One administration’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Just ask the PKK.
The militant Kurdish independence group, known formally as the Kurdistan Workers Party, suffered strikes from Turkish fighter jets against its positions in southeastern Turkey — even as PKK-linked forces battle Islamic State militants in and around the Syrian town of Kobani.
Turkey, whose conflict with the PKK stretches back three decades, was reportedly retaliating after shells struck a Turkish military base. Deadly riots have also broken out recently in Kurdish areas of Turkey, fueled by perceptions that the Turkish government has been colluding to undermine Kurdish factions fighting in Syria.
The PKK is officially designated as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) by the United States. As reported previously by The Intercept, the NSA under both the Bush and Obama Administrations actively aided the Turkish military in targeting this group and has provided intelligence used to kill its members.
However, in yet another ironic twist to U.S. foreign policy in the region, this ostensible terrorist organization is now an important American partner in halting the expansion of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. The PKK today in part represent the “boots on the ground” in Syria that many observers have said are necessary to any serious campaign to reverse the spread of this group. In other words, the Bush administration’s terrorist group has become the Obama administration’s freedom fighters.
Despite this, and despite facing a shared danger from ISIS, the PKK and Turkey have not been able to put aside their differences. Indeed, their conflict appears to be escalating to new heights. These airstrikes represent the first major Turkish military action against the PKK in two years and are likely to generate further reprisals.
Though hugely counterproductive to containing ISIS, the Turkish strikes neatly illustrate how contradictory and incomprehensible American policy in the Middle East is right now. The United States would surely prefer that Turkey not bomb the PKK right now, but how can it object to attacking a group that the U.S. itself designates as a terrorist organization?
It would likewise be hard for the U.S. to publicly protect other key entities willing and able to fight ISIS, including Al-Qaeda-connected militants like Jabhat al-Nusra, paramilitary groups such as Hezbollah, or countries such as Iran, which is both the the only state to show a commitment to fighting ISIS on the ground and an official state sponsor of terrorism in the eyes of the U.S. State Department.
The U.S. has shown no real resolve in turning such groups into a real anti-ISIS coalition. Whatever American politicians may say in public, official U.S. policy toward the conflict in Syria largely amounts to “everyone’s a terrorist”. Recent American airstrikes reached beyond ISIS targets to other extremist groups, helping to unite against the U.S. various factions that had beforehand been at odds.
The people on the ground fighting ISIS today in Kobani are the same ones whose comrades were recently being described as terrorists and killed with the direct assistance of the NSA. Turkey’s airstrikes yesterday are simply a continuation of these policies, and the natural result of such designations. If the United States is serious about combating ISIS, it needs to look past its dated and counterproductive FTO list and start reevaluating who its real enemies are today.
Photo: Burak Kara/Getty Images
“the United States … needs to … start reevaluating who its real enemies are…”
That’s easy. It’s the US government.
The media is getting this all wrong. Terrorism is the new international pass-time like football. It’s our team, Team America, vs. the Terrorists World International Team (TWIT). It’s a great sport and a Blood Sport. Just like the Romans used to have and for pretty much the same reasons.
BTW, has anyone seen the latest beheading videos?
I can’t find them on RubeTube™.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIPljGWGNt4
You sir, sound like a complete freak.
“The people on the ground fighting ISIS today in Kobani are the same ones whose comrades were recently being described as terrorists and killed with the direct assistance of the NSA.”
Or, to put it another way: America’s WOT is completely incoherent. It demonstrates not a single quantum of logical content. None. Zilch. Nada. It’s like Ionesco wrote the script to an absurdist war drama: pretty soon, the logical dissonance will be so profound that the US military will be fighting itself – and Americans will be told by the President that we are simultaneously winning and losing.
Osama bin Laden might’ve been shot dead, but I fear he got the better part of the deal.
The question naturally poses itself: why should American citizens be interested in other people’s nations, ethnic groups, or cultures? I mean, we’re all here in the United States of America. Obviously there’s no point in studying these things as our leaders have all adopted a “live and let live” philosophy. It’s not like our leaders have decided that there’s opportunities to exploit markets and acted in concert with our government to declare war on these nations. How heartless do you think those trustworthy folks at the top are? Don’t you think they got there for a reason? So while you delusionally think we should care about these Kurdish people from some far-off foreign land, I’ll be busy living my own life, thank you very much!
