The Kurds, The Turks, ISIS & Islamic Ebola

 

On September 30th, Kurdish Peshmerga troops mounted a

series of attacks against ISIS in Iraq. Those Kurdish boots

on the ground are in stark contrast to the distinct absence

of Arab, Turkish or Western boots attacking ISIS. With

that in mind, some insights into the Kurds, the Turks, the

West and ISIS may be illuminating.

The Kurds are, arguably, the only reliable, liberal and
somewhat secular Islamic entity in the Mideast. Yet,
the West has often notoriously ignored and/or 
periodically stabbed the Kurds in the back.

That all began -for practical purposes- right after 
WorldWar I when President Woodrow Wilson expressly
promised the Kurds a homeland. Indeed, the Kurds'
thirty million people now constitute the world's largest
ethnic minority without a national homeland. So, when
President Wilson gave the Kurds his promise, he made
a point to do so with the clear consent of then existing
Turkish authorities.

That consent was then promptly revoked by Mustafa

Kemal (who was not yet Ataturk). He feared -not

without substantial justification- what an independent

Kurdistan would do to Turkey whose eastern third is

heavily Kurdish.

In fact, about twenty percent of Turkey was and is

Kurdish.  Since WWI, the Turks have repeatedly,

woefully and unapollogetically discriminated against

the Kurds in a multiplicity of manners and egregious

forms. To be clear, the Turks and the Kurds are

anything but best buds.

Actually, Mr. Abdullah Ocalan, a founder of Turkey's

Kurdistan Worker's Party, known as the PKK, has

languished since 1999 in Turkish prisons. Interestingly

enough, the PKK -because of its wanton methods

seeking to create an independent Kurdistan - is still

deemed to be terrorist organization by the USA, the

EU and NATO.

That said, the West did not have the geopolitical
testosterone to stand up to Turkey after WWI. And
now, as ISIS/ISIL attacks Kurds in Iraq and in
northwest Syria immediately astride the Turkish border
at Kobani, the Turks are playing a not unsimilar game to
the imminent damage of the Kurds. In fact, the Turkish
army could readily aid the Kurds who are besieged
at Kobani. The Turks have wittingly chosen not to do so.

So, the West spectates as Kobani is about to fall.

More trenchantly, the West remains conspicuously

inept and unable and/or unwilling to impose its will upon

the Turks who are - in fact if not in actual sentiment

(except when it conveniently suits them) - members of

NATO.

 Moreover, the Turks have flatly refused to allow the

USA to use the huge NATO airbase at Incerlik (or any

Turkish territory) for air operations against ISIS. Even

more critically, Turkey’s own air force boasts hundreds

of American combat aircraft. Yet it has adamantly

refused to launch a single fighter or missile against

ISIS positions in Syria which are less than one

hundred miles from Incerlik.

 To add insult to injury, Turkish operatives are said

to be blatantly and flagrantly aiding ISIS by enabling

the transport and sale of rogue oil from ISIS and

thereby enriching ISIS' coffers and supporting ISIS'

barbaric endeavors.

To complicate matters, most Turks -like the minions

of ISIS- are Sunnis. So are most Kurds. But the

latter's liberal brand of Sunni Islam is anathema to

both ISIS as well as to many Turks. In short, the

ethnically different Kurds are not only heretics to

ISIS, they are also damnable potential fifth

columnists to the increasingly Islamified Turks.

To further that convoluted state of affairs, there

is an uneasy -if de facto- relationship and or

accommodation between Syria's Alawite regime 

(Shiites) and the Kurds. Syria’s President Assad

has played that game astutely. He has effectively

ceded -without undue rancor- the Kurdish northern 

sliver of Syria to the Kurds.

 In return, the Kurds have not agitated against Assad. 

His Alawite-Shiites are deemed to be worse than

Christians, Jews or even idolaters according to ISIS

and -arguably- also to President Erdogan's increasing

strident Islamist regime in Turkey.

 In the parlance of regional Arabic dialect, if one

desires to pejoratively characterize someone as

stiff-necked, the expression is: "He has the mind

of a Kurd."  Not unexpectedly, the Kurds have a

rather unique and generally agreeable relationship

with another people that was Biblically lampooned

as stiff-necked, i.e. the ancient Israelites.

