Bloodshed in Northern Iraq (by Michele Naar-Obed)
In what has been described as the largest cross-border attack since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Turkish military is now into its 6th day of a ground offensive inside the Kurdish region in Iraq. Turkey says the attack is limited to Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) targets, but the ramifications go much farther.
Turkey has been fighting the PKK for more than three decades. The PKK is considered a terrorist group by Turkey, the U.S., and the European Union. The PKK claims to be a liberation group fighting for the recognition and rights of Kurds. Until recently, the fighting had been contained to the mountains along the Turkish Iraqi border - as the PKK are based deep inside caves within the mountains.
Beginning in December 2007, the Turks began a series of air attacks beyond the mountains inside Iraq. These attacks resulted in civilian deaths, injuries, and extensive property destruction. Thousands of villagers fled to surrounding towns and cities to live as internally displaced people (IDP’S), relying on the UN and the ICRC for basic provisions.
Even though flyovers by Turkish surveillance planes were a daily occurrence, some of the villagers returned home to check on their property and livestock. By day, they repaired damaged structures or fed their remaining animals. By night, they slept in caves which offered just a bit more protection.
By January 2008, more villagers were being encouraged to return home as it looked as though the threat of attacks might de-escalate. But in February, tensions heightened, and once again the ones that returned to their villages had to flee for safety. Children have been uprooted, and it is often impossible for them to continue in school as IDP’s. Although there have been no civilian casualties reported with this latest grand-scale attack, the psychological damage and the disruption of lives remains devastating.
The Iraqi Kurds have not been this close to autonomy since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They have made many strides towards independence and they believe that Turkey is not very happy about it. The Kurds feel this invasion has little to do with the PKK and more to do with pushing the development of Kurdistan backwards.
Iraqi Kurds believed that they could count on the U.S. for support and protection. With the green light given to Turkey to attack inside Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurds once again feel betrayed. They have appealed to the U.S. and the EU to back up their demands that Turkey pull out its troops immediately. They have asked for the U.S. to force Turkey to the diplomatic table to work this out peacefully. So far, their appeals have fallen on deaf ears.
The Kurdish people have survived numerous genocidal attacks over the centuries. They are strong, resilient, proud, and accomplished people - and they will not go down without a fight. The U.S. could do much do stop the bloodshed. If this fight continues to escalate, one of the few relatively stable and peaceful regions in Iraq will soon be lost.
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
"Iraqi Kurds believed that they could count on the U.S. for support and protection. With the green light given to Turkey to attack inside Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurds once again feel betrayed. They have appealed to the U.S. and the EU to back up their demands that Turkey pull out its troops immediately. They have asked for the U.S. to force Turkey to the diplomatic table to work this out peacefully. So far, their appeals have fallen on deaf ears"
Very sad. We are going to see the consequences of this ill-advised and unconscionable war for some time to come. The silence of the war supporters on the issues that you have raised is deafening. I guess that it doesn't line up with their romanticized view of America as the great liberator.
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 28, 2008 6:09 AM
I just heard the winner of the Ironic Quote of the Week today. On an NPR news report this morning about the Turkish incursion into Iraqi Kurdistan, Defense Sec. Gates said the US was advising Turkey not to stay in Iraq very long. He said something like, "We are reminding the Turks to respect Iraqi sovereignty."
Hmmmm. Who failed to heed that advice five years ago?
As James Martin said, how sad.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 28, 2008 8:08 AM
I thought Islam was the religion of peace? Both the Turks and the Kurds are Muslims. Doesn't peace usually mean non-violence?
Posted by: Wake up! | February 28, 2008 8:09 AM
At the site of the first article in this war series I asked for, I ask again, and JamesMartin I ask you: Please specify which war(s) you are talking about so we can talk specific strategy and vision for real relationships/places/conflicts and not just have an abstract, fruitless argument as if there is one group of folks who love war and a distinct group that loves peace.
Michele I appreciate you coming back with this second article. It was a little clearer about what you advocate. You hint what you want is an independent Kurdistan in Iraq. You do not clarify if you want a Kurdistan carved out of Iraq, Iran, Syria, & Turkey; nor whether you support PKK's terroristic war.
