A View From Inside Kurdistan (by Michele Naar-Obed)
Christian Peacemaker Teams has had a team in Kurdistan for over one year. CPT has been slowly learning that the effects of the war and the relationship with the U.S. are much different for the Kurdish people than for the Arab people of central and south Iraq.
The Kurds are scattered throughout Turkey, Iran, Syria, and northern Iraq with the majority residing in Turkey. Turkey and Syria present the most repressive policies towards Kurds in not allowing them to speak their language or identify themselves as Kurdish.
The Iraqi Kurds by far have the best shot at becoming autonomous, but they have a long way to go before they can become their own nation. They are struggling to build an economic base. They are surrounded by hostile neighbors and know that a good defense system will involve diplomacy and trade.
When the U.S. took out Saddam, the Iraqi Kurds were ecstatic. In our first weeks here, Kurds initially shared their love for America. But when we engaged people long enough in conversation, they expressed their doubts, especially with regard to U.S. foreign policy. Still, they hoped that the U.S. would support them politically and economically.
In December 2007, the Turkish military attacked Kurds inside Iraq. The justification was to launch an attack against the PKK, a Kurdish militia based in the mountains that border Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. The PKK are considered a terrorist group by the U.S. and Turkey. The war between the PKK and Turkey has been going on for three decades.
In attempt to appease Turkey, the U.S. shared military intelligence and allowed Turkish bombers to fly inside Iraq. Turkey attacked more than 60 villages - killing and injuring civilians, displacing thousands of villagers, killing hundreds of livestock, and causing extensive property damage.
The Kurds felt betrayed. They had hoped that the U.S. would push Turkey towards the diplomatic table in order to work out the problems with the PKK peacefully. At the very least, they expected the U.S. to protect them since that is one of the responsibilities of an occupying country. Instead, the U.S. opened up the airspace inside Iraq, which allowed for the attacks. These attacks have been ongoing, including a major incursion by Turkish ground troops last week.
The once quiet criticism of the U.S. is now quite vocal. The U.S. is quickly losing an ally and further alienating itself in the Middle East. Anti-American sentiment grows deeper. When will we learn?
Michele Naar-Obed, lives in Duluth, Minnesota, and is a member of the Loaves and Fishes Catholic Worker Community providing temporary housing to homeless families and individuals. She is a part time volunteer with the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), has gone to Iraq five times with CPT, and is currently in Iraqi Kurdistan. Michele blogs at: duluthcpt.net
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
"The U.S. is quickly losing an ally and further alienating itself in the Middle East. Anti-American sentiment grows deeper."
True. But won't the same thing happen with the Turks if the U.S. opposes Turkish military actions in northern Iraq?
Posted by: carl copas | February 26, 2008 2:48 PM
Carl, the US did not allowed Turkey in there until the end of 2007; I bet it could safely keep telling Turkey no. I think the government is looking for a short-term solution because Americans want the troops out - do you think that might be the reason?
Michele, do you know if the CPT has considered consolidating all the blogs out there of all the people witnessing the violence personally around the world? By unifying all of them, it might make more of an impact by drawing more readers.
Posted by: sola gratia | February 26, 2008 2:57 PM
I understand the point of these "The Cost of War" pieces. They are needed, have great value, and are very educational. They show the other side of a war that is rarely shown to American viewers. American viewers get the military success stories. And they get (or got until the American body count started declining recently) a steady stream of pessimistic news from Iraq. But rarely do we get stories about the innocents that get caught up this war and other wars. I applaud Sojourners for posting these stories.