You see, the point I was getting at is this. If what all of these people are saying is true, that “the United States declared war on Iraq”, then I suppose I would take into consideration these Kurdish people. Because of the simple fact that we, as citizens of the United States of America, would have to take responsibility for the consequences of this war because of a thing called conscience. After all, if Iraq deserved to have a war declared on it, then clearly our government found that there was a very reasonable justification for it. This would logically lead one to conclude that we would have representatives in Congress that could be held accountable by their citizens to have an answer for why we decided to declare war on an entire nation. Because of the fact that if anything happened during this war that went astray of our principles as a nation, such as something understood as universally criminal by nearly everyone on the planet (like a war crime), that might make the people of the nation we declared war on develop a justifiable resentment over time for the war itself. If this resentment is never taken into account and only disregarded like something trivial, then that could lead to a consequence of being considered dishonorable for making this decision to declare a war and not accepting the full consequence. This leads back to the statement “actions have consequences”, and I don’t think you have to be brilliant to understand that.
We need to reassess who our enemies are? It has become apparent to many that, to the US regime, any person, group, or nation that opposes US domination of the globe is considered “our” enemy. When “our” leaders stepped off that foundation of morality, or common decency, or just plain knowing right from wrong then anyone who espouses those principles becomes the enemy. I don’t see a way back without a complete change of leadership from the top down or bottom up, whichever. So I guess that makes me an enemy.
What the writer and most of the readers are failing to see is that ISIS and similar groups did not pop out of thin air.
They were created and funded for a purpose.
In Syria the intention is to ensure chaos never ends. All the groups are created with enough hatred for each other that thy will never unite, therefore guaranteeing perpetual infighting. Look at Libya for a successfully working blueprint.
As to Iraq, the intention is clear but is somehow being missed. Iraq was stabilizing until they rejected the U.S. base. The intention is to bring complete capitulation of the Iraqi government and leave them with no option but to have the U.S. base if they hope to survive as a single country.
Afghanistan has seen the possibilities by just looking at Iraq. Afghanistan will sign the base.
And the cycle will continue.
Soon we will be discussing the same atrocities but it will be Africa on the cross hair.
Actually there is a lot of consistency in the USA policy … if you consider the Pentagon is populated with Christian extremist Islamophobes who believe in literal Armageddon. Let’s not forget the NSA is under the Pentagon’s authority and leadership, and the CIA Special Activities Division is practically married to the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command, all documented by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation to be a Pat Robertson-Billy Graham dream team of personalities who’ll open the door to Jesus return if enough blood is spilled in the Middle East. Yeah they actually believe that shit and have access to the most lethal arsenal in the world.
The best (cynical) laugh in this scenario is, the dinosaurs like Erdogan not realizing he is being ‘played’ by people who actually cheer every time Muslims are suckered into killing Muslims. Change a few descriptive words in the narrative, for instance the ‘Christian State’ and associated terror groups Assemblies of God, Family Research Council, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Opus Dei … and you have a mentality little different to al Nusra and Islamic State.
Of course ‘denial’ is not merely a professional geopolitical tool in this scenario, but a social/cultural phenomena in a circumstance that:
“tallies well with what Saree Makdisi, talking about the Israeli refusal to acknowledge the Nakba, has termed ‘the denial of denial’, which is, he says, ‘a form of foreclosure that produces the inability – the absolutely honest, sincere incapacity – to acknowledge that denial and erasure have themselves been erased in turn and purged from consciousness.’ What has been denied is continuously repeated” (Eyal Wiezman quote.)
Does the Christian shaped culture’s many readers here think Jesus was talking non-sense when he stated “You hypocrite! First pull the log from your own eye, so you may see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” And don’t expect I am referring solely to conservative commentators, liberals and even atheists can be counted among the offenders when it comes to policy generating terror, for which the USA is largely, if not entirely, responsible.
Any chance at sanity would appear to have been missed opportunity to create and restrict xenophobic, conservative dinosaurs to nature reserves…
http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/10/09/liberals/
… and this failure is the responsibility of liberals if only because the reality indicates satire is the only avenue to reach an understanding of what’s actually happening.
There was a recent letter to the Daily Mail by Aubrey Bailey which was circulated on Twitter and helps explain everything.
Funny, thnx
Perfectly clear!
This explains everything!
Let’s not forget that Al Queda and the Taliban are offshoots of the Mujahaadin whom we supported before because they were fighting the USSR, a US enemy. But they fell apart so aren’t our enemy anymore. Wait, are they or aren’t they? If we wait long enough our enemies will be our friends and vice versa.
The broad category of “terror organization” does not do justice to those organizations. While they have chosen wrong means, the cause of the kurds is just. They are on the unlucky side of history, living sprawled over 4 countries which all reject their autonomy. But the YPG has started experiments with direct democracy and progressive ideas, they are clearly the best partners the west has down there. The reason they are