It should, therefore, be no surprise that the Israelis
and the Kurds maintain a number of noteworthy
points of positive contact and mutual interest. Neither
currently has terribly favorable ratings with the
Turkish establishment. Quite the contrary. At the
same time, both the Kurds and the Israelis are reviled
by ISIS.

But pointedly, if geographic proximity is of any
consequence, the West has substantially less to fear
from ISIS than do the Kurds, the Syrian Alawites,
moderate Mideast Moslems, regional Christians and
the Israelis.

As such, the Kurds, the Israelis, Syrian Alawites and

the infidels of the West must all must confront ISIS

as an ominous adversary. Notably, ISIS is an enemy

with an unabashedly savage ideology, an aggressive 

agenda and a clear strategy.

It is, therefore, abundantly curious and thoroughly

suspect that, for as yet in explicable reasons, ISIS

wittingly and prominently released a large contingent

of hostage Turkish diplomats all of whose heads

remained quite unsevered.

So, what nation has somehow escaped designation

as ISIS' avowed enemy? What nation has now

conspicuously opted to stand virtually uncommitted

on the geopolitical sidelines as a seemingly neutral,

if not as an actual friend of ISIS? Turkey!

But wait. Underneath its geopolitical diddling, its

apparent prevarication and its seeming equivocation, 

Turkey aspires to regional hegemony. It is thus that

the Turks may be looking even beyond ISIS down

the regional path to Turkey's geopolitical rivalry

with Iran and its ethnic Persians. The latter, not so

incidentally, are -from both the Turkish and ISIS

perspectives - detestible Shiites.

Not to be outdone, the Iranians -from their exalted

ethnic Persian perspectives- deem ISIS' Arabs to

be low-life and uncouth plebians ("anaryans").

To be candid if not kind, Iranian opinion of the

Turks is equally unsavory.

 So, it is not at all unthinkable that the Turks

actually welcome the presence of ISIS as both

a buffer and as a convenient obstacle to Iran’s

hegemonical aspirations.  ISIS is also an expedient 

foil that the Turks are delightedly watching as it 

thrusts and jabs into the heart of the despised

Syrian Alawite regime. More potently, ISIS

could be Assad's Islamic ebola!

With deadly enemies like that, it is surely worth 

recognizing who one's friends really are...and

are not.

Go Kurds!

What Motivates ISIS?

What compelled ISIS to perpetrate the horrendous

murders of two American journalists? A brief a

nalysis of the mentality of ISIS may be illuminating

and instructive.

It is abundantly clear that ISIS is an extreme

manifestation of radical Islam. But, what does

that really mean? Into what aberrant behavior does

that translate? What are the implications and

ramifications of that existential posture?

Firstly, ISIS is assuredly not synonymous with

the totality of Islam. But, ISIS  does –quite

unapologetically- find its roots, its ideology, its

guiding principles, its core considerations, its

motivating impulses and its modus operadi in

the Quran. So, a cursory review of pertinent

passages is in order.

It is initially critical to understand that there

is no mandate that Moslems must believe in

Allah. That matter, i.e. Allah's existence, is taken

for granted. Allah's reality is -to use a theological

phrase- an ontological presupposition.

On the other hand, Moslems are unquestionably

required to submit to Allah (Q. 2:136). That

obligation is the sine qua non of Islam. That

mandated submission undergirds absolutely every

aspect of Islam. Absent submission to Allah, a

Moslem is not deemed to be a Moslem.  That is

undisputed.

Moreover, submission to al-Illah (i.e. Allah--The

God) requires unquestioning obedience governed

by the intense clarity of the absolutely unadulterated

monotheism that is so critical to Islam. Indeed, the

Quran is unequivocal on that score. Therefore, the 

Quran forcefully proclaims: "Those who say God

hath begotten a son...have uttered a monstrous thing!" 

That expression is powerful and provocative; it should

not be lightly dismissed or glibly disregarded. Indeed,

the term monstrous sheds light into the existential

realities surrounding ISIS' savagery.

Assuredly, that iron-clad submission to Allah (the

 only God) in the Arabic root SLM is a far cry from

the seemingly identical Arabic root SLM. The former

can be vocalized as SILM and means submit or

surrender. The latter is vocalized as SALAM and

means peace. It is egregious folly to confuse the two.

