August 30, 2016
By
Brandon Turbeville
As Turkey
deepens its push into Syrian territory,
numerous geopolitical interests are now colliding with one another in
what appears to be a war worthy of the reputation the Middle East has
for political and geopolitical complexity. Having had its immediate
expedition across the Turkey-Syria border condemned by the Syrian
government, Turkey is now facing some public criticism from the United
States in regards to its military efforts against Kurdish forces east of
the Euphrates who are themselves aligned with the United States,
partially against ISIS and the Syrian government as well as staunch
enemies of the Turkish government.
The United States is stating publicly (although public statements do
not always mirror behind-the-scenes agendas) that fighting between
Turkey, Turk-supported “rebels” (aka ISIS, al-Qaeda, FSA), and Kurdish
forces is “unacceptable” and that the clashes must stop. The U.S. envoy
to the anti-ISIS coalition, Brett McGukr,
stated that fighting in areas where ISIS was not present is “a source of deep concern.”
According to the BBC,
Turkish forces have attacked what they say are Kurdish “terrorists” since crossing the border last week.
But the Kurdish YPG militia says Turkey just wants to occupy Syrian territory.
Ankara says it aims to push both IS and Kurdish fighters away from its border.
Turkish forces and allied factions of the rebel Free Syrian Army
(FSA) forced IS out of the Syrian border city of Jarablus on Tuesday and
have since pounded neighbouring villages held by Kurdish-led, US-backed
Syria Democratic Forces (SDF).
The Turkish military carried out 61 artillery strikes around Jarablus
over the past 24 hours Reuters news agency reported on Monday,
Turkey has insisted Kurdish militia, which it regards as terrorists, retreat east across the Euphrates river.
For its part, Turkey has refused to buckle to the public statements of the United States
with Omer Celik stating that “No one has the right to tell us which terrorist organization we can fight against.”
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu stated that the YPG is
attempting to seize territory where Kurds have not had a tradition of
making up a large ethnic bloc. This much, at least, is
undeniably true. “The YPG is engaged in ethnic cleansing, they are placing who they want to in those places,” he said.
The YPG, while denying that its forces were West of the Euphrates,
responding by saying that the Turks merely want a pretext to annex
Syrian land.
In terms of Turkish military progress,
Reuters reports:
On Monday, Turkish-backed forces had advanced on Manbij, a
city about 30 km (20 miles) south of Turkey’s border captured this
month by the SDF with U.S. help. The Turkish military said it was also
shifting operations westwards, which would take it into territory still
under Islamic State control.
. . . . .
On Monday, Turkish-backed forces had advanced on Manbij, a city about
30 km (20 miles) south of Turkey’s border captured this month by the
SDF with U.S. help. The Turkish military said it was also shifting
operations westwards, which would take it into territory still under
Islamic State control.
Sources on the ground inside Ayn al-Arab (Kobane) are reporting that the Turkish military
has reached the outskirts of the city. Claims are now being made that the Turks are considering building a wall to separate the two countries.
What Is Turkey Doing?
The
Turkish invasion
is predicated on the basis of “fighting ISIS,” a wholly unbelievable
goal since Turkey itself has been supporting, training, and facilitating
ISIS since day one. Not only that, but Turkey is arriving in Syria with
terrorists in tow since,
as the BBC reported,
“Between nine and 12 tanks crossed the frontier, followed by pick-up
trucks believed to be carrying hundreds of fighters from Turkish-backed
factions of the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA).” If Turkey was interested
in stopping terrorism, why would they lead the charges for more
terrorists to enter Syria? Indeed, if stopping terrorism was truly
Turkey’s goal, it is capable of sealing the border from its own side
without any need for invasion so why the war the party?
Turkey’s interests
do not lie in stopping terrorism. Far from it. Turkey’s foreign policy
and military decision to invade Syria are based along three lines; its
desire for more territory (which it believes was stolen from it long
ago), its willingness to continue working with NATO in its attempt to
destroy the secular government of Syria, and its concern over the
Kurdish expansion.
With this invasion, Turkey has solidified its willingness to risk
outright war with Syria and perhaps even Russia in order to fulfill the
goals of NATO and Anglo-American powers who have sought to destroy Syria
from the beginning. Part of this strategy is the creation of “buffer
zones” and “safe zones” in the north, precisely the concepts that were
re-floated and discussed by the United States and U.K.
only days before the invasion. Note that the invasion and operations
are centering around Jarablus, the eastern border of the famed Jarablus
corridor which, bordered by Afrin and Azaz in the West, make up the last
fully functioning terrorist supply routes coming in from Turkey. These
were precisely the dimensions that were discussed by Western think tanks
and NGOs in regards to what a “safe zone” in Syria should look like.
