New York Times Editorial, "Kurdistan’s Dangerous Vote on Independence": Dangerous for Whom?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled “Kurdistan’s Dangerous Vote on Independence,” The New York Times expresses its empathy for Kurdish yearnings for independence in Iraq, but fails to note the horrifying oppression of Kurdish minorities living in Turkey, Syria and Iran over the course of many decades. The editorial also forgets to mention that the Middle East's 30 million Kurds comprise the world's largest stateless people, whose identity and rights were not accounted for when Britain and France carved out new Middle East nations with artificial borders after World War I.

The Times editorial tells us:

"Only Israel, with a history of close ties to Kurds and hopes for an ally against Iran, has declared support for a Kurdish state."

However, while Israel would certainly welcome an ally in the region, Israeli sympathy for Kurdish statehood has a historical basis. In the years immediately prior to Israeli independence, the US State Department and Department of Defense opposed granting the Jews their own country for the very same reason: Giving the Jews a homeland could endanger American strategic interests in the region.

Whereas the US has welcomed Kurdish friendship and support while battling ISIS and Saddam Hussein, it is now time for the US to reciprocate by recognizing the right of the Kurds to live in dignity and freedom. Dangerous? Sure, an independent Kurdish state carved out of Iraq is upsetting for the Turks (Kurds amount to some 20 percent of Turkey's population), but all change comes with uncertainty, and the Kurds deserve to live without fear of persecution and oppression.

The Washington Post Continues to Ignore the Escalating Conflict in Turkey

Tweet

The top story in today's online Washington Post? An article enlightening WaPo's readers concerning Turkey's armored ground incursion into Syria and the battles currently being waged between the Turkish army and Syria's Kurds, with whom, by the way, the US has been working to fight ISIS? An article mentioning Kurdish civilian casualties at the hands of the Turks? Not a chance. Rather, in a lead article entitled "A ramshackle village at the center of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," William Booth writes:

"SUSIYA, West Bank — For a quick reality check on the current stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there’s no better place to visit than this little village of miserable huts and sheep pens in the middle of nowhere.

The hamlet in the hills south of Hebron has become an improbable proxy in a cold war waged among Jewish settlers, the Israeli government, Western diplomats, peace activists and the 340 or so Arab herders who once inhabited caves on the site and now live in squalid tents.

. . . .

A final order to bulldoze the hamlet was delayed in mid-August when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office asked the courts to stay a ruling on the dispute for two months — until after the U.S. presidential election — according to lawyers involved in the case on both sides.

The Obama administration this month warned Israel that it finds the proposed eviction 'very troubling.'"

Fascinating. The Washington Post is more concerned with a legal battle involving Susiya than a deadly escalation of the conflict in Syria involving many civilian deaths.

Why am I not surprised?

American Jet Fighters Amost in a Dogfight Over Syria: No US News Coverage

Tweet

American and Syrian (Russian?) fighter jets nearly engaged in a dogfight on Friday. As reported by DEBKAfile in an article entitled "US, Russia trade blows in Syria on Kurds’ backs":

"The near-clash between US and Syrian warplanes over Kurdish Hassaka in northern Syrian Friday Aug. 19 sprung out of the Obama administration’s decision the day before to try and draw the line on the growing Russian-Iranian-Turkish-Syrian collaboration in the conjoined Syrian-Iraqi arenas, DEBKAfile’s military sources report.

It occurred when US jets flew in protective formation over the Kurdish positions, the day after they were attacked by Syrian (some Middle East sources say, Russian) jets.

The US jets came within a mile of the two Syrian Su-24 fighter jets approaching the Kurdish enclave of Hassaka, and warned them off. Without responding the Syrian planes turned tail."

Putin is testing Obama.

Coverage of this incident by America's news media? Not a chance. But why should The New York Times and The Washington Post dwell on such a "minor" flap, given their refusal to write about the secret removal by the US army of nuclear weapons from the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey?

New York Times Editorial, "A Risky American Expansion in Syria": Obama's Dirty Little Secret

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "A Risky American Expansion in Syria," The New York Times says of Obama's decision to send 250 more US soldiers to Syria, in addition to the existing 50 "Special Operations" forces currently deployed in a country that no longer exists:

"While American forces will not be leading the ground war in Syria, they will be involved in military operations and working without proper authorization from Congress. Unlike the American troops in Iraq, which are fighting the Islamic State at the request of the Iraqi government, the troops in Syria will be operating in another sovereign nation with no clear legal right."

But what the geniuses at the Times fail to observe is that these troops will primarily be assisting the Kurds, and were the Turks to hear of this dirty little secret (Remember, you didn't hear it from me!), Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan might cease to be one of Obama's best overseas friends.

Now imagine what happens if American troops are killed by ongoing Turkish shelling of Kurdish forces in Syria.

But wait! Just how stupid is this editorial? The Times editorial board goes on to say:

"It has long been obvious that the best way to defeat the Islamic State lies in ending the Syrian civil war between President Bashar al-Assad and opposition forces so that all sides can focus on the terrorists, which Mr. Obama told the Europeans is 'the most urgent threat to our nations.'"