Submission and/or surrender is not peace and peace

is not submission or the obligation to surrender!

For staunch believers, that theological submission then

rapidly translates into an affirmative duty to subjugate,

to dominate and to assure the supremacy of Islam

(Q. 2:109; 9:29). The Quran is explicit as to precisely 

how that task to be prosecuted.

One critical Quran verse mandates: "Keep fighting

until Allah's religion reigns supreme" (Q. 2:109-194).

Another passage unhesitatingly affirms that: "Fighting

is obligatory...although you may dislike it...it is good

for you (Q. 2:216). The believer is then adjured to

recognize that: "For you must gain mastery if you are

true in faith" (Q. 3:139).

Given those scriptural obligations and predispositions,

the ideological and practical thrust that undergirds ISIS

becomes readily apparent. Indeed, ISIS unquestionably

finds succor and consummate authority in the Quran's

directive that explicitly asserts: "Instill terror into the

hearts of unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks...

Allah is strict in punishment" (Q. 8:9, 12-13). It was

thus that the two American journalists were summarily

beheaded.

All the foregoing notwithstanding, it is neither my

thrust nor intent to besmirch Islam, the Quran or all

Moslems.  That is because the Quran also passionately

and unequivocally asserts that “there is no compulsion

in religion” (Q. 2:256). Indeed, a case can be made

that “Islam is egalitarian, peaceful and pluralistic.” 

That position was taken by the Imam of New York

City's Mosque of Divine Ease in his book What Is

Right With Islam. On the other hand, the Quran

lamentably supplies an abundance of material that

the utterly savage minions of ISIS wittingly use to

perpetrate and justify their particular brand of barbarism.  

To cavalierly disregard the source that motivates

and activates ISIS is tantamount to remaining silent

for the sake of that which may seem to be politically 

correct. In short, there is no such thing as "benign

jihad."  ISIS knows that. Is it not time that the West

was similarly educated?

 

Whose Friend Is The Enemy Of My Enemy?

As I was about to exit a busy Damascus bistro,

a painting above that eatery’s portal caught my

attention. President Bashir al-Assad was pictured

with Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader. Without

thinking, I reflexively asked the proprietor to
explain the placement together of that repugnant
duo. Without blinking, he responded: “Adoo adoowe

sadeechee” (The enemy of my enemy is my friend)!

That was all the proprietor said. Those words said
it all. That incident was prior to the outbreak of the
Arab Spring. But that effervescent spring has since
sprung a catastrophic leak that is flooding the region.
In fact, that proprietor’s well-traveled Arabic
aphorism describes much of the chaos now engulfing
the Mideast.

Just six weeks ago the Islamic State of Iraq & Syria
(ISIS) erupted out of Syria, stormed across Iraq,
captured Mosul and was poised to advance on
Bagdad. The West groaned in dismay. But wait.
That’s when that infamous Arabic maxim kicked in. 

Thousands of Iraqi troops (a gratuitous
characterization) laid down their weapons, changed
into civilian clothes and slumped away. But Iraqi
Prime Minister al-Maliki barely blinked. After all,
he thought he could count upon his American friends
to bail out his sectarian Shiite autocracy.

All right, so Iraq is technically a democracy. But

kindly recall that Maliki even attempted to arrest his

Sunni Vice President. That Iraqi V.P. was an enemy
of a different stripe. So back to Maliki’s friend who
was Saddam’s enemy, i.e. the good old U.S. of A.

Maliki begged America to help Iraq by bombing ISIS

and halting its advance toward Bagdad. Maliki had

blocked a “status of forces agreement” which would

have left some U.S. forces in Iraq. Back then, Maliki

didn’t need the Americans. So they left. But the

Americans left behind their weapons and equipment.

Those were the same weapons and equipment that

those lily-livered Iraqi soldiers benevolently left for

ISIS troops to pick up.

No matter, the Americans had kicked out the hated

Saddam who had enemies all across the region.

Iraqi Shiites hated Saddam and his Baathist and

Sunni cohorts.