Although argued on the basis of “giving civilians somewhere to go” the
zones were supposed to be controlled by “moderate” Western-backed
terrorists and were clearly designed to prevent the Syrian government
and Russian forces from closing the supply routes coming from the
Turkish side of the border into Syria.
This
“safe haven” is also a way for the neo-Ottoman Erdogan to lay claim to
more territory in order to placate his dream of becoming the 21st
Century equivalent of the leader of the Turkish empire. At the very
least, this desire for more land under the Turkish flag will lead to a
situation similar to that of the Golan Heights, which Israel has
illegally occupied for decades but which there is frequent threat of
military action and controversy.
Erdogan is also incredibly concerned about the growing
Kurdish movement both inside Turkey and in Syria. With the Kurds
gaining more and more territory
in the north of Syria, in large part because of support being given by
the United States, as well as Kurds in Iraq becoming more and more
willing to work with YPG Kurds in Syria and the growing interest of
dissent and military operations inside Turkey by the PKK, Erdogan is
undoubtedly
concerned that the Kurds
could decide to unite and initiate a massive campaign for autonomy and
independence or, at the very least, inspire Turkish Kurds to launch a
revolution.
Carving Out Kurdistan
While the wheels of the propaganda machine is turning on the screens
of Westerners in the US and Europe, the plan to carve out a Kurdistan is
taking a much more violent form in Syria and Iraq. The ability to
remove all forces within the borders of what would be called Kurdistan
(except for the Kurdish forces) has been the result of constant U.S.
bombing and death squad herding around towns like Ayn al-Arab (Kobane),
Tal Abyad, and others where the Kurds have been able to outline their territory by virtue of military prowess.
After all, the US bombing has done
nothing but strengthen ISIS at every other location in Syria and Iraq, while even
bombing Syrian infrastructure and Iraqi military forces directly, and
“accidentally” airdropping of support to ISIS.
In the Kurdish areas, however, such bombing seems to be functioning as a
primitive and violent method of border shaping that will outline the
Kurdish territory from the Syrian and Iraqi territories. Increasing ISIS
forces in Ayn al-Arab (Kobane) significantly hampers the ability of the
Syrian Army to respond to defeat those forces in these specific areas,
thus cutting off Ayn al-Arab from the Syrian Army and leaving the
Kurdish areas to the devices of the Kurds as the ISIS forces are beaten
back from inside the borders of the developing Kurdistan.
Leaving the question of the
legitimacy of a Kurdistan
aside for a while and acknowledging the heroism of the Kurds in their
fight against ISIS, Nusra, and other terrorist forces, it should be
noted that the Kurds have found some very unsavory allies in the
process. Most notably, those unsavory allies turn out to be the United
States and the Free Syrian Army (proxy terrorists of the US and NATO).
For instance, the United States has been tacitly supporting the
Kurdish fighters in Iraq for some time under the pretext of assisting
them in their fight against ISIS, despite the fact that the United
States has
armed, trained, funded, facilitated, and directed ISIS from the beginning.
The United States has allegedly stopped short of directly arming the
Kurds but it has maintained very close ties with them. Some would even
argue that, with the exception of the ISIS fighters themselves, the
Kurds have more friendly relations with the U.S. than the Iraqi
government.
The US government has been attempting to pass legislation to directly
arm the Kurdish and Sunni forces in Iraq for some time, recently
passing part of that legislation in the form of the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2016 (although differences in the House and Senate version are currently being worked out).
The arming of the Kurds directly in Iraq, along with the Sunni
forces, would thus create the perception of fully separate and
independent principalities, free from the control of the Iraqi central
government, leading to the breakup of the country as a whole into three
separate entities – a Kurdish segment, Sunni segment, and Shiite
segment. Such a plan has long been in the works for Iraq and, if the US
continues its support of Kurds in Syria, the situation is ripe for the
appearance of a Kurdistan entity across the borders of Iraq and Syria.
Indeed, much like the plan to break up Iraq into three separate parts in
Iraq, a similar plan was devised for Syria in the absence of total
destruction in the same vein as Libya.
While the question of accepting arms may easily be explained by the
“gold is where you find it” motive, the fact that the YPG is now
working directly with the Free Syrian Army
(FSA) is further evidence of collusion between NATO/US and the YPG.
While presented as moderate by the mainstream western press, the FSA is
nothing more than al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Nusra. Indeed,
there is no such thing as a
moderate rebel in Syria and there never has been. The FSA is documented to have
committed massive atrocities and the groups – directed, armed, controlled and funded by the US – are
intent upon implementing Sharia law
on the subjugated populations. As I and other researchers have
documented, the FSA is nothing more than a wing of al-Qaeda/ISIS and has
even publicly stated that it was working with the
terrorist organizations (also funded, trained, armed, and directed by the West) in the past.