Got it: Assad is not a terrorist, notwithstanding his use of chemical weapons and barrel bombs against Syrian civilians.

Yup, The New York Times is wearing its imbecility on its sleeve.

Thomas Friedman, "When the Necessary Is Impossible": Thick as a Brick

Tweet

Yes, would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman is thick as a brick.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "When the Necessary Is Impossible," Thomas Friedman asks "What do you do when the necessary is impossible, but the impossible is impossible to ignore — and your key allies are also impossible?" Friedman writes in response to his own imbecilic question:

"Crushing the Islamic State, or ISIS, is necessary for stabilizing Iraq and Syria, but it is impossible as long as Shiites and Sunnis there refuse to truly share power, and yet ignoring the ISIS cancer and its ability to metastasize is impossible as well."

Unbeknownst to Friedman, Iraq and Syria were never nation-states, but rather entities randomly carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France. Today, they are more akin to Humpty Dumpty: There is no putting the pieces back together again. Rather, it is time to acknowledge that the Middle East's 30 million Kurds, long oppressed by Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, deserve their own state.

True, Turkey opposes granting independence to the Kurds, and in 2012, Obama deemed Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan one of his best overseas friends; however, times have changed. As acknowledged by Friedman:

"And if all that isn’t impossible enough, our trying to make Iraq safe for democracy is requiring us to turn a blind eye to the fact that our most important NATO 'ally' in the region, Turkey, is being converted from a democracy into a dictatorship by its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who should now be called 'Sultan Erdogan' for the way he is closing opposition newspapers and putting journalists on trial. But because we need Turkey’s air bases and cooperation to foster a modicum of democracy in Iraq tomorrow, we are silent on Erdogan destroying democracy in Turkey today. Go figure."

Yup, it's time to grant the Kurds their freedom. It's also time for Obama to honor his 2008 promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide if elected president.

But is a sycophantic Friedman capable of criticizing Obama? Not a chance:

"Obama is probably doing about the best one can with ISIS: Degrade it, contain it and downplay it, and keep nudging Sunnis and Shiites to come to their senses. But I have a bad feeling about the ISIS boys. They are networked and they have cast off all civilized norms. And we don’t have the answer for them."

Dancing the tango while Brussels burned is the best Obama can do? In fact, maybe it is the best a self-absorbed Obama can do. Others can do better.

Jackson Diehl, "The costs of Obama’s Syria policy are apparent to everyone but him": A Narcissistic President's Denial of Reality

Tweet

In a must-read Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The costs of Obama’s Syria policy are apparent to everyone but him," Jackson Diehl excoriates Obama's hapless policy shifts in Syria. Declaring that Obama is "fundamentally clueless — or in denial — about the consequences of what historians will surely regard as one of his most fateful errors," i.e. his decision not to respond militarily in 2013 to Assad's use of chemical weapons, Diehl observes:

"Japanese, South Koreans, Singaporeans and even Indians confided that they were convinced that Obama’s failure to use force against the regime of Bashar al-Assad was directly responsible for China’s subsequent burst of aggression in territorial disputes in the East China Sea and South China Sea.

Poles, Lithuanians and French drew a line between the backdown and Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. As for the Sunni Arabs, Turks and Israelis, it is an article of faith that Obama’s decision accelerated the catastrophe that Syria, and much of the rest of the Middle East, has become. They have an obvious point: Hundreds of thousands are dead, the European Union is in danger of crumbling under an onslaught of refugees, and the Islamic State and Assad remain unvanquished."

Diehl goes on to observe that Obama is alone in dismissing this criticism. Referring to Jeffrey Goldberg's recent Atlantic article entitled "The Obama Doctrine," Diehl continues:

"As Goldberg describes it, the president now regards August 2013 as his 'liberation' from a U.S. foreign policy establishment he holds in contempt, along with a 'Washington playbook' that demands military action to uphold American 'credibility.'

. . . .

In fact, despite his protestations, Obama seems to be haunted by his Syrian retreat — so much so that he has concocted a kind of negative doctrine around it. It is, says Goldberg, that the Middle East 'is no longer terribly important to American interests'; that even if it is, there is little the United States can do 'to make it a better place'; and that any attempt to do so leads only to war and 'the eventual hemorrhaging of U.S. credibility and power.'"

Diehl's devastating conclusion:

"Obama is now obliged to fight the Islamic State’s multiplying iterations across the region without any prospect of viable states to replace it. He has few allies and no exit strategy. The 'liberation' from the Middle East that he now celebrates has created a quagmire that the next president will inherit."

However, Diehl fails to provide the reason for Obama's vehement rejection of all this criticism. In fact, the reason is simple: Persons suffering from narcissistic personality disorders are entirely incapable of accepting criticism, and although Obama's problem is not nearly as severe as that of Donald Trump, it is nevertheless unmistakable. As observed by Matthew Continetti in a National Review article entitled "President Obama Is a Political Narcissist":

"Russia announces the withdrawal of its forces from Syria. The decision is a surprise — President Obama is shocked. This is a feeling he experiences often.

