Yeah I agree with Trump about getting out of everywhere over there. However it was bullshit when he used it for a reason to run from the Turks when 2 days later he sends 3000 troops to Saudi. That's not pulling back from being policeman to the world.
As far as "policeman to the world", there's a freaking reason we haven't had another World War for 70 freaking years.

Here's a video that describes the Kurds and Iraqi Kurdistan. 35 million Kurds, the largest group of people in the world who have been promised and denied their own homeland for a hundred years. Churchill and several others used the Kurds to act as a buffer between the new Turkey and the sunni and shia molsems in the new Iraq.

17min and it talks about the history of WWI and how just a few people in England invented and drew up the borders of most of the countries in the Middle East.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wiqhu3Q5NpE

Here is another video done by a Jew who came from the US and now considers Iraqi Kurdistan his home. He talks about the openness and safety in Kurdistan and the rise of tourism in Iraqi Kurdistan and the sights to see and visit.
16 min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n050dgtyOck


My point is that we have a lot of people here talking shit about a part of the world they have never been to, and a people they have never met, just because the President decided to kick them to the curb.
 
Last edited:

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
One reason, really...

As far as "policeman to the world", there's a freaking reason we haven't had another World War for 70 freaking years.

thinkstockphotos-136794881.jpg


The fact that it wasn't the climax of a Fourth Turning (those are around 70 or so years apart), when such sorts of behavior are considerably more likely, would come up to the informed as well, to be sure.
 

jward

passin' thru
IIRC, Saladin was a Kurd.

Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner...
. An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, known as Salah ad-Din or Saladin, was the first sultan of Egypt and Syria and the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty. A Sunni Muslim of Kurdish ethnicity, Saladin led the Muslim military campaign against the Crusader states in the Levant. Wikipedia
Died: March 4, 1193, Damascus, Syria
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
https://www.newsweek.com/kurdish-forces-allied-us-accused-war-crimes-382621

KURDISH FORCES ALLIED TO U.S. ACCUSED OF WAR CRIMES
BY CONOR GAFFEY ON 10/13/15

ypg-accused-war-crimes-amnesty.webp

A Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) fighter takes up position inside a damaged building in al-Vilat al-Homor neighborhood in Hasaka city, as he monitors the movements of Islamic State fighters who are stationed in Ghwayran neighborhood in Hasaka city, Syria July 22, 2015.

"Kurdish forces allied to the U.S.-led coalition in the fight against the Islamic State have committed war crimes by deliberately displacing thousands of civilians and demolishing their homes in northern Syria, according to a human rights group.

In a report released Tuesday, Amnesty International said that the People's Protection Units (YPG)—the military wing of the Syrian Kurdish political party, the Democratic Union Party—had in some cases threatened residents with U.S. airstrikes if they did not leave their homes.

The YPG has been a key ally on the ground for Western forces battling ISIS in Syria. Earlier this year, the YPG reclaimed the Syrian-Kurdish border town of Kobani from ISIS with the support of U.S. airstrikes, and recently reportedly formed a coalition with other U.S.-backed rebel groups, such as the Free Syrian Army.

Forcibly displacing civilians without military necessity is considered a violation of international humanitarian law, according to Amnesty. Lama Fakih, Amnesty's senior crisis advisor, called on members of the U.S.-led coalition not "to turn a blind eye" to such abuses by Kurdish forces.

In order to compile the report, Amnesty visited 14 towns and villages in the governorates of Hassakeh and Raqqa in northern Syria in July and August. Satellite images obtained by Amnesty show that in the case of one village—Husseiniya in Hassakeh province—93.8 percent of the village buildings were razed to the ground between June 2014 and June 2015.

A YPG spokesperson told Amnesty that civilians were being moved for their own security. A spokesperson for the Asayish—the police force for the Kurdish Autonomous Administration, which controls parts of Hassakeh and Raqqa provinces—described cases of forced displacement as "isolated incidents."
 