The fact that the YPG would be willing to cooperate with the FSA is
telling but the fact that the FSA would be willing to cooperate with the
YPG is even more telling. After all,
the Iraqi Kurds have long been
connected to US intelligence and military operations
in the past. With an increase of signs of cooperation between the YPG
and their Iraqi counterparts, one can only wonder if the events
transpiring on the ground in relation to the Kurds in Syria, Iraq, and
Turkey are part of an overarching US plan to finally carve out a pound
of geographic flesh out of Iraq and Syria.
Unfortunately
for the Kurds, the history of their community and the US has been one
of short-term usefulness and treachery. Seldom have the Kurds benefited
from supporting American actions or working in the service of US
geopolitical agendas, whether wittingly or unwittingly. In almost every
single circumstance, the Kurds have provided yeomen’s service in the
name of destabilization and the strategy of tension but have been left
holding the bag in the end. That bag almost always contains horrific
slaughter and subsequent oppression of the Kurdish people.
The legitimacy of anything resembling a Kurdistan in Syria, however
is easily disproven as a justifiable option. As Maram Susli wrote in her
article “
Why A Kurdish Enclave In Syria Is A Bad Idea,” for
Global Independent Analytics,
The region of Al Hasakah, which the Kurdish Nationalist
Party (PYD) and its military wing YPG have declared a Kurdish federal
state, does not have a Kurdish majority. Al Hasakah Governorate is a
mosaic of Assyrian Christians, Armenians, Turkmen, Kurds and Bedouin
Arabs. Of the 1.5 million population of Al Hasakah, only 40% are ethnically Kurdish. Moreover, parts of Al Hasakah Governorate, such as Al Hasakah district, is less than 15%
Kurdish (!). Among the other large minorities in the area the Arabs and
Assyrian Christians form a majority. Declaring a small area with a wide
array of ethnic groups as belonging to a specific ethnic minority is a
recipe for oppression.
The Kurdish population of Al Hasakah has also been heavily
infiltrated by illegal Kurdish immigration from Turkey. Kurdish
immigration to Syria began in the 1920’s and occurred in several waves
after multiple failed Kurdish uprisings against Turkey. It continued
throughout the century. In 2011 the Kurdish population in Syria reached
between 1.6 to 2.3 million, but 420,000 of these left Syria for Iraq and Turkey
as a result of the current conflict. Some Syrian Kurds have lived in
Homs and Damascus for hundreds of years and are heavily assimilated into
the Syrian society. However, Kurdish illegal immigrants who mostly
reside in north Syria, and who could not prove their residence in Syria
before 1945,
complain of oppression when they were not granted the rights of Syrian
citizens. Syrian law dictates that only a blood born Syrian whose
paternal lineage
is Syrian has a right to Syrian citizenship. No refugee whether Somali,
Iraqi or Palestinian has been granted Syrian citizenship no matter how
long their stay. In spite of this, in 2011 the Syrian President granted
Syrian citizenship to 150,000 Kurds. This has not stopped the YPG from
using illegal Kurdish immigrants who were not granted citizenship as a
rationale for annexing Syrian land. Those who promote Federalism are
imposing the will of a small minority – that is not of Syrian origin –
on the whole of Al Hasakah’s population and the whole of Syria.
. . . . .
PYD did not bother to consult with other factions of Syrian society
before its unilateral declaration of Federalism. The other ethnicities
that reside in Al Hasake governate, which PYD claims is now an
autonomous Kurdish state, have clearly rejected federalism. An assembly
of Syrian clans and Arab tribes in Al Hasaka and the Assyrian Democratic Organization (ADO) rejected PYD’s federalism declaration. In Geneva, both the Syrian government and the opposition rejected
PYD’s federalism declaration. Furthermore, PYD does not represent all
of Syria’s Kurdish population. The Kurdish faction of Syrian national
coalition condemned
PYD’s federalism declaration. Most of Syria’s Kurds do not live in Al
Hasakah and many that do work outside it. Thousands of Kurds have joined
ISIS and are fighting for an Islamic State not a Kurdish one.
A unilateral declaration of federalism carries no legitimacy since
federalism can only exist with a constitutional change and a Referendum.
Federalism is unlikely to garner much support from the bulk of Syria’s
population, 90-93% of whom is not Kurdish. Knowing this, PYD has banned residents of Al Hasakah from voting in the upcoming Parliamentary
elections to be held across the nation. This shows the will of the
people in Al Hasakah is already being crushed by PYD. It is undemocratic
to continue to discuss federalism as a possibility when it has been
rejected by so many segments of Syrian society. Ironically we are told
the purpose of the US’ Regime change adventure in Syria is to bring
democracy to the middle east.