He was astonished when Vladimir Putin intervened in the Syrian conflict in 2015. He was startled when ISIS conquered a fair portion of Mesopotamia in 2014. He was jarred when Putin invaded Crimea, and launched a proxy war in eastern Ukraine that same year. Rogue states pursue policies contrary to what Obama the Wise sees as their self-interest, and the presidential response never varies. He is stunned. He is saddened. He is filled with sangfroid.

Bewilderment happens when reality dispels illusions. I used to think President Obama’s illusions were simply the product of his ideology, of his faith in the universality of human reason, in the idea of historical progress, of his ambivalence toward American power. But after reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s epic, absorbing, revealing interview with the president in The Atlantic, I have come to a different conclusion. It’s not just ideology that drives Obama’s cluelessness. It’s narcissism."

Yes, Obama was completely taken by surprise by Putin's announcement of Russia's withdrawal from Syria. But more to the point, unbeknownst to Washington, there is a well-reasoned rationale for Putin's decision. Syria and Iraq no longer exist as nations. Moreover, 30 million stateless Kurds, long persecuted in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey, are aching for freedom. It would appear that Putin, unlike Obama, is aware that the Kurds are destined to gain their independence and is seeking an alliance with the Kurds against Turkey, Russia's longtime enemy.

In short, blinded by his would-be omniscience, Obama is driving his golf cart across the rough and into a sand trap. It remains to be seen who inherits this ugly wreck.

Obama's Foreign Policy Leaves the Middle East in Shambles: The End of Kumbaya Diplomacy

Tweet

Perhaps you recall how The Washington Post's David Ignatius declared on March 31, 2015 that "the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever." Well today, in a must-read New York Times article entitled "Iran’s Missile Tests Remind the U.S. That Hostilities Have Not Ended," Helene Cooper and David E. Sanger inform us:

"[T]he past few days have been full of sobering reminders that the grander objective of [the nuclear accord with Iran] — some gradual steps toward an era of wary cooperation, or at least a cessation of hostilities between Washington and Tehran — remains a long way away.

Just last week, the Republican-led Congress inserted new rules into the budget signed by Mr. Obama that were clearly intended to discourage foreigners from doing business with Tehran. Then on Saturday, the Iranian Navy harassed an American aircraft carrier and a French frigate in the Strait of Hormuz, launching rockets that passed within 1,500 yards of the U.S.S. Harry S. Truman. It seemed an act somewhere between recklessness and outright aggression.

So much for détente."

Or more to the point, so much for Obama's unsigned "legacy-creating" nuclear deal with Khamenei. There is no way that Tehran will placidly accept new American sanctions stemming from Iran's recent ballistic missile tests in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

Meanwhile, over at The Washington Post, Liz Sly has written an equally important article entitled "On the front lines of the war against the Islamic State, a tangled web," which observes:

"[T]he Islamic State is but one of a multitude of groups competing for territory and dominance over the collapsed nation states of Iraq and Syria — a symptom as much as a cause of the scramble for power unleashed by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the 2011 revolt in Syria.

The Islamic State may or may not be vanquished soon — and a string of defeats inflicted in recent months in northeastern Syria, northern Iraq and most recently Ramadi have raised hopes that its demise may be closer than had been thought.

But already it is becoming clear that victory over the militants won’t end the bloodshed in the region, said Fawaz Gerges, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

'There is little thought being given to the morning after, and the morning after is going to be as bloody, as chaotic and as destabilizing as the situation we are seeing now,' he said. 'The heart of the Middle East has changed. The fragile state system is no longer there.'"

Indeed, Syria and Iraq were never nation-states, but rather entities randomly carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France.

Moreover, it is time for the US to prepare Ankara for an independent Kurdistan, notwithstanding the deep-seated enmity of Erdogan and friends to Turkey's Kurdish minority. The Middle East's 30 million Kurds, long friendly to America, deserve their freedom.

Dana Milbank, "Barack Obama, President Oh-bummer": Why Is There a Need for a Syrian State?

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Barack Obama, President Oh-bummer," uber-liberal Dana Milbank, observing the "stylistic gulf" between American President Obama ("discouraging and lawyerly") and French President Hollande ("upbeat and can-do") at a news conference in the White House on Tuesday, concludes (my emphasis in red):

"When Laura Haim of France’s Canal+ TV network asked if there was a deadline for ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, both men had the same policy: no timetable. But what they said after that highlighted their different styles.

Hollande spoke of a new era. “There is a new mind-set now,” Hollande said. “And those who believed that we could wait” now realize “the risk is everywhere . . . . We, therefore, must act.”

Then came President Oh-bummer.

'Syria has broken down,' he said. 'And it is going to be a difficult, long, methodical process to bring back together various factions within Syria to maintain a Syrian state.'

Maybe you can motivate people when you sound so discouraging. But it’s hard."

Query for Obama: Why is there any need whatsoever "to maintain a Syrian state," whose artificial boundaries were fixed in 1916 by France and Britain pursuant the Sykes-Picot Agreement? Isn't it time to recognize a Kurdish state, which would include the northern region of Syria, where its long-oppressed Kurds reside?