The only thing I’d change is the tendency of the writers to wade into the geopolitical with their own proposed, usually over-simplistic, solutions. It seems like all the proposed solutions seem to contain a similar theme: “The United States needs to do exactly the opposite of whatever it did in the first place”. The U.S. has done many things poorly in the Middle East, but many of these commenters act as if things would be just hunky-dory over there had the U.S. not done the things that they’re upset about them doing. For example, in the latest installment the author criticizes the U.S. for allowing Turkey to bomb innocent civilians in villages. I think it’s a fair criticism. But let’s the say the U.S. prevented Turkey from using their military in Iraq. I’m sure there’d be people complaining that PKK forces were killing innocents in Turkey and the U.S. was tying the hands of Turkey by preventing them from attacking their base of support in Iraq. My point is, maybe things would be better, but maybe they’d be worse too. It’s hard to know. It’s good to say we should be working for peaceful solutions to conflicts (we should!), but when they start getting more detailed than that inexperience really starts to show (even to someone like me who is far from an expert either).
Posted by: Eric | February 26, 2008 3:14 PM
sola gratia: "the US did not allowed Turkey in there until the end of 2007; I bet it could safely keep telling Turkey no.I think the government is looking for a short-term solution because Americans want the troops out - do you think that might be the reason?"
Not sure if I understand you, sola gratia. Are you saying that because of American public unhappiness with the war, perhaps the Americans are turning over to the Turks the job of keeping things stable in northern Iraq? I thought the Kurds themselves had been doing a pretty good job of stabilizing the area, at least until the Turkish army came over the border this past December.
It's hard to find solid news sources on the Kurdish-occupied areas of northern Iraq, so I'm not very comfortable offering my opinion on related issues.
Posted by: carl copas | February 26, 2008 3:21 PM
It's hard to find solid news sources on the Kurdish-occupied areas of northern Iraq, so I'm not very comfortable offering my opinion on related issues.
Posted by: carl copas
Thats my take on this one also Carl . I did some research and tried to relay a differing view , but I think the link I added causes it to be censored . Basically though the position was the US and Iraq were trying to handle this situation diplomatically , and PKK was being condemned by even the Kurds . But the US was not supporting turkey here , and was trying to find a diplomatic resolution . I thought the US using diplomacy was a something the editorialist would support , but her view is first hand ., but this editorial appears to be just one of many opinions on what is going on over there with this .
Posted by: Mick | February 26, 2008 3:29 PM
Brothers and sisters, it would be wise of us to look into going to Iran as well, before the conflict starts - it already has with the refused diplomacy and the brain drain of all highly educated Iranians going to other countries over the past few decades.
Posted by: sola gratia | February 26, 2008 3:56 PM
What did our nation do right or wrong in the Middle East is the wrong question.
The questions is, why do we even need to ask this question, as if it's our right to rule their affairs?
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 26, 2008 4:25 PM
Sojourner Truth,
Couldn't you ask the same thing about Darfur?
Posted by: Eric | February 26, 2008 4:46 PM
Eric,
Think there is a significant difference between Darfur and Iraq. There is a certain point at which the oppression of a people by their own government should be countered (by force if necessary) by the international community (not by any solo state or small coalition). Exactly where that point is, is hard to establish.
In cases of genocide, as in Darfur and the former Yugoslavia, there would be general agreement that outside interference is appropriate.
In the case of Iraq the argument of intervening against an oppressive government (that of Saddam) is harder to make. Not that he wasn't oppressive, but in relative terms he was less oppressive to Kurds say than Turkey or Syria are. If oppressive government is to be grounds for international intervention, then those governments and nations which are most oppressive would reasonably be intervened gainst first. So intervention in Darfur would occur early on (not aware of any other nations in the world which are more oppressive than this one at present). But as you work down the list of who is oppressing whom, you'd probably need to intervene in China and Israel before you'd intervene in Iraq.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | February 26, 2008 6:12 PM
At least we could have used Just War Theory in a serious way for making these evaluations, especially since we have a President who claims to be a Christian and who has had as a result enormous support from evangelical Christians.
But the case for war violated Christian Just War Theory substantially and the carrying out of it overwhelmingly violated its precepts.