. . . . . .
While Kurds make up only 7-10%
of Syria’s total population, PYD demands 20% of Syria’s land. What’s
more, the region of Al hasakah, which YPG wants to annex has a
population of only 1.5 million
people. Much of Syria’s agriculture and oil wealth is located in Al
Hasakah and is shared by Syria’s 23 million people. Al Hasakah province produces 34% of Syria’s wheat and much of Syria’s oil. The oil pumping stations are now being used by ISIS and YPG’s Kurds to fund their war efforts while depriving the Syrian people.
While headlines
abound about Syria’s starving population, there is little talk of how
federalising Syria could entrench this starvation into law for
generations to come. Instead, promoters of Federalism talk about how
giving the resources shared by 23 million people to 1.5 million people
will lead to peace.
. . . . . .
Since the majority of Syria’s population and Syria’s government
oppose Kurdish annexation claims, PYD will not be able to achieve
federalism through legal means. The only way the PYD and YPG can achieve
federalism is through brute force. This brute force may backed by the
US air force and an invasion by special forces which contradicts
international law. Head of PYD Saleh Islam has already threatened to attack
Syrian troops if they attempt to retake Raqqa from ISIS. A Kurdish
state in Syria as the Iraqi Kurdistan ensures US hegemony in the region.
Like the KRG [1] the YPG are already attempting to build a US base
on Syrian soil. Russia, which has been an ally of Syria for a long
time, will be further isolated as a result. This will once again tip the
balance of power in the world.
All of Syria’s neighbouring countries are also opposed to an
ethnocentric Kurdish state in Syria. The YPG is linked to the PKK, which
is active in Turkey and which the United Nations
has designated a terrorist organisation. Turkey will see YPG’s
federalism claims as strengthening the PKK. Turkey may invade Syria as a
result, guaranteeing at least a regional war. This regional war could
involve Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Israel.
Israel wants to establish a Kurdistan, as a Sunni-Iranian rival to
Shi’ite Iran. They hope such a Sunni state will block Iran’s access to
Syria and will also prevent Lebanese resistance against Israeli
invasion. This was all outlined in Israel’s Yinon Plan
published in 1982. Israel is an extension of US influence and hegemony
in the region, the Israeli lobby holds much sway over US politics.
Strengthening Israel in the region will strengthen US influence over the
region, once again shrinking Russian influence and pushing the nuclear
power into a corner. Journalists who show a sense of confusion about the reason the West is supportive of Kurdish expansionism should consider this point.
Finally, a designated ‘Kurdish area’ in Syria is deeply rooted in
ethnocentric chauvinism. A US state strictly designated for Hispanic,
White or Black ethnicity would be outrageous to suggest and would be
considered racist. But the use of ethnicity as a means to divide and
conquer is the oldest and most cynical form of imperialism. Syria must
remain for all Syrians, not just for one minority. Voices who oppose
this should be discouraged. The Syrian Constitution should continue to
resist all ethnocentric religious-based parties. If there is a change to
the Syrian constitution, it should be the removal of the word Arab from
Syrian Arab Republic. In spite of the fact that the vast majority
Syrians speak the Arabic language, the majority of Syrian are
historically not ethnically Arab. All sections of Syrian society should be treated equally under the Syrian flag.
One can scarcely argue with the points made by Susli. In addition to
those listed above, however, Susli also draws attention to the question
of Kurdish ethnic cleansing campaigns that could be potentially launched
against Assyrians and Christians. She writes,
Since the Kurdish population is not a majority in the
areas PYD are trying to annex, the past few years have revealed that
PYD/YPG are not beyond carrying out ethnic cleansing of non-Kurdish
minorities in an attempt to achieve a demographic shift. The main threat
to Kurdish ethnocentric territorial claims over the area are the other
large minorities, the Arabs and the Assyrian Christians.
Salih Muslim, the leader of PYD, openly declared
his intention to conduct an ethnic cleansing campaign against Syrian
Arabs who live in what he now calls Rojava. “One day those Arabs who
have been brought to the Kurdish areas will have to be expelled,” said
Muslim in an interview with Serek TV. Over two years since that interview he has fulfilled his word, as YPG begun burning Arab villages around Al Hasakah Province hoping to create a demographic shift. It is estimated that ten thousand
Arabs have been ethnically cleansed from Al Hasake province so far. The
villages around Tal Abayad have suffered the most as Kurdish
expansionists seek to connect the discontiguous population centres of Al
Hasakah and Al Raqqa. “The YPG burnt our village and looted our
houses,” said Mohammed Salih al-Katee, who left Tel Thiab Sharki, near
the city of Ras al-Ayn, in December.