Reporting on yesterday's White House press conference, Peter Baker, in a New York Times article entitled "Meeting With François Hollande, Obama Urges Europe to Escalate ISIS Fight," writes:

"Publicly, though, Mr. Obama outlined no concrete new actions that the United States would take, and he suggested that the attacks might finally prompt Europe to approach the threat more seriously. 'We also think, as François said, that there may be new openness on the part of other coalition members to help resource and provide additional assistance, both to the coalition as a whole and to the local forces on the ground,' Mr. Obama said."

"[N]ew openness on the part of other coalition members to help resource and provide additional assistance"?  His 65-nation coalition against the Islamic State includes such big guns as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Estonia, Iceland, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Montenegro, Nigeria, Panama, Singapore, Slovenia, Somalia, and Tunisia. The coalition also includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, whose wealthy citizens have been busy funding the Islamic State.

In fact, Obama is disavowing responsibility for the Middle East disaster he engineered and blowing smoke up our collective asses.

Roger Cohen, "Turkey Haunted by Its Ghosts": Silvan and the Hypocrisy of the West

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Turkey Haunted by Its Ghosts," Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen tells us of the struggle of Turkish Kurds for autonomy and an end to intolerance and discrimination. Writing from Diyarbakır (see why I have highlighted the name of this city below) in southeast Turkey, Cohen informs us:

"The Kurdish question has boiled up again in acute form. Kurdish militias loyal to the imprisoned P.K.K. leader, Abdullah Ocalan, have taken control of a wide area of northern Syria that they call Rojava, defeating Islamic State. Kurdish pesh merga forces are fighting side by side with the United States against ISIS in Iraq. Young Kurds here in the Diyarbakir area have tried to set up autonomous areas within cities, only to be crushed. All Kurds at some level want the state denied them when the Ottoman Empire broke up. They may settle for autonomy but a dream persists.

. . . .

The emergence of Kurds as America’s Iraqi and Syrian allies against ISIS has complicated the critical Turkish-American relationship. President Obama probably needs Erdogan more than Erdogan needs him, a fact that limits American leverage. Still, renewed Turkish-Kurdish negotiation and real Turkish commitment against ISIS are paramount American interests. The impression with Erdogan has been: better a Sunni Islamist fanatic than a Kurd."

Cohen's conclusion:

"Settling the Armenian dispute and reaching a negotiated settlement with the Kurds must be central Turkish goals before the centennial in 2023 of Ataturk’s state."

Action needs to be taken by 2023, i.e. sometime within the next eight years? Remarkably, Cohen does not even mention what is currently occurring in the city of Silvan in the Diyarbakır Province of Turkey. As we learn today from a Hurriyet Daily News article entitled "Thousands of residents flee Silvan amid ongoing conflict":

"Thousands of residents sought to flee for their lives in the southeastern district of Silvan yesterday, the 10th day of a continuing military operations against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militants.

A sixth curfew since August was declared in three neighborhoods of Silvan, a town of 86,000 about 80 kilometers from Diyarbakır, on Nov. 3.

. . . .

Up to date, some 10,000 residents have fled Silvan without taking away any of their belongings, Muhittin Kan, chair of Silvan branch of the Union of Associations of Turkish Craftsmen and Artisans, told the Doğan News Agency (DHA) on Nov. 12.

'We don’t know whether they will come back because most of the houses belonging to them have been damaged,' Kan said.

'The town is under fire. Reinforcements are still being sent here. We have been scattered. Craftsmen will not be able to recover even in the next 20 years,' Kan said, noting that around 100 workplaces had been severely damaged.

. . . .

'Silvan has been besieged by thousands of soldiers, special teams and police officers accompanied by helicopters, Kirpis [armored vehicles] and tanks for the last 10 days. We don’t even know how many people lost their lives and how many people have been wounded,” [The Confederation of Public Sector Trades’ Unions] said in a written statement. 'We know from the AKP’s earlier practices where it imposed curfews that very severe human rights violations are being committed in Silvan and even lawmakers are not being let in so as to prevent these violations from being heard.'"

So why does Cohen, writing from Diyarbakır, not even mention the struggle in Silvan, now in its tenth day?

And why does the Obama administration and Europe also ignore this catastrophe? Can you begin to imagine the stink that Obama and his friends would raise if Israel were to encircle and attack a Palestinian city with helicopters, tanks and armored vehicles?

Shame on the West! The Middle East's 30 million long-oppressed Kurds deserve their independence!

Michael R. Gordon, "Kurds and U.S. Open Offensive to Cut ISIS Supply Route": Meanwhile, Erdogan Attacks the Kurds

Tweet

Michael R. Gordon of The New York Times has written an excellent article entitled "Kurds and U.S. Open Offensive to Cut ISIS Supply Route." Reporting from Iraq, Gordon begins:

"MOUNT SINJAR, Iraq — A ground offensive backed by American air power to retake the western Iraqi town of Sinjar from Islamic State fighters began early Thursday, according to a Kurdish official. The objective was to cut a major jihadist supply line between Syria and the Iraqi city of Mosul.