TerryK

TB Fanatic
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/1...ship-history-syria-turkey-betrayal-kissinger/

The Secret Origins of the U.S.-Kurdish Relationship Explain Today’s Disaster

The seeds of Washington’s abandonment of the Kurds traces back to a classified document written in the 1970s by Henry Kissinger.

By Bryan R. Gibson | October 14, 2019, 4:07 PM
GettyImages-542250906.jpg
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran meets U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in Zurich in February 1975. James Andanson/Sygma via Getty Images
On June 30, 1972, two Kurdish men, Idris Barzani and Mahmoud Othman, arrived nondescriptly at the CIA’s sprawling headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and were led into the office of the agency’s legendary director, Richard Helms. They discussed a stunning shift in U.S. policy. Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon’s national security advisor, had personally authorized Helms to express American sympathy for the Kurds’ plight and assure them of his “readiness to consider their requests for assistance.” For more than a decade, the Kurds had been fighting against the Iraqi government and had made countless pleas for American assistance to no avail. Helms was now declaring that the United States had changed its mind. He failed to mention it would soon change again.
The long history of U.S. abandonment of the Kurds is well understood by most observers. What has mostly gone forgotten is that such eventual betrayals were entirely predictable given the way the two sides came together in the first place. Indeed, it’s impossible to understand President Donald Trump’s decision to support Turkey in waging war in Syria against U.S.-allied Kurds without understanding the largely untold origins of the U.S.-Kurdish relationship.
The history extends back to 1920, when the Kurds, the largest ethnic group in the world not to have a state of their own, were promised autonomy in the Treaty of Sèvres. But the two great powers of the day, Britain and France, reneged in 1923 and carved up the Kurdish territories into modern-day Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. The Kurds rebelled against this betrayal and were crushed by their new British, French, Iranian, and Turkish colonizers. After decades of relative quiet, the Kurds tried again to achieve autonomy in the aftermath of Iraq’s 1958 revolution, which saw the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy.


After the outbreak of war in Iraqi Kurdistan in September 1961, the U.S. government adopted a policy of noninterference. The primary objective of U.S. policy at the time was to maintain good relations with Baghdad, and there was always the nagging suspicion that the Kurdish rebel leader, Mustafa Barzani, was a communist agent, given his 11-year exile in the Soviet Union from 1947 to 1958.


However, two close American allies in the region—Israel and Iran—quickly concluded that the Iraqi Kurds were ideological and strategic allies who could be exploited to keep the radical Arab nationalist regime in Baghdad—and its large military—tied down. Starting in mid-1962, the Shah of Iran ordered his intelligence agency, SAVAK, to help finance the Kurdish insurgency in northern Iraq to undermine the stability of the regime in Baghdad. The Israelis joined the Iranian-led intervention in 1964, after Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion recognized the Kurds as a strategic ally against the radical Arab regime in Baghdad. For the next decade, the Iranian and Israeli strategy was simple: As long as the Kurds presented a clear and present danger to Baghdad, the Iraqi military could not be deployed in force against Israel in the event of a war or threaten Iranian ambitions in the Persian Gulf. This paid off in 1967, when Iraq was unable to deploy its forces in the pan-Arab war against Israel, and in the successor war in 1973, when it could only muster a single armored division because 80 percent of its military was tied down in northern Iraq.


The Americans were slower to come around. Since the mid-1960s, both the Iranians and Israelis had been seeking to convince the White House to reconsider its nonintervention policy; so had Iraqi Kurds, who regularly met with U.S. foreign service officers. They were always greeted with a polite but firm refusal.