In addition, Susli points out that such campaigns are not without precedent. She continues,
YPG have also begun a campaign of intimidation, murder
and property confiscation against the Assyrian Christian minority. The
YPG and PYD made it a formal policy to loot
and confiscate the property of those who had escaped their villages
after an ISIS attack, in the hope of repopulating Assyrian villages with
Kurds. The Assyrians residents of the Khabur area in Al Hasaka province
formed a militia called the Khabour Guard in the hope of defending
their villages against ISIS attacks. The Khabur Guard council leaders
protested the practice of looting
by Kurdish YPG militia members who looted Assyrian villages that were
evacuated after ISIS attacked them. Subsequently, the YPG assassinated
the leader of the Khabur Guard David Jindo and attempted to Assassinate
Elyas Nasser. At first, the YPG blamed the assassination on ISIS but
Elyas Nasser, who survived, was able to expose the YPG’s involvement from his hospital bed. Since the assassination YPG has forced the Khabour Guard to disarm
and to accept YPG ‘protection.’ Subsequently, most Assyrian residents
of the Khabour who had fled to Syrian Army controlled areas of Qamishli
City could not return to their villages.
The Assyrian Christian community in Qamishli has also been harassed by YPG Kurdish militia. YPG attacked an Assyrian checkpoint killing
one fighter of the Assyrian militia Sootoro and wounding three others.
The checkpoint was set up after three Assyrian restaurants were bombed
on December 20, 2016 in an attack that killed 14 Assyrian civilians. Assyrians suspected
that YPG was behind these bombings in an attempt to assassinate
Assyrian leaders and prevent any future claims of control over Qamishli.
It would be foolish to ignore the signs that more widely spread
ethnic cleansing campaigns may occur if Kurdish expansionists are
supported, especially since other ethnic groups are not on board with
their federalism plans. It has only been 90 years since the Assyrian genocide
which was conducted by Turks and Kurds. This history should not be
allowed to be repeated. Assyrians have enjoyed safety and stability in
the Syrian state since this time. Forcing the Assyrians to accept
federalism is not going to ensure their safety. Establishment of a
Kurdish federal state in Iraq has not protected Assyrian villages from attacks
by Kurdish armed groups either. The campaign of ethnic cleansing
against both Assyrians and Arabs in Al Hasakah has already begun and may
now only escalate.
The Difference Between ISIS and FSA
So what’s
the big difference between
the “moderate” terrorists and the extremist terrorists running rampant
in Syria today? At one time, we were told there were no terrorists at
all. Then, we were told terrorists were indeed present but that there
were also moderate, secular, democracy-loving freedom fighters in the
country. Now, after the nature of the so-called “rebels” has been
revealed
ad infinitum by the alternative and independent press,
it is admitted that the “fighters” in Syria are terrorists but,
apparently, some are moderate and some are extreme.
Of
course, they all have the same goal of Sharia. They all hate
minorities, Christians, Alawites, Shiites, etc. They all torture. They
all rape. We could go on and on. In the world of the West’s “rebels,”
there is not one
shred of difference between any of the armed groups fighting against the secular Syrian government
besides the names they call themselves.
Still, we are told there are clear differences and that the U.S.
State Department knows just what they are. Only, they aren’t telling the
American people. Or the Russians. Or the Syrians. Or anybody. The
“moderate” terrorists are thus a very mysterious force, a group of which
we may speak but also one that never shows itself.
Of course, there are groups that the United States admits are brutal
killers but somehow rationalizes to the public that they are “our”
brutal killers. The U.S. can, at times, be forced to admit that the
groups it supports as “freedom fighters” have committed atrocities,
rapes, murders, torture, and establishment of Islamic theocracy upon
unwilling inhabitants. Essentially, the U.S. can admit (when pressured)
that these groups have the same ideology as ISIS, although the State
Department will never say these exact words.
Thus, it is clear that any designation of terrorist groups as
“extremist” or “moderate” is obviously based on political motivation and
geopolitical designs, not the nature or action of the terrorist group
in question. If that were the case, then Ahrar al-Sham, Jaish al-Islam,
and other groups would easily be listed as terrorist organizations that
would subsequently not be covered under the “ceasefire” agreement. After
all, there is no distinguishing characteristic that sets these groups
apart from ISIS or Nusra other than a name.