A statement from the security council of the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq said that up to 7,500 Kurdish pesh merga fighters were moving on 'three fronts to cordon off Sinjar City, take control of ISIL’s strategic supply routes, and establish a significant buffer zone to protect the city and its inhabitants from incoming artillery.' ISIL is an acronym for the Islamic State.

'Coalition warplanes will provide close air support to pesh merga forces throughout the operation,' the statement said."

The Middle East's 30 million Kurds are America's only true Muslim friends in the region, they are willing to fight, and its high time that the Kurds be allowed to declare their independence from Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Meanwhile, Obama's friend Erdogan continues to wage war on the Kurds in the Turkish city of Silvan. Care to comment, Mr. President, or is all your criticism reserved for Israel?

Obama, It's Time to Recognize an Independent Kurdistan

Tweet

There are some 30 million Kurds living in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, whose identity and rights were not accounted for when Britain and France carved out new Middle East nations with artificial borders after World War I. The Kurds were subsequently oppressed in all of these countries; however, they were able to achieve autonomy in Iraq following the Gulf Wars, and more recently, they have gained some measure of independence in Syria as a consequence of the chaos enveloping most of this country.

As reported by Ben Hubbard in an excellent New York Times article entitled "New U.S.-Backed Alliance to Counter ISIS in Syria Falters":

"While world attention since the Syria conflict began has focused on fighting between the forces of President Bashar al-Assad, Sunni rebels and the Islamic State, the Kurds have taken advantage of the chaos to carve out an autonomous zone.

Much of that has been done over the last year, as the Y.P.G. — the Kurdish abbreviation for the People’s Protection Units, the dominant Kurdish force in Syria — has closely coordinated with the United States and its allies to seize land from the Islamic State in a long strip along the Turkish border.

Evidence of the Kurdish group’s dominance is obvious. The militia runs ubiquitous checkpoints; photos of its 'martyrs' adorn billboards; and its fighters hold most of the more than 280-mile-long front line with the Islamic State."

Or stated otherwise, the Kurds are keeping the Islamic State in check. Iranian forces recently introduced into Syria were mauled by the Islamic State and al-Nusra while attempting to recapture Aleppo on behalf of the Assad regime.

Friendly to the US, the Kurds deserve American backing for statehood, notwithstanding Turkey's opposition. It is remarkable how the Obama administration can persistently press Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians, notwithstanding the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize Israel's right to exist, yet ignore the Kurds for fear of offending Obama's best friend Erdogan. This is a simple matter of right and wrong, and it's high time that Obama recognize the right of the Kurds to live in dignity and freedom.

Obama Places the US on a Collision Course With the Kurds

Tweet

And now we have the Obama administration begetting yet another international calamity, this time involving the Middle East's 30 million stateless Kurds, who have long befriended the United States.

In a New York Times article entitled "Turkey and U.S. Agree on Plan to Clear ISIS From Strip of Syria’s North" by Anne Barnard, Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt, we are told of a plan to clear "Islamic State militants from a 60-mile-long strip of northern Syria along the Turkish border." However, we are also informed that this plan comes at the expense of Syria's Kurds:

"In another complication, gains for such insurgents would come at the expense of Kurdish militias that are already fighting the Islamic State farther east with American air support and that have been eyeing the same territory.

. . . .

Syrian Arab insurgents would gain at the expense of the People’s Protection Units, a Kurdish militia known by the initials Y.P.G. that is seeking to take the same territory from the east. While the United States views the group as one of its best partners on the ground, Turkey sees it as a threat; it is affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a militant group whose longstanding conflict with Turkey has flared anew in recent days."

Syrian Arab insurgents would gain at the expense of the Kurds? Oh really. As noted by this article:

"[O]nly 60 Syrian insurgents having been formally vetted and trained by the United States under a Pentagon program, questions also remain about which Syrian insurgents and how many will be involved in the new operation. A larger number of rebels that American officials deem relatively moderate have been trained in a covert C.I.A. program, but on the battlefield they are often enmeshed or working in concert with more hard-line Islamist insurgents."

In fact the primary beneficiary of this operation is Syrian mass murderer Bashar al-Assad, who is allied with Iran, and who, it was recently revealed, has not destroyed all of his chemical weapons stockpiles.

Moreover, it is no coincidence that Turkey has taken advantage of this opportunity to launch renewed air strikes against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or P.K.K., which in the past has sought autonomy for Turkey's 14 million oppressed Kurds, comprising almost 20 percent of Turkey's population.

Yup, the US is again being suckered, this time by Obama's best friend, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan.

David Ignatius, "A tragic replay in Ramadi": Actually, Iraq Is No Longer a Country

Following the fall of Ramadi in Iraq's Anbar Province to Islamic State fighters notwithstanding US Brigadier General Thomas D. Weidley's declaration that "The coalition strategy, I believe, is clear and our campaign is on track," David Ignatius concludes his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "A tragic replay in Ramadi" by observing:

"The United States shouldn’t abandon its strategy: This is still Iraq’s war, not America’s. But President Obama must reassure Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi that the United States has his back — and at the same time give him a reality check. If Abadi and his Shiite allies don’t do more to empower Sunnis, his country will splinter. Ramadi is a precursor — of either a turnaround by Abadi’s forces or an Iraqi defeat."