So just for starters, without mentioning US involvement, we have as parties to the conflict in this post: Syria, Turkey (part of NATO), PKK, Iraq Kurdish Officials, Iraq, and Iran. We have a conflict that pre-dates and will post-date current US military presence; and was under UN sanctions and resolutions(i.e. UN involvement).
Peacemaking has to do with conflict resolution.
Come' on Sojo. Please put up some articles that specify which conflicts in this massive mess you wish to address so we can talk real strategy and vision. Then when you choose one, like the current Turkish invasion in this post, which really represents many multi-faceted conflicts--have the author specify their vision/strategy so we have a baseline as to measure the facts on the ground and best course of action.
This article does not even do a minimal consideration of US military options in response to the immediate incursion; let alone address the realities of conflict resolution with the parties who are at war (which is not the US).
If we are going to be serious--we have to be serious.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 28, 2008 9:02 AM
I thought Islam was the religion of peace? Both the Turks and the Kurds are Muslims. Doesn't peace usually mean non-violence?
Posted by: Wake up
These articles are leaving out many details . From what I Understand Turkey is going after the PKK, who have been using terrorist tactics against Turkey . and the US is actually advocating peace here . The Kurds are claiming they do not support the PKK and caught in the middle . Perhaps the US should be using militayy force to stop Turkey , but I for one am glad the US is not blasting away . The United States in this case is advocating a peacefull resolution , you would think on this one open minds might consider that at least an option .
Posted by: Mick | February 28, 2008 12:52 PM
"I thought Islam was the religion of peace? Both the Turks and the Kurds are Muslims. Doesn't peace usually mean non-violence?"
In practice, no more than a claiming Christianity peaceful could prove that Christianity is a religion of peace, despite its supposed adherents battling furiously. History since the 4th century shows Christianity in western practice is a bloodthirsty
politically-driven religion - just like all other religiously expressed and justified human lusts.
Of course, almost everyone of any religion will claim they are for peace while waging war, because "the other guy" wasn't. I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, too.
As for Turkey, we are a military treaty ally through NATO. We are pledged to support any invasion of their sovereignty as if it were our own under the terms of that treaty. Therefore, Turkey's more of a proxy and their incursion is a proxy action for our own interests. We are far more loyal to Turkey's interests than we are to Iraq's - Iraq is not even a real country, but an occupation and insurrection zone, a political abstraction wherein the oil we covet lies, without a practical government or unified body politic representing its own interests. What counts for us is only our own interests - hence, the occupation.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 28, 2008 1:07 PM
"I ask again, and JamesMartin I ask you: Please specify which war(s) you are talking about..." letjusticerolldown |
Uh, the war in Iraq that was started by the United States and has led to this chain of events. It is the war in Iraq that is the subject of this blog posting. Is that specific enough for you so that we can have a "fruitful" discussion or do you need to ask additional condescending questions?
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 28, 2008 2:01 PM
JamesMartin--No "the war in Iraq" is not specific enough. I don't think my post is that obscure. If you start just by listing all the parties at conflict in Iraq, and what the fights are about, and what the nature of the fighting is--we have a myriad of conflicts. I mention just a few of them related to just this one issue of Turkey's military incursion into northern Iraq.
When you conceive the issue as there being "A war started by the United States" then the solution to all the issues is very simple. i.e. for one of the combatants to stop fighting.
Of if we could repeat history, if just Sadaam had not invaded Kuwait, or the US had not invaded Iraq--then all the conflicts simply would not exist.
But that kind of language is so far from the reality on the ground, in my thinking, to make it useless in actually talking vision and strategy for making peace.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 28, 2008 6:40 PM
"JamesMartin--No "the war in Iraq" is not specific enough." letjusticerolldown
If you cannot see that we unleashed a chain of events in our invasion of Iraq that led to this, then I guess we have precious little to speak about. Use your sanctimonious posturing on somebody else.