But when the Russians attempted to remove these groups from the list
of non-protected terrorists in Syria (terrorists protected at the
insistence of the West), the United States, Britain, France, and Ukraine
rushed to their rescue
and blocked the Russian proposal. This is, of course, despite the fact
that both of these groups, which make up around half of the “Syrian
opposition forces” thanks to Western name changes, have repeatedly
worked together with Nusra and ISIS forces. Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar
al-Sham have both worked so closely with ISIS and Nusra that the groups
themselves are virtually interchangeable. Nevertheless, the U.S. is only
digging its own international public relations grave with its refusal
to designate known and obvious terrorists as precisely that,
particularly when it has launched campaigns of destruction and death
across the world on the basis of allegedly “fighting terror.”
The fact is that there never has been a difference between these organizations and this reality has been
exposed time and time again in growing numbers of outlets in the alternative and independent media.
As Tony Cartalucci wrote in his article, “
In Syria, There Are No Moderates,”
. . . . . there were never, nor are there any “moderates”
operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and funded Al
Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in
preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving
US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists
operating along and within Syria’s borders as “divided” along
extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of
Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as
create conditions along Syria’s borders with which Western partners,
Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention.
Indeed, even the
New York Times has been forced to admit
that there are, as Cartalucci expertly argues in his article, no
moderates in the ranks of the Syrian death squads.
As Ben Hubbard writes,
In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al
Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that
applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields,
put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.
Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed
by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists.
Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose
formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked
with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian
government.
Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of. [emphasis added]
Other Interests
While
some may suggest that Turkey is getting off the reservation and simply
acting on its own interests (i.e. rolling back the Kurds), Erdogan has
long acted as a major tool of the NATO agenda against Syria. The very
fact that the United States is aiding the Turkish operation with
airstrikes of its own should go some length in demonstrating that the
NATO powers are in full support of the military incursion.
Still, others have a different perspective.
Andrew Korybko of Katehon argues
that the Syrians, Iranians, and Russians are tacitly supporting the
incursion because it alleviates them of the responsibility of cleansing
ISIS and Kurdish battalions from northern Syria. Korybko points to
increased political talks between Syria and Turkey in recent days as
well as the domestic climate of Russia in terms of support for increased
military operations. Korybko suggests that the United States has been
duped by Turkey into falling in line with the incursion which is, in
reality, an agreement on strategy and policies related to Syria by the
“multipolar bloc.” Korybko writes,
. . . . . Damascus and Ankara have been engaged in secret talks
for months now in the Algerian capital of Algiers, as has been
repeatedly confirmed by many multiple media sources ever since this
spring. Moreover, Turkey just dispatched
one of its deputy intelligence chiefs to Damascus a few days ago to
meet with his high-level Syrian counterparts, so this might explain the
reason why Russia and Iran aren’t condemning Turkey’s incursion into
Syria, nor why the Syrian officials aren’t loudly protesting against it
either. More and more, the evidence is pointing to Turkey’s operation
being part of a larger move that was coordinated in advance with Syria,
Russia, and Iran. Nevertheless, for domestic political reasons within
both Syria and Turkey, neither side is expected to admit to having
coordinated any of this, and it’s likely that bellicose rhetoric might
be belched from Ankara just as much as it’s predictable that Damascus
will rightfully speak about the protection of its sovereignty.
What’s most important, though, isn’t to listen so much to Turkey and
Syria, but to watch and observe what Russia and Iran say and do, since
these are the two countries most capable of defending Syria from any
legitimate aggression against its territory and which have been firmly
standing behind it for years now, albeit to differing qualitative
extents though with complementary synergy (i.e. Russia’s anti-terrorist
air operation and Iran’s special forces ground one). This isn’t in any
way to ‘excuse’, ‘apologize for’, or ‘explain away’ the US’
opportunistic and illegal inadvertent contribution to this coordinated
multipolar campaign, but to accurately document how and why it decided
to involve itself in this superficially Turkish-led venture, namely
because it was cleverly misled by Erdogan into thinking that this is a
precondition for the normalization of relations between both sides.
Russia lacks the political will to cleanse the Wahhabi terrorists and
Kurdish separatists from northern Syrian itself, and for as much as one
may support or condemn this, it’s a statement of fact that must be
taken into account when analyzing and forecasting events. With this
obvious constraint being a major factor influencing the state of affairs
in Syria, it’s reasonable then that Syria, Russia, and Iran wouldn’t
vocally object too much to Turkey tricking the US into doing this
instead out of the pursuit of its own self-interests vis-à-vis the
attempted normalization with Ankara. The major qualifying variable that
must be mentioned at this point is that serious Russian and Iranian
condemnation of Turkey’s ongoing operation would signal that something
either went wrong with their multilaterally coordinated plan, or that
Turkey was just a backstabbing pro-American Trojan Horse this entire
time and the skepticism surrounding Moscow and Tehran’s dedicated
efforts to coax Ankara into a multipolar pivot was fully vindicated as
the correct analysis all along.