Question for Ignatius: What is an "Iraqi defeat"? The reality is that Iraq, created by the British after the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, has always been a fiction, whose borders failed to take into account the competing interests of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Today, Iraq - like Syria - no longer exists. It has become a giant battlefield between Islamic State Sunni fighters and Iranian-backed Shiite militias, with the Kurds maintaining order in the northeast.

The Kurds? No mention in Ignatius's opinion piece of them, notwithstanding their friendly relations with the United States over the course of many decades and their past oppression by Saddam Hussein.

The some 30 million Kurds, living in Turkey and Iran and what used to be Iraq and Syria, deserve their own country; however, Obama, who does not wish to annoy Turkey or Iran, remains committed to a "united, federal and democratic Iraq."

Good luck to America's president in this quixotic pursuit of injustice.

Paul Krugman, "Errors and Lies": Saddam's Genocidal War Against the Kurds Was Also a Crime

Last Monday, Megyn Kelly asked Jeb Bush whether he would have invaded Iraq in 2003 "knowing what we know now." Jeb Bush responded in the affirmative, setting off a media firestorm and subsequent claims by Jeb that he misunderstood the question. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Errors and Lies," Paul Krugman also seizes upon this controversy and concludes:

"But truth matters, and not just because those who refuse to learn from history are doomed in some general sense to repeat it. The campaign of lies that took us into Iraq was recent enough that it’s still important to hold the guilty individuals accountable. Never mind Jeb Bush’s verbal stumbles. Think, instead, about his foreign-policy team, led by people who were directly involved in concocting a false case for war.

So let’s get the Iraq story right. Yes, from a national point of view the invasion was a mistake. But (with apologies to Talleyrand) it was worse than a mistake, it was a crime."

Again, to set the record straight: I opposed the 2003 Iraq War, inasmuch as I anticipated that it would destroy the Sunni/Shiite equilibrium in the Middle East, i.e. without Saddam in Iraq, the mullahs in Iran would run amuck. Also, even then, I was more concerned with Iran's nascent nuclear weapons development program than I was with Saddam's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

On the other hand, there is something missing from Krugman's opinion piece. As reported almost a decade ago by ABC News in an article entitled "List of Saddam's Crimes Is Long":

"Saddam Hussein was hanged for ordering the deaths of 148 Shiite men and boys in the village of Dujail after an assassination attempt there in 1982. But by the standards of his brutal rule, the Dujail killings were a relatively minor crime.

The exact number of deaths attributable to Saddam Hussein may never be known, but estimates range as high as half a million. There is evidence of more than 250 mass graves dating to his rule."

The ABC News article proceeds to list the genocidal crimes committed by Saddam against Iraq's Kurds and Shiites, including the use of chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians during the 1988 Al-Anfal Campaign.

Or stated otherwise, Saddam was a monster, who deserved to die. However, as proven by subsequent events, e.g., the rise of ISIL, and the inability of Sunni and Shiite Muslims to live together in peace, Saddam's execution did nothing to end the never ending cycle of savagery in a monstrous Muslim Middle East.

Yes, George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq was a grotesque mistake. However, if Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds could have thereafter lived together in a model of democracy and tolerance - something that I did not believe was possible and still do not believe is possible - maybe, just maybe, the war might today be viewed differently.

Saudi King Salman Refuses Obama's Invitation to Camp David Summit: A Slap in the Face for Obama

President Obama invited leaders of the Arab Persian Gulf countries to a Camp David summit on Thursday in order to "sell" them the nuclear deal that he is fashioning with Iran. There has been much speculation concerning the military hardware that Obama is preparing to transfer to these countries in order to allay their anxiety over the arrangement with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei. However, as reported by Helene Cooper in a lead New York Times article entitled "Saudi Arabia Says King Won’t Attend Meetings in U.S.":

"Saudi Arabia announced on Sunday that its new monarch, King Salman, would not be attending meetings at the White House with President Obama or a summit gathering at Camp David this week, in an apparent signal of its continued displeasure with the administration over United States relations with Iran, its rising regional adversary.

As recently as Friday, the White House said that King Salman would be coming to 'resume consultations on a wide range of regional and bilateral issues,' according to Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman."

An "apparent signal" of Saudi displeasure? Make that a slap in the face for Obama.

Meanwhile, as Obama continues to insist upon reaching agreement with Iran by June 30, regardless of the concession that he will be forced to make, Iran's Fars News Agency is reporting that "US and French warships and military aircraft changed their direction in the Gulf of Aden on Saturday night after being warned by an Iranian flotilla to keep distant."

In addition, as reported by The Times of Israel in an article entitled "Iran Kurds riot after foul play suspected in woman’s death":

"Iranian Kurds rioted in the city of Mahabad last week after a 25-year-old woman fell to her death in an incident in which foul play was suspected. In the ensuing skirmishes, police killed at least two demonstrators, Kurdish media reported.