Iraqi Kurds hated being gassed by Saddam. After

eight years of war, the hated Iranian Shiites had
fought Saddam to a draw. 

Amidst that glut of regional hatred, the Americans

had left Iraq as a“sovereign, stable and self-reliant”

state. At least that’s what President Obama told

Americans who hated that war. But then, Mr.

Obama and Mr. Maliki seemed tight. After all,

they were friends, at least superficially. Or did

Americans miss something in the translation of

that Arabic aphorism?

So, given those premises, is it not proper that

America should bomb ISIS? Indeed, ISIS – a

ruthless and violent al-Qaeda offshoot– is an

enemy of America. Since Senator McCain

says so, it must be true. But wait.

If America were to aid Maliki as a friend in

need, America would also be aiding Iran who

is hardly America’s friend. Indeed, Iran not

only supports Assad and colludes with Hezbollah,

it also ships weapons to Hamas. Mr. Maliki

thought he had a friend in America, but his

other friends are America’s enemies.

In fact, Iran is Mr. Maliki’s longtime friend.

Maliki once lived large in Iran. Maliki is

a Shiite. The Iranian regime is Shiite. Hezbollah
is Shiite. The Syrian regime is technically Shiite.
Mr. Assad’s Alawite religion is a secretive Shiite
offshoot. They are all friends. How nice is that?

So, since Shiite Iran is America’s enemy, but

Shiite Iraq was America’s friend, should the USA

rush to bomb the extremist Sunnis of ISIS?

Hurting ISIS might help preserve Iraq, but it

would aid Iran’s thrust for Mideast hegemony.

Now that’s an unfriendly conundrum.

Since Assad’s Syria is also America’s enemy,

is it not counter-intuitive to bomb ISIS which

seized control of eastern Syria away from Assad?

But isn’t ISIS also America’s enemy?  Does

anyone need Senator McCain to confirm the

anti-West, anti-America, anti-Christian, anti-
Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-Alawite, anti-Shiite, anti-
Iran agenda at ISIS? With that litany of enemies,
does ISIS have any friends?

Well, you might want to quietly wonder and
whisper about the Qataris and the Saudis. Still,
because those nations are so media savvy, they
would publicly disclaim any nexus with ISIS.
But, hold on.

Both the Qataris and Saudis revile Assad’s Alawite

regime. In truth, Assad runs a ruthlessly unfriendly

government. But, before the current revolt, Syria

boasted a level of religious tolerance and societal

freedom than is unthinkable by the socially

blinkered Saudi Sunnis. Somehow, in the fog of

regional enmities and unravelling friendships,

all that now seems irrelevant.

Is that because the Saudis are still America’s
friends even though they are the self-same Sunnis
who generously provided America with Osama Bin

Laden and his al-Qaeda buddies? The Saudis are

those same arch-conservative folks who liberally

fund extremist madrassas that preach jihad.

They are the same Saudi Sunnis who are dying
(at least figuratively) to oust the hated Alawite/Shiite
Assad from his rule in Syria. They are the same
Saudis who exalted when a coup deposed Egypt’s

democratically elected Morsi who, unlike his

predecessor (Mubarek), was no friend to America.

And not so parenthetically, the Saudi Sunnis are

the same lovely people who refuse to permit their

half million or so Palestinian residents to acquire

Saudi citizenship. The aforesaid Palestinians are

the only such Moslems on the planet who are

always denied Saudi citizenship.

But wait a bit longer. The Saudis and the

Palestinians are both Sunnis and seemingly

friends. So, why are Palestinians refused
citizenship? The short answer according to Saudi
law is to protect and preserve Palestinian rights to
a state in Palestine. The shorter answer is because
the Saudis speak with forked tongue. The Saudis
support the Palestinians so long as they never
have to send a Saudi soldier to fight the
Palestinians’ redoubtable Israeli enemy.

So, get this. The Saudis and Palestinians behave
as if they are Sunni friends. Neither has any love
lost for their Israeli enemies. But Hamas, those
Sunni Palestinians who control Gaza, are an
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Saudi
Sunnis absolutely loathe the Muslim Brotherhood
which is Sunni. As such, Hamas and the Saudis
are bitter enemies. Go figure that.