Still, with all that in mind, it should be remembered that Washington
has essentially led Erdogan by the nose through most of the Syrian
crisis. Only recently has the neo-Ottoman shown signs of moving away
from U.S. influence, but even those apparent moves are being questioned
by researchers and analysts. At this point, we still do not definitively
know if the United States
was behind the coup in Turkey
or if it was an inside job/false flag staged by Erdogan and the U.S. in
order to justify a clampdown on Erdogan’s opponents. Judging by the
fact that no diplomatic staff has been recalled, Incirlik continues to
be use by the United States, and now joint military operations are
taking place between the United States and Turkey, it is difficult to
believe that Turkey truly believes the U.S. was behind an attempted coup
against Erdogan.
Regardless, Turkish incursions into Syrian territory on the basis of a
false flag, all the while being supported by the West, are nothing new.
Remember, in 2014, Turkey was exposed for planning to use an alleged
attack on the tomb of Suleiman Shah as well as a false flag attack on
Turkish territory in order to justify an invasion of Syria.
In its article, “
Turkey YouTube Ban: Full Transcript Of Leaked Syria ‘War’ Conversation Between Erdogan Officials,” the
International Business Times
released the transcript of a conversation between members of Turkish
leadership planning a false flag using their terrorist proxies in order
to justify an invasion:
Ahmet Davutoğlu: “Prime Minister said that in current
conjuncture, this attack (on Suleiman Shah Tomb) must be seen as an
opportunity for us.”
Hakan Fidan: “I’ll send 4 men from Syria, if that’s what it takes.
I’ll make up a cause of war by ordering a missile attack on Turkey; we
can also prepare an attack on Suleiman Shah Tomb if necessary.”
Feridun Sinirlioğlu: “Our national security has become a common, cheap domestic policy outfit.”
Yaşar Güler: “It’s a direct cause of war. I mean, what’re going to do is a direct cause of war.”
With this in mind, it is interesting to note that an eerily similar
type of “opportunity” took place right before the recent invasion. As
the
New York Times described,
A bombing on Saturday night at a Kurdish wedding in
Gaziantep, a Turkish town near the Syrian border, was one of the
deadliest in a string of terrorist attacks that have struck Turkey.
Since June 2015, Kurdish and Islamic State militants have staged at
least 15 major attacks across Turkey, killing more than 330 people.
The New Atlas also sees the Turkish invasion as part of the NATO goal of destroying the secular government of Bashar al-Assad. The website writes,
Thus, Turkey’s government and a complicit Western media
have helped place the blame equally on both the Islamic State and
Kurdish militants ahead of the now ongoing cross-border operation.
The above mentioned BBC article would also note:
Turkey has vowed to “completely cleanse” IS from its border
region, blaming the group for a bomb attack on a wedding that killed at
least 54 people in Gaziantep on Saturday.
In the aftermath of the July coup, many were hopeful Turkey would
realign itself geopolitically and play a more constructive and
stabilising role in the region.
Instead, while citing the threat of the Islamic State and Kurdish
forces along its border, a threat that its own collusion with US and
Persian Gulf States since 2011 helped create, Turkey has decisively
helped move forward a crucial part of US plans to dismember Syria and
move its campaign of North African and Middle Eastern destabilisation
onward and outward.
The response by Syria and its allies in the wake of Turkey’s
cross-border foray has so far been muted. What, if any actions could be
taken to prevent the US and its allies from achieving their plans remain
to be seen.
While the toppling of the government in Damascus looks unlikely at
the moment, the Balkanisation of Syria was a secondary objective always
only ever considered by US policymakers as a mere stop gap until
eventually toppling Damascus as well. Conceding eastern and parts of
northern Syria to US-led aggression will only buy time.
Buffer Zones
The idea of
establishing a “safe zone” in Syria is, of course,
not a new concept. In July, 2015, the agreement being discussed would have
effectively created a “buffer zone”
that would have spanned from the Turkish border line into Syria. It
would have extended from Azaz in the West to Jarablus in the East and as
far south as al-Bab. The width of the zone would have been about 68
miles and would have extended around 40 miles deep into Syria, right on
the doorstep of Aleppo.
The
zone would have much smaller than that which Turkey and the United
States have called for in the years prior and wouldn’t have necessarily
stretched the length of the Turkey-Syria border. But it is a start.
True to form, the US and Turkey attempted to obfuscate the fact that their agreement was the
creation of a no-fly zone by renaming it an
“ISIL-free zone.”
This is the same tactic used when the term “no-fly zone” and “buffer
zone” began to draw too much ire from observers only a year ago. Then,
the
term became “safe zone.”