The demonstrations were held Thursday after Farinaz Khosravani, 25, a chambermaid in the city’s Tara Hotel, fell to her death Monday from the fourth floor of the hotel. Unconfirmed reports indicated that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps soldier reportedly threatened or attempted to rape her, according to Kurdish media accounts quoted in the Israeli press.

. . . .

A Channel 2 report called the outbreak of violent demonstrations a 'Kurdish intifada' and posited that the protests might break out into a 'Kurdish Spring' akin to the Arab Spring which began after a Tunisian man lit himself on fire in 2011."

What does the Obama administration have to say about the rioting and Iranian oppression of its Kurdish minority? Nothing. It could stand in the way of the nuclear deal with Khamenei and Obama's legacy.

In a nutshell, American prestige and influence in the Middle East have reached a nadir.

Washington Post Editorial, "U.S. is complicit as it blames Turkey for the catastrophe in Kobane": Remember Kobani!

As the Islamic State brings up reinforcements and the fate of the Kurdish city of Kobani hangs in the balance, where are President Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry?

Two days ago, Obama attended a Democratic fundraiser in Hollywood. As reported in a TMZ article entitled "Gwyneth Paltrow Celebrity Event Sullies Presidency":

"The idiocy of Hollywood was in full bloom Thursday night when Gwyneth Paltrow turned an already-embarrassing Hollywood fundraiser into 'The Dating Game.'

Paltrow -- who hosted the event at her Brentwood home -- gushed as she introduced President Obama, 'You're so handsome that I can't speak properly.'

She then showed utter ignorance about, and contempt for, the Constitution and separation of powers -- the basic tenets of our government -- by saying, 'It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.'"

And Kerry? He is jetting off tonight to an equally embarrassing fundraiser for Gaza in Cairo.

Is anyone paying attention to the antics of Obama and Kerry? Apparently, The Washington Post is awakening from its slumber. In a blistering editorial entitled "U.S. is complicit as it blames Turkey for the catastrophe in Kobane," WaPo hammers the Obama administration for effectively aiding Syria's monstrous Assad regime while worsening "conditions for his victims in towns held by moderate rebels who, in theory, enjoy U.S. backing." Lambasting Obama's "strategy" (Does he have one?) as "incoherent as well as morally questionable," the editorial says of an emerging catastrophe in Kobani:

"But the White House seems as uninterested as ever in truly helping the moderates. Easier just to blame the Turks."

Remember the Alamo? Perhaps on November 4, American voters will remember Kobani.

Kerry Doesn't Care If Kobani Falls

As reported in a New York Times article entitled "ISIS Advances in Syrian Border Town of Kobani Despite Airstrikes" by Karam Shoumali and Anne Barnard:

"Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that preventing the town’s fall to Islamic State militants was not a strategic objective for the United States.

'As horrific as it is to watch in real time what is happening in Kobani,' Mr. Kerry said at a news conference with the British foreign secretary in Washington, 'you have to step back and understand the strategic objective.' He added that the focus had been on the militants’ 'command and control centers, the infrastructure.'"

Attack the command and control centers of the Islamic State? Sorry, John, but they're a figment of your imagination.

On the other hand, it is well worth the effort to assist the Kurds (who have always been friendly to the US), prevent a massacre of civilians, and stem the panic being spread by marauding ISIS forces.

Kobani Will Soon Fall to ISIS: Where Is Obama's Coalition?

The Syrian city of Kobani, also known as Ayn al-Arab, will soon fall to the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. Kobani, which is located on Syria's northern border with Turkey, is being defended by Kurdish militiamen. The Kurds are outgunned by ISIS, which is using tanks to storm the city and whose forces have night vision equipment. As reported in a CNN article entitled "ISIS enters Kobani, city's defenders see 'last chance to leave,' sources say" by Ralph Ellis:

"ISIS moved closer to seizing Kobani on Sunday as militants entered the southeastern edge of the Syrian city and street-to-street fighting began, a fighter and a media activist inside the city told CNN.

The city's defenders were looking for ways to escape the Kurdish stronghold strategically located near the Turkish border, the fighter said.

. . . .

ISIS is making inroads despite airstrikes by U.S. and allied forces, including Sunday's strikes on the eastern outskirts of the city."

U.S. airstrikes on the outskirts of Kobani? If airstrikes on ISIS forces were coordinated with Kobani's Kurdish defenders, ISIS would be routed, but this is not happening, and the reason is simple.

Turkey, which has yet to join the U.S. coalition, is concerned by the establishment of a future homeland for the Middle East's 30 million Kurds living in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. According to the CIA Factbook, some 18 percent of Turkey's population consists of Kurds, and Turkey does not want assistance to be given to Kurdish forces battling ISIS. As reported in a Newsweek article entitled "Has Turkey Joined the Anti-ISIS Coalition to Counter the Kurds?" by Benny Avni:

"While President Barack Obama announced his intention to 'degrade and ultimately destroy' ISIS, the Turkish authorities continued to allow Islamists from the rest of the world to freely cross the Turkish border to join forces with ISIS in Syria and Iraq. And the Turkish authorities seemed happy to turn a blind eye as oil from areas captured by ISIS was smuggled through Turkey to be sold for hard cash to fund their reign of terror.