This changed in July 1968 when the Baath Party—whose leadership included a young Saddam Hussein—seized power and firmly established itself as the dominant political force inside Iraq for the next 35 years. In March 1970, Saddam concluded that the war against his country’s Kurds was a wasted effort and personally traveled north and met with Barzani. Saddam agreed to every demand, which centered on Kurdish autonomy within a unified Iraq, but indicated that the program would not be implemented until 1974. Essentially, the March accord bought time for both sides. Saddam was able to consolidate power, and Barzani was able to secure a powerful new ally—the United States.
Following the March Accord, Saddam pulled Iraq firmly into the arms of the Soviets. In December 1971, Iraq signed an arms deal with Moscow, and in April 1972, it signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation. The following month, Nixon visited Tehran on his return from a successful Moscow summit, where he managed to secure detente with the Soviets. During his visit, the shah pressed Nixon to assist the Kurds in destabilizing Iraq.
After a careful review of the risks, the Nixon administration concluded that the Soviet-Iraqi threat to Western interests was significant enough to justify helping the Kurds. Following Nixon’s green light, the Kurdish operation was run out of Kissinger’s White House office. Between August 1972 and late 1974, when fighting in the Iraqi-Kurdish war resumed, the Nixon administration frequently consulted with the Iranians, Israelis, and the Kurds on how to prepare them for an inevitable confrontation with Baghdad. This meant stockpiling weaponry and training Kurdish fighters on modern warfare techniques—all while relations between the Kurds and Baghdad deteriorated rapidly.


In early 1974, Saddam violated the terms of the March accord and unilaterally imposed a watered-down version of autonomy for the Kurds. Barzani responded by traveling to Iran, where he met with the shah and the CIA’s station chief to request U.S. backing for a plan to set up an Iraqi Arab-Kurdish government that would claim to be the sole legitimate government of Iraq. As Kissinger wrote in his 1999 memoir, Years of Renewal, Barzani’s request “triggered a flood of communications” among U.S. officials focused on two questions: whether the United States would support a unilateral declaration of autonomy and what level of support the United States was willing to give the Kurds. The CIA, in particular, warned against increasing U.S. assistance.
But Kissinger was dismissive of CIA Director William Colby’s caution, writing, “Colby’s reluctance was as unrealistic as Barzani’s enthusiasm.”



Nixon ultimately decided to increase U.S. assistance to the Kurds, including the provision of 900,000 pounds of Soviet-made weapons that the CIA had stockpiled and a $1 million lump sum of refugee assistance. In April 1974, Kissinger sent Nixon’s orders to the U.S. ambassador in Tehran. This cable was important because it laid out a succinct proclamation of U.S. interests vis-à-vis the Kurds. The objectives, he wrote, were “(a) to give Kurds capacity to maintain a reasonable base for negotiating recognition of rights by Baghdad Government; (b) to keep present Iraqi government tied down, but (c) not to divide Iraq permanently because an independent Kurdish area would not be economically viable and US and Iran have no interest in closing door on good relations with Iraq under moderate leadership.” It was also made clear that U.S. support for a Kurdish government on a long-term basis was not possible because it could not be kept covert and there were deep concerns within the U.S. government about the viability of a Kurdish state, not to mention the shah’s own concerns about Kurdish independence, given Iran’s large Kurdish minority. This point was conveyed to the Kurds at the beginning of their relationship with the United States and was reiterated throughout the Kurdish operation.





https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/13/kurds-assad-syria-russia-putin-turkey-genocide/ The Kurds’ commander in chief explains why his forces are finally ready to partner with Assad and Putin.

Argument | Mazloum Abdi



.




https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/1...-us-not-abandoning-kurds-turkey-invade-syria/