Semantics have served NATO and the United States well over the years. After all,
a simple name change of terrorist organizations
has made the Anglo-American powers able to produce “moderate rebels”
and the most frightening terrorist organization the world has ever seen
while using the same group of terrorists.
The description of the “ISIL-free zone” of 2015 was that it would be a
distinguished area in which the Turkish and U.S. military would engage
in aggressive operations against ISIS. It was floated that this area
would have also functioned as a place where civilians displaced by the
Syrian crisis may run to for safe haven and where “moderate rebel”
forces can maintain a higher presence free from the battles with ISIS.
“Once the area is cleared, the plan is to give control to
as-yet-unidentified moderate Syrian rebel groups. The United States and
Turkey have differing interpretations as to which groups can be defined
as ‘moderate,’” the
Washington Post reported.
The reality, however, is that the “ISIL-free zone” would have been nothing more than a
Forward Operating Base
deeper into Syrian territory, working under the direct protection of
the U.S. military and Turkish air force. That is exactly what the
British and the U.S. are arguing for today.
Going further back, public discussion of the implementation of a
“buffer zone” began as far back as 2012 when the Brookings Institution,
in their memo “
Assessing Options For Regime Change” stated
An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first
on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is
being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of
safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by
limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals
for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point,
however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate
international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.
The Brookings Institution went further, however, describing a
possible scenario that mirrors the one currently unfolding in Syria
where Turkey, in coordination with Israel, could help overthrow Assad by
establishing a “multi-front war” on Syria’s borders. Brookings writes,
In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong
knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that
could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s
removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and,
in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition.
This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war,
particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if
the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training.
Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership
to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this
additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if
other forces were aligned properly.
Of course, the
establishment of a “No-Fly Zone”
is tantamount to a declaration of war. Such has even been admitted by
top U.S. Generals when explaining exactly what a No Fly Zone would
entail.
As General Carter Ham stated,
We should make no bones about it. It first entails
killing a lot of people and destroying the Syrian air defenses and those
people who are manning those systems. And then it entails destroying
the Syrian air force, preferably on the ground, in the air if necessary.
This is a violent combat action that results in lots of casualties and
increased risk to our own personnel.
General Philip Breedlove also echoed this description when he said,
I know it sounds stark, but what I always tell people
when they talk to me about a no-fly zone is . . . it’s basically to
start a war with that country because you are going to have to go in and
kinetically take out their air defense capability
Conclusion
Regardless of the fact that the Anglo-American empire may very well
be risking a direct military confrontation with another nuclear power,
the NATO forces are intent on moving forward in their attempt to destroy
Syria and its government. The major victories by the Syrian military
that have taken place in recent weeks as well as the inability of the
West’s terrorists to roll back SAA gains have obviously convinced NATO
that more drastic measures are needed and that proxies are simply not
enough to defeat a committed military supported by its people. Thus, we
now see the plan so heavily promoted by Western think tanks and military
industrial complex firms being implemented.
Clearly
, the Turkish agenda
is not focused on combating ISIS. If it was, the Turks would have long
ago sealed their borders with Syria as well as ceased their training and
facilitation of terrorist groups flowing into Syria from Turkish
territory.
The
Turks do not need NATO Buffer Zones to end terrorism within their own
country. They need to seal the borders with Syria, immediately cease
funding, training, and facilitation of terrorists operating inside
Turkish borders alongside a massive sting operation netting and
eliminating these organizations. Turkey would also greatly benefit by
backing away from Erdogan, his idiotic policies, and his equally idiotic
Islamist government. Turkey must put aside “political Islam” and return
to a culture of secular governance. Lastly, Turkey must pursue a
reasonable and fair policy toward the Kurds in its Southeast.
Of course, Turkey has sent every signal possible to announce that
they intend to stick with the NATO line of destroying the secular
government of Bashar al-Assad and replacing it with a government or
governments beholden and favorable to Washington and the Anglo-American
oligarchy.
Obviously, a “buffer zone” and/or a “no-fly zone,” of course, is
tantamount to war and an open military assault against the sovereign
secular government of Syria because the implementation of such a zone
would require airstrikes against Assad’s air defense systems.
With the establishment of this “buffer zone,” a new staging ground
will be opened that allows terrorists such as ISIS and others the
ability to conduct attacks even deeper inside Syria. While one wishes
for the best of all possible worlds – the roll back of Western-backed
terrorists and Kurdish fanaticism while, at the same time, seeing the
Syrian government regain control over all of its territory – we cannot
wish away the facts. Amidst the tangled web of political and
geopolitical interests at play in regards to this invasion, the fact is
that neither the United States, the Kurdish militias, or the Turks have
the best interest of Syria or the Syrian people at heart.
Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President.
Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of
subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil
liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be
found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
