Posted on 10/20/2014 4:55:45 PM PDT by Beave Meister
Besides combat, what’s happening in northern Syria around the town of Kobani offers some interesting indications about the nature of the conflict with ISIS amid the Muslim world.
I’m glad to see some dedicated U.S. air strikes in that area, but ISIS reinforcements are pouring in and the Kurdish forces aren’t receiving much in the way of supplies or weapons support. But what I find most interesting are the pictures of the Turkish Army tanks just sitting on a hilltop taking it all in – as interested bystanders.
Furthermore, we know the Turks are now bombing the Kurdish people in Turkey itself who are protesting this abhorrent inaction. On several occasions we’ve written about Turkey’s actions — namely those of Recip Tayyip Erdogan.
However, I came across a piece that well defines not just Turkey’s recalcitrance to deal with ISIS — but that of the Islamic world itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at allenbwest.com ...
I realize PKK had strong soviet influence in ideology when it was formed in 1978. They’ve moved away from that since 1999 & have since moved towards Kurdish Nationalism and since 2005 their leader publicly stated that their reformed stance espouses a ‘democractic confederalism’. There was a peace process with Turkey in 2012-13. But since ISIS and Erdogan’s continuous refusal to help the Kurds, that fragile peace process has fallen apart. To continue to alienate PKK & their Syrian affiliate YPG will only add fuel to fire. This situation involves the actions 2 parties, Turkey and the Kurds, not just PKK.
Certainly not the U.S. /s
Let me also add that the history of Turks killing and/or exiling thousands of Kurds in Turkey starts in at least the late 1930’s; that’s way before PKK ever existed. There is some very bad-blood between the Turks and Kurds. And, yes, PKK is the most militant Kurdish group, and I don’t agree with their methods, but it really takes 2 parties to manage the situation.
Why would anybody want to hurt the JV? That would be bullying and might get you kicked out of the madras. /sarc
I actually looked them up on Wikipedia (granted, not the most reliable of sources) and noticed "democratic confederalism" listed as one of their ideologies. However, others listed included socialism and feminism, and they are still labeled as "far left."
Why do these ancient non-western cultures take to western Marxism and feminism so easily? It just doesn't make any sense.
Why do these ancient non-western cultures take to western Marxism and feminism so easily? It just doesn't make any sense
That’s a really good question. To my knowledge and experience, the reasons are basically threefold and to a large extent all three overlap and are connected:
One, it has to do with the domination of religion and Islam in particular. Kurds slightly aside for a minute, even the Kemalist Turks, and Ataturk himself was somewhat left of center in ideology; though classified as more Secular (separation of religion and state) akin to the majority of Kurds now in Iraq.
In trying to move away from an Islamic Ottoman Empire with Sharia law as the only law, which also heavily discriminates against and/or imposes many restrictions on women, often they try to counter it by shifting to the other extreme end of the continuum, being Socialism or even Marxism. But I wouldn’t call it “feminism” as per Western (current) definition of feminism because the context is quite different.
Two, it is about political influence. The Soviets for some 70 years were a key neighbour, and played a significant role in helping shape their belief system. Additionally, the Kurds especially in Turkey and Syria, have never had their own land in modern history. Moreover, their constant persecution by others in those lands, prompted them to embrace the idea of ‘communalism’ and even socialism to give them a sense of unity and togetherness.
Should they be given the opportunity, similar to Kurds in Iraq, to establish their own stable ‘region’ at least and a viable economy, am sure they’ll be much Secular (separation of religion and state) than Socialist or Marxist.
As a rule, all Kurds are Nationalists for abovementioned reasons. And, the fact that even PKK’s ideology over the decades has evolved into a more formal “Kurdish Nationalism” and later “Democratic Confederalism” validates my assertion. Equally, the majority of Kurds will never have the desire to be ruled by Islam, although officially they’re Sunni, they’ll be at most Secular.
Must also mention that there are a couple of Islamic type Kurdish tribes in Iraq in particular who would like Sharia and all. But they are very much in the minority. Throughout the years other Kurdish groups have actually fought them to stop their Islamic ideology from spreading.
Three, in terms of what you call “feminism” (which it isn’t per western definition) it is historical and somewhat related to the old religion and culture of Zoroastrianism, which most if not all Iranian ethnic groups have retained over the centuries, despite Islamization efforts.
Surprisingly or not, Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group, share much with the Persians for example; that includes Zoroastrian traditions & culture; they were Zoroastrians too. There are different Kurdish dialects (all belonging to Iranian group of languages), a few actually are very similar to Persian language. An example is Pesh-Merga is Kurdish pronunciation. Peesh-Marga is Persian pronunciation. I personally speak Persian and understand much of two Kurdish dialects.
Lastly, very much unlike Islam, a fundamental belief in Zoroastrianism has to do with the inherent equality of men and women. Not that they are biologically the same, but that they complete one another and on balance they’re equal. Historically, during wars, men and women have fought alongside each other, as necessary. In pre-Islamic Iran, for instance, the army had both men and women soldiers. Women holding some senior ranks, at times in charge of male soldiers, and were getting equal pay. Whether it is acceptable to others is not my point. I am simply stating a fact. I believe cultural practice has carried over to date, particularly with the Kurds and more so because it is a necessity for them now.
Hope that gives you some idea.
Yes.
Turkey isn’t an Arab country, nice going, West.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are doing as much as the US (if you count not dropping supplies into the laps of ISIS, even more) in the form of air support for the Peshmerga.
Syria is attacking the forces which would otherwise be attacking ISIS, or attacking at the same time as ISIS, which means Assad is fighting on the same side as ISIS, no matter how it is spun.
Iran, also not an Arab country (although its dictatorial oligarchy is is deeply connected to the Arabs), is doing nothing to fight ISIS, and this isn’t surprising, since they have a shared interest with the Turks — getting the Kurds killed fighting ISIS with too few arms.
Iraq, a mostly Arab pseudostate, not only has been giving ground, its army has abandoned heavy weapons to ISIS as it has turned tail and run from ISIS; an Iraqi leader claims that no one should be intervening from outside the country to defeat ISIS. Does that sound like an anti-ISIS position?
And BTW, the agitation for Neo-Soviet and pro-mullahacracy talking points on FR sickens me.
There is only one Muslím nation, and ISIS is its name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.