However, all we got was some conservative "patriot pastors" taking out ads in which they approved the war without ever addressing the necessary criteria for Just War at all. That hasn't prevented them from claiming its mantle - but not so much of late - but that analysis and satisfaction of points was never, ever made.
That was because it couldn't be made, for they certainly would have done so otherwise.
There is simply too much faith given over to "being on the American Team" in the way we think about world affairs. There is no lasting solution that can be imposed on others against their will.
Therefore, as Christians who ought to begin to understand what Jesus was talking about, most practically, when he commanded "loving your enemy" and "doing good to those who spitefully use you" we need to be working hard to develop new paradigms for peacemaking, just as so much effort and progress has gone into developing ever greater methods and strategies of waging war.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 26, 2008 6:28 PM
At least we could have used Just War Theory in a serious way for making these evaluations, especially since we have a President who claims to be a Christian and who has had as a result enormous support from evangelical Christians.
I don't subscribe to the notion that the "Just War Theory" has any validity.
Just because a bunch of Catholics and other philosophers and theologians long ago created one doesn't mean it's valid or even meaningful.
I read up on it a bit, and I find it of no value. Suggesting we use it to make rational decisions, when it itself is nothign more than conjecture seems rather pointless. I would think that the vast majority of people would find it irrelevant to deciding what we should do as a nation.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 27, 2008 12:17 AM
I think it is highly likely that this is about oil and that the support of Turkey is a way of pressuring the Kurds to support the kind of oil deal the Bush administration wants. Otherwise the Turks would just be told to defend their borders. It also justifies our border transgressions and those of Israel into Lebanon.
Posted by: jonabark | February 27, 2008 12:29 AM
Michele--I'm not clear on what you want to see. You seem to not want US military present; but if they are there you want them to back a certain solution. Please clarify.
How do you want the US to pressure Turkey to conduct negotiations with a terrorist organization? The "problem" the PKK wants to work out is a Kurdistan carved out of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria? Is that what you ultimately want the US to back?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 27, 2008 6:18 AM
Trent - I agree with your underlying philosophy almost 100%. The U.S. has to pick and choose when and where to get involved (I lean towards not getting involved in most cases). That's pretty much the attitude I take. But my point to Sojourner Truth when she asks by what right does the U.S. have to meddle in their affairs is that rights are absolute. If the U.S. doesn't have a right to meddle in the Middle East it doesn't have a right to meddle anywhere. And visa versa, if the U.S. has a right to meddle in Darfur it has a right to meddle anywhere else. I have yet to see her response to my question.
What you're talking about is the appropriateness of whether or not to meddle in certain regions and how that meddling should take place.
Posted by: Eric | February 27, 2008 9:06 AM
Markcher: "Just because a bunch of Catholics and other philosophers and theologians long ago created one doesn't mean it's valid or even meaningful. I read up on it a bit, and I find it of no value."
I hope you are as hard on the Project for a New American Century as you are on the Catholic philosophers. The important thing is, a moral yardstick was created, and I doubt you could find one that is more appropriate.
Posted by: I and I | February 27, 2008 3:25 PM
>What did our nation do right or wrong in the >Middle East is the wrong question.
>The questions is, why do we even need to ask >this question, as if it's our right to rule >their affairs?
Sojourner Truth, I agree with you that it is not right for us to rule their affairs. But the problem is that we went in there and just did it anyway, and now we have to find solutions to the problem we created. I believe in having moral people in government. So what should we encourage that moral people in our US government who have to deal with this problem do? If we withdraw, everything will become much worse; we can't leave it a more deadly place to live than we started with. We should also protect ourselves to some extent; in saying that I do not necessarily mean a thoughtless clarion call to military service. I think that can be achieved not through force but instead through diplomacy, PERSONAL as well as governmental, investing our lives into theirs since now our histories are entangled together; we have an obligation to face up to it and create that history and those narratives together now. We can't just turn our backs on them now - that would also be heartless.
Posted by: sola gratia | February 28, 2008 8:35 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?