In late 1974, the Iraqi Army launched an all-out offensive against the Kurds, making deep gains in the mountains, thanks to the close guidance of Soviet military advisors. But, despite considerable Iranian and Israeli efforts to bolster the Kurds militarily, the Iraqis managed to hold ground in the winter of 1974-1975. This prompted Kissinger and the Israelis to devise a plan to provide the Kurds with $28 million worth of arms.
But it was too late—the geopolitics had shifted from underneath the Kurds. On Feb. 18, 1975, the shah met with Kissinger in Zurich. He informed Kissinger that the Kurds had “no guts left” and was thinking about meeting with Saddam at an OPEC conference in March to see if he could trade his support for a border concession. Kissinger claimed in his 1999 memoir that he argued against the shah’s proposal and reminded him of “his own repeated warnings that the collapse of the Kurds would destabilize the entire area.”
None of this mattered. Iran’s decision to abandon the Kurds was presented to the United States as a fait accompli, a done deal. On March 6, the shah and Saddam announced the Algiers Agreement, which exchanged partial sovereignty over the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a strategic waterway along the Iran-Iraq border, in return for noninterference in each other’s affairs. The Kurdish intervention was doomed. The shah ordered the closing of Iran’s border with Iraq, effectively throwing the Kurds to the wolves. With the border closed, the Americans and Israelis were incapable of providing the Kurds with ongoing assistance. The next day, the Iraqis then unleashed the full weight of their military against the Kurds, forcing thousands of civilians to flee to Iran. The CIA officers and Israeli special forces who had been helping their Kurdish allies fight the Iraqis were stunned. So was Kissinger, who had spent the better part of three years working tirelessly to give the Kurds a fighting chance. There was nothing that could have been done to prevent the slaughter. With Iran now cut off, there was no avenue to continue providing American assistance. Saddam’s forces overran the Kurds, razed 1,400 villages to the ground, rounded up thousands of Barzani’s followers, and imposed his rule on the region.
This tragic end of the American intervention to support the Kurds would mark the beginning of the back-and-forth relationship between the United States and the Kurds that still exists today. Thousands of Kurds in Iraq lost their lives after the United States, Iran, and Israel rescinded their support in 1975. In the 1980s, the Kurds and the United States found themselves on opposite sides of the Iran-Iraq War, which saw Saddam regularly using chemical weapons against both Iran and the Kurds and led to widespread genocide in Iraqi Kurdistan. The tides would turn again in the early 1990s. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the United States urged the Kurds to revolt against Saddam’s government, only for the George H.W. Bush administration to abandon them in their time of need. In April 1991, the White House realized its mistake and implemented Operation Provide Comfort, which established a no-fly zone over northern Iraq and allowed the Iraqi Kurds to finally live in peace. In 1992, the Iraqi Kurds established the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government, which became an indispensable American ally during the Iraq War and the war against the Islamic State.
It seemed that the United States had finally righted the wrong that it inflicted in 1975—until now. But even this latest betrayal shouldn’t come as a shock. It’s entirely consistent with the interests toward the Kurds that the United States has privately described from the very beginning.
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
Thus, it might be better for the United States, before pinning too much hope and faith on the Kurds, to understand that they’re military imbeciles with an unearned and undeserved reputation, that their culture is barbaric, they their one talent seems to be propagandizing and manipulating liberal Western opinion, which is eager to be manipulated, anyway, that any kids who die usually do so because of their own neglect of those kids, that they have no sense of gratitude for any help you give them, that they treat women like donkeys, and that they place zero value on the lives of those who try to help them.

Why we, or anyone, would place our faith and trust in them…well, it eludes me. To help that lesson stick in your mind I offer a Kurdish National Anthem, written by my team sergeant, Sig, in a moment of complete disgust with them. Every line tells a story: (Tune: O Tannenbaum)

A voice without a hint of shame
Cries, “It’s all your fault; you’re all to blame.
We must be clothed, we must be fed
And when that’s done build our homesteads”

Chorus:

A Kurd can have no greater love
Than his brand new Kalashnikov;
O Kurdestan, my Kurdestan,
Do what you want; grab what you can.
You gave us shelter overhead
Doctors and blankets for our beds.
You’ve saved us from Iraqi raids,
Now tell us when do we get paid?

Chorus

We fought the Turks, we fought Iran
We fought Iraq for Kurdestan.
And now you’ve made us free and strong,
We’ll kill the Christians when you’re gone.

Chorus

So, their ballad about killing Christians is sung to the tune of "Oh, Christmas Tree"???

If I didn't know any better, I would think they were a bunch of Sunni Muslims...
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
So, their ballad about killing Christians is sung to the tune of "Oh, Christmas Tree"???

If I didn't know any better, I would think they were a bunch of Sunni Muslims...

The author wrote it, as a sarcastic comment on the true nature of the Kurds as he saw it.
 
Top