. . . .

When ISIS recently bombarded the Kurdish city of Kobani, just across the Turkish border in Syria, the Turkish army appeared in no hurry to intervene. Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Turkey would do 'whatever we can' to help Kobani, but Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz quickly quashed Kurdish hopes that the army would cross the Syrian border anytime soon, telling reporters after the vote in parliament that it would be wrong to expect 'imminent' military action by Turkish forces."

Yesterday, US Vice President Biden was forced to apologize to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan after declaring last week at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University:

"President Erdogan told me, he's an old friend, said, 'You were right. We let too many people [foreigners joining ISIS] through.'"

Claiming that he never said any such thing, Erdogan demanded an immediate apology from Biden, or otherwise he will be "history for me."

Poor Joe! When will he ever learn to stop telling the truth?

Charles Krauthammer, "Our real Syria strategy — containment-plus": No Mention of Syria's Kurds

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Our real Syria strategy — containment-plus," Charles Krauthammer praises Obama's strategy against ISIS and then declares:

"The strategy will not destroy the Islamic State. It’s more containment-plus: Expel the Islamic State from Iraq, contain it in Syria. Because you can’t win from the air. In Iraq, we have potential ground allies. In Syria, we don’t."

I have enormous respect for Charles Krauthammer; however, here he is mistaken.

Syria's Kurds comprise some ten percent of the country's population, and long persecuted by the Assad regime, they would be natural American allies on the ground. However, so as not to annoy Turkey, which has been reluctant to join Obama's coalition of the unwilling, the Obama administration is doing almost nothing to assist Syria's Kurdish minority from the ISIS onslaught.

Currently, Syrian Kurds in the strategic town of Kobane on the Turkish border are desperately attempting to repel an ISIS attack. Support from the Obama coalition? There have been air strikes some twenty miles away, but they have done nothing to dislodge Islamic State forces which are besieging the town.

Ultimately, the Middle East's 30 million stateless Kurds, living in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, will have their own country. When will America wise up to this fact? Certainly no time soon, notwithstanding the longstanding friendly relationship between the Kurds in northern Iraq and the American military.

Ross Douthat, "Grand Illusion in Syria": Or Grand Illusion in Obama's White House?

Why can't America's message to ISIS be simple: "If you threaten me or murder my citizens in cold blood, I'm going to destroy you!" The mission should not entail building a risible coalition of antipathetic allies or creating a credible Arab army intended to go toe-to-toe with the Islamic State's monsters on the ground. Meanwhile, however, ISIS is hearing a different message: "If you threaten me or murder my citizens in cold blood, I am going to slowly round up some reluctant friends, but meanwhile, pardon me as I play another round of golf."

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Grand Illusion in Syria," Ross Douthat declares:

"Either the American military will have to intervene in force (including with substantial ground troops) or we’ll have to ally, in a very un-American display of machtpolitik, with Bashar al-Assad. Both options may have supporters within the Republican Party. Many hawks seem ready to send in ground forces, and John McCain has explicitly argued that we should be willing to go to war with both Assad and the Islamists at once. From Rand Paul, meanwhile, you hear what sounds like a version of the ally-with-Assad approach, albeit couched in somewhat ambiguous terms.

The White House would clearly prefer not to choose either path, either escalation. But its current approach seems likely to drift more in McCain’s direction, with a gradual ramping-up (today bombing, tomorrow special forces, the next day ... ?) in Syria that makes a clash with Assad and a multifront war steadily more plausible."

Rubbish! First, America already has friends on the ground willing to fight ISIS: some 30 million stateless Kurds, living in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey. If the US was to assist the Kurds with coordinated air strikes, they would set the forces of ISIS reeling. On the other hand, this would be sure to displease Turkey, whose persecuted Kurdish minority (some 25 percent of Turkey's population) has long been seeking some measure of autonomy. In addition, the Turks apparently have a tacit agreement in place with ISIS, which enabled Ankara to obtain the release on Saturday of 49 Turkish hostages without a single beheading.

The White House is "likely to drift more in McCain's direction," or as Douthat describes it, toward "war with both Assad and the Islamists at once"? If so, why did John (Assad is "my dear friend") Kerry declare on Friday, "There is a role for nearly every country in the world to play, including Iran"? Think about it: This is the same Iran that has sent arms and Revolutionary Guard fighters to support Assad. This is the same Iran (together with Syria and Hezbollah) that was responsible for the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and injured another 250. This is the same Iran that hangs homosexuals, stones to death women, and persecutes Kurds, Baha'is, Sunnis and Christians.

Iran is the partner that the Obama administration so desperately wants in its coalition? Unfortunately for Kerry, Iran's purportedly "moderate" president, Hassan Rouhani, has denounced the coalition as "ridiculous."

America's president still doesn't have a strategy to combat ISIS, and he appears willing to do anything, no matter how detached from reality or devoid of substance, to boost his approval ratings.

January 20, 2017 cannot come soon enough for Obama.