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 28, 2008 6:59 PM
"Use your sanctimonious posturing on somebody else."
JamesMartin--That doesn't cut it with me. It is not my intent to be sanctimonious with you or anyone else. I fully apologize if my writing communicates that. It is my intent, which I believe I have written, to get to a vision and strategy for moving forward on peacemaking.
The task of peacemaking demands addressing particular conflicts. e.g. In the original article Ms. Naar-Obed addresses the conflict between the Turkish govenment and PKK fighters. This is a specific conflict. We can leave and just allow them to fight it out. We can push the two parties to negotiate. But what are they negotiating. The PKK wants to carve out a new nation out of part of Turkey. Turkey and multiple other governments oppress the Kurds to prevent that. PKK employs terrorism against military and civilian targets.
We can protect PKK fighters (terrorists) from Turkey. We could attack PKK fighters. We could invade Syria, Iran and Turkey and take create the nation of Kurdistan and drive out other populations.
Come on James. I only ask the author to specify the conflict and proposed solution; so we can work towards peace.
Are you with me on resolving conflicts (which does require identifying them)?
It is very hard to frame good dialogues if the original pieces do not define the conflict, the antagonists, their objectives, the nature of the conflict, what the writer sees as a way towards piece.
I don't back a Kurdistan carved out of four countries followed by ethnic cleansing.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 1:13 AM
I agree with you, letjusticerolldown - let's start learning more so we can make peace! Like James, I still don't know a whole lot about the many conflicts, but as Christians I feel we have a calling to learn the details so we can match and lead the policy makers with the *how* of good peacemaking. We can't just leave it to somebody else if we really want peace (and I really want peace)!
Everyone, think about this: in WWII, people probably knew better how to make peace because they knew the differences between (and more about the history of) the Italians and French, Swiss and Germans. Let's hammer out some good peace strategies by learning more about the friends the war has now tied us to and who we need to help.
Sojo, it might help if you were to put out facts about the different groups - the histories and of their people groups, the ideologies of their political parties, as well as their individual stories and details of how they live their lives.
Posted by: Gratia Stryker | February 29, 2008 9:41 AM
I agree with you, letjusticerolldown - let's start learning more so we can make peace! Like James, I still don't know a whole lot about the many conflicts, but as Christians I feel we have a calling to learn the details so we can match and lead the policy makers with the *how* of good peacemaking. We can't just leave it to somebody else if we really want peace (and I really want peace)!
Everyone, think about this: in WWII, people probably knew better how to make peace because they knew the differences between (and more about the history of) the Italians and French, Swiss and Germans. Let's hammer out some good peace strategies by learning more about the friends the war has now tied us to and who we need to help.
Sojo, it might help if you were to put out facts about the different groups - the histories and of their people groups, the ideologies of their political parties, as well as their individual stories and details of how they live their lives.
letjusticerolldown, what do you suggest? The Kurds are yearning for their own land and not to be integrated. That's why they've been fighting for a century and aren't ready to stop. You might even apply the term "colonialism" to it. At the same time, also look at the developing body of literature on immigration and the common problems of integration.
Posted by: Gratia Stryker | February 29, 2008 9:48 AM
letjusticerolldown, what do you suggest? The Kurds are yearning for their own land and not to be integrated. That's why they've been fighting for a century and aren't ready to stop. You might even apply the term "colonialism" to it. At the same time, also look at the developing body of literature on immigration and the common problems of integration.
Posted by: Gratia Stryker | February 29, 2008 9:48 AM
I haven't a clue what I want for the Kurds. That is a big reason I plea for Sojo to more clearly lay out specific conflicts instead of just talking about "The War;" having writers who know the specific conflicts, can place them in context, and move our hearts/minds/hands towards peacemaking.
I think the moves towards 'ethnic homelands' is so very understandable and so very unworkable in a world of nation-states; where even the concept of nation-states have difficulty adapting to the mobility, technology, communications, interrelated nature of this time.
Freedom has to be carved out within our interdependence; not accomplished by segregation.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 3:19 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?