Ignoring the cost of arming PKK
At a time when most regional players are moving to safeguard their interests considering them to be the most important, certain external forces are operating in the region with the sole intent of safeguarding their own strategic interests.
Anybody with a little political sense can see an ongoing showdown between different regional powers but the emerging scenario is being portrayed as “efforts to calm the current unrest.”
In the meantime, the “Middle East Project” designed in 2006 — aimed at a big but fragmented Middle East — is coming into effect and is playing a key role in the current hubbub.
Iraq is a key part of that project. A few moons ago, the military force of the Kurdish federation (also known as Peshmerga) had emerged as a reliable partner to Baghdad, the neighboring countries and the United States in their fight against the growing threat of extremists.
However, with the horrifying increase in the influence of the self-ascribed Islamic State (IS), the trust in Peshmerga has started to wane.
It is no longer seen as a force to reckon with — an army of heroic soldiers protecting people from harm — and the Kurdish region has lost its image as an impregnable region. Groups representing the IS took the world by surprise and marched into this once “unconquerable” area with much ease.
Didn’t the US action surprise anybody? Let us bring an important point to the notice of our readers. Observers may recall that the US did not want to get involved into the “Iraq quagmire” even after the capture of Mosul and at a time when the IS troops had begun marching toward Baghdad. It was only when the IS targeted the Kurdish region that Washington swung into action.
Why? The answer to this query is: The Kurdish region in Iraq is an important part of the Great Kurdistan project officially planned in 2006.
Declaring the “failure” of Peshmerga” against the advancing troops of the IS, was nothing but an excuse to get the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) involved. The idea of a “union of the Kurds” coined by the US “to fight the IS, required a sort of alliance between the PKK and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), the party of the Kurdish administration.
Subsequently, the US and European countries came up with the idea of arming the PKK. It was a major shift as these same powers had declared the PKK a terrorist group.
Furthermore to sugarcoat this twisted scenario, some columnists offered justifications. They mentioned that the solution in Iraq depended on the PKK, and that as a group “that was used to fighting,” PKK could prove to be successful against the IS. For some reason though, nobody wants to mention the fact that this group “that is used to fighting” is a terrorist organization that has ambushed Turkish soldiers for decades in Turkey.
Denmark’s Berlingske newspaper made these intentions very clear with its headlines, “It is no longer in fashion to label PKK as terrorists” and claimed that Council of European Parliamentary Assembly as well as the parliaments of the European countries wanted to remove PKK from the list of terrorist organizations. It seems that some circles are testing the waters and making a deliberate effort to convince the world that PKK should be removed from the terrorists list. It would not be surprising if most of these people who are championing this idea are communists or belong to the left side of the political spectrum.
This effort to convince the world into accepting the idea of “good” PKK against an “evil” IS with skilled political maneuvers is in full throttle at the moment. Even in Turkey there are some columnists who are trying to make this scenario look plausible. Some sincerely believe that the PKK being armed by Europe and the US would be a step toward halting the advance of IS, while others advocate the idea only to serve the cunning purposes of the PKK, without thinking about the costs.
Let’s just briefly explain what it will cost: PKK is a terrorist organization that has been fighting the Turkish army for the past 30 years. It hasn’t succeeded but managed to continue its terrorism through ambushes. It operated as a guerrilla force with no rules, operating in stealth and striking cowardly.
However, the PKK is not going to be facing a regular army in Iraq. IS is just as ruthless as the PKK. They backstab, strike covertly, and they don’t follow any rules of warfare. Additionally they have no limits with regard to violence, they don’t fear death and they don’t hesitate to adhere to all sorts of violent tactics. Therefore, it is very deceptive to show PKK as a force to counter the IS.
Arming violence-loving Stalinists and hoping that they will stop violence-loving radicals, is a logical dead end and only amounts to choosing a different path to death. The Great Kurdistan Project designed during the term of Condoleezza Rice in the US, is aimed to make the US stronger in the Middle East. It is a known fact that plans to divide the Middle East first emerged as a plan for “peace.” In that regard, it would not be appropriate to squarely put the blame on the US for these plans.
It is a very serious matter that the US and Europe are seeking to arm the PKK. There is the risk that these weapons might soon be turned against the Turkish soldiers, and might give rise to bigger conflicts in the region. The idea of founding the Great Kurdistan using the PKK, will eventually lead to the birth of a North Korea in the region. The US shouldn’t ignore the communist threat that it fought for decades, while trying to eliminate radicalism. Otherwise, communism will turn into a bigger threat with the passage of time. The communists will try to take on Europe first then move on to the US. The “Great Kurdistan,” which was planned to be an important ally in the Middle East, will rise as a regional, communist power and turn into an archenemy of the western powers. This will bring the destruction of not the Middle East alone but the whole world.
Today, when governments arm terrorist organizations, the US and Europe shouldn’t forget the reason behind the nightmare the world experiences today. It is nothing but the use of more weapons. They should prefer an ideological struggle to a physical one. And to do that, they should remember that there are reasonable people in the Middle East that they can cooperate with.
The writer has authored more than 300 books translated into 73 languages on politics, religion and science.
He tweets @harun_yahya
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point of view