So, if the enemy of my enemy is a friend, then -
by virtue of that aphorism- Israel, which is
Hamas’s hated enemy- should be the Saudi’s
friend. Well, that really complicates regional
geopolitics.

You see, Israel and Iran are enemies. Saudi
Arabia and Iran are enemies. The Saudi Sunnis
and the Iranian Shiites are enemies. But the
Israelis are Jewish. Theoretically, the Saudis
and the Israelis should team up against the
Iranian Shiites who pose an existential threat
to both the Saudi Sunnis and the Jewish Israelis.

So, the Israelis engineered and the Americans paid
for much of the Iron Dome missile defense system
that is now shooting down rockets often supplied
to Hamas by Iran. All things considered, is it not
conceivable –albeit implausible - that Israel could

share its Iron Dome technology with the Saudis?

 In turn, the Saudis could be ready to destroy
Iranian missiles streaking toward either or both
Saudi Arabia or Israel. That scenario would be nice
if only the Saudis and Israelis were friends, which
they are not. 

On the other hand, what if enemy Israeli aircraft
chose to overfly Saudi territory on their way to
bomb Iran? Don’t be surprised if Saudi radar
abruptly chooses not to see the now suddenly
friendly Israeli aircraft on their way to crush
Iranian nuclear sites. By the way, don’t expect
the Israelis to call in advance or to drop leaflets
to tell the Iranians to evacuate as Israel is now
doing before it drops bombs in Gaza.

By now you should be tired waiting for the next
enemy to become a friend or vice versa. So here
goes. The Americas are friends with both the
Saudis and the Qataris. That’s a start. But wait.
The Saudis and the Qataris are increasingly now
at odds with each other.

And get this. The Americans just sold eleven
billion dollars of attack helicopters and other
military hardware to Qatar. The Saudis also
recently bought forty billion dollars of American
weaponry. But don’t expect the Saudis and Qataris
to physically fight each other. I mean, really,
Sunni friends need not be mortal enemies do they?
 

The Qataris are currently funding anti-Assad
operations by Sunni rebels in Syria. The Qataris
are Sunnis. The Qataris support the aims of Hamas
and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Qataris also sent
Egypt bales of cash in an attempt to save President
Morsi’s bacon (whoops!).

Mr. Morsi is a staunch member of the Sunni
Muslim Brotherhood. But the Saudis and the
Muslim Brotherhood are enemies. So, the Saudi
Sunnis have a distinct distaste for Hamas even
though Hamas is both Palestinian and Sunni. This
puts a decidedly unpleasant wedge between the
Qataris and the Saudis who are neighbors on the
Persian (or is it the Arabian?) Gulf.

To further complicate affairs, once Egypt’s Morsi
was dumped by Field Marshal Sisi, the Saudis
began pumping their cash into Egypt whose Muslim
Brotherhood was outlawed by Sisi. Exit the Qataris
who have now lost their multi-billion dollar stake
in Egypt. What a pity.

Of course, the Mideast is also home to both the
Turks and the Kurds. The Kurds are the world’s
largest ethnic minority without a national homeland.
In fact, much of eastern Turkey is heavily Kurdish
as is northern Iraq and northwestern Iran, i.e.
Kurdistan. But both the Turks and Kurds are Sunnis. 

That said and as you might have already guessed,
the Kurds and Turks harbor strong ethnic animosities
to each other. Furthermore, the Turks and the Kurds 
mutually view their Semitic Arab neighbors with
abject disdain. But they are all Sunnis. Should they
not be friends? Heaven forfend.

Not incidentally, the Arabs were ruled by the Turks
for seven hundred years during which the Arabs
learned to despise the Turks. Is it then any wonder
that the Turks also look down their noses at the
Iranians who –in turn- derisively describe the Arabs
as lowlife peasants (Anaryans)?

So, what is the bottom line to the endless enmities
and unravelling friendships that plague the Mideast?
Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel provided some
insight when he cautioned: “True enemies aren't
always the ones who hate each other.”

On the other hand, the prince of paradox, C.K.
Chesterton (who was George Bernard Shaw’s
“friendly enemy”) exposed the naked reality behind
the Mideast’s malady. He lamented: “The Bible tells
us to love our neighbors and also to love our enemies;
probably because generally they are the same people!”