Certain more-thoughtful precincts of the U.S. elites occasionally
fret over how to square the circle of glaring U.S. contradictions. This
phenomenon gets manifested from time to time in New York Times articles
that reveal more of reality than is standard in that publication,
sometimes with sympathy for some victims, but that generally end with a
throwing-up-of-hands attitude, at a loss for a solution.
Such an article was published today on the Times' website. [1]
The
contradiction in question this time concerns the fact that Turkey and
the U.S. have been operating at cross-purposes, to say the least, in
Syria. The most effective fighting force against ISIS and the other
Islamofascists (the main enemy of the U.S. in Syria, as the U.S.
government sees it) are the Kurds.
But Turkey is waging war on the Kurds, both in Syria and in Turkey. Even in Iraq, in fact, where it has attacked Kurds.
And Turkey is even backing some of the Islamofascists.
But
Turkey is a member of the U.S.-created-and-dominated military alliance,
NATO. And has key military bases that the U.S. uses, particularly air
bases, from which the U.S. is now flying sorties against ISIS in Syria
and Iraq. (Turkey has been a key base for U.S. espionage and military
activities since World War II. Turkey was the base from which many U-2
spyplane flights were launched over the Soviet Union. The CIA ran a fake
defector program against the Soviet Union from Turkey. One of those
well-prepared fake defectors was U.S. Marine Lee Harvey Oswald.)
It's
as if such articles are throat-clearing exercises to get the attention
of the executive managers of U.S. imperialism. Like a tap on the
shoulder saying "What are you going to do about this?"
The article doesn't explicitly say what I stated in the title of this essay. That would be too disruptive. The New York Times only very rarely engages in boat-rocking. But the following excerpts show that my title is true.
All emphases that follow are mine.
"Erdogan
has offered limited help in the fight against ISIS, despite years of
American lobbying. That has pushed the United States to rely more and
more on the P.Y.D., which it views as distinct from the P.K.K. American
Special Operations troops now arm, equip and advise these Kurdish
fighters, even as Turkey shells their bases farther west — and pays Islamist militias [aka 'terrorists' as designated by the U.S.] to attack them."
"Islamist
militias" are what are usually called "terrorists" in the U.S. media,
and by the U.S. government. The Times discreetly avoids naming the
actual "militias" it is referring to.
The U.S.
designates the fighting groups in Syria it thinks are okay as the
"moderate" ones.The "Islamist" ones, like the al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda,
ISIS, and their ilk, are the "terrorists."
Of course, for the New York Times,
it is literally unthinkable that Turkey is breaking U.S. law by
"providing material support to terrorists," or that Turkey should be on
the State Department list of "state sponsors of terrorism."
Or at least, they don't want anyone reading the New York Times to have such thoughts cross their minds.
Then
there's the destruction of UNESCO world heritage sites- the same crimes
the U.S. and European medias are so exercised about (rightly, if
hypocritically) when ISIS does it.
The article makes
plain that Kurdish towns and cities are being systematically leveled by
Turkish army artillery and tank shelling.
"In Diyarbakir [Turkey], the capital of a largely Kurdish province, [Turkish] artillery and bombs have destroyed much of the historic district, which contains Unesco world heritage sites. Churches,
mosques and khans that have stood for centuries lie in ruins. Tourism
has collapsed. Images of shattered houses and dead children are stirring
outrage in other countries where Kurds live: Iraq, Syria and Iran."
The
author also describes the destruction of Cizre by Turkish shelling, and
that a similar fate awaits the surrounded and besieged city of
Nusaybin:
"...it has been an outpost and a battleground for a half-dozen empires over the past 3,000 years, from the Aramaeans to the Ottomans. It still contains Roman ruins and one of the Middle East’s oldest churches.
It has been a Kurdish town since a century ago, when Christian
residents fled southward from Turkish pogroms that started during the
upheavals of World War I."
Again, the obvious similarity to ISIS crimes is overlooked.
One
difference between ISIS and the Erdogan regime of Turkey is that ISIS
makes a point of publicizing its crimes, as it takes a perverse pride in
them. It sees its destruction and murders as making ideological points.
The Turks, on the other hand, ban journalists from the cities they are
laying waste to. Typical of states, they seek to hide their crimes,
clumsily, from the rest of the world. (The Times reporter had to do some
sneaking around to get the story. Which is fine.)
It's
not just in Turkey that the U.S. has tied itself up in a ball of
contradictions. The same is the case with Saudi Arabia, with Pakistan,
with Afghanistan. In all these cases, its "allies" are part of the
problem, indeed the root of the problem in the cases of Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan.
On top of all its strategic incoherent, the
U.S. slathers a thick layer of incredibly hypocritical, self-righteous,
moralistic rhetoric about "terrorism" and "freedom," and applies
draconian laws (and assassinations) in extremely selective, biased
fashion. This rotten ideological crust is supposed to hide the political
incoherence from public view.
Which, with the help of the loyal U.S. media, it largely does.
1] "Behind the Barricades of Turkey’s Hidden War: A simmering conflict with the Kurds threatens to consume an American ally and inflame an already-unstable region," New York Times, May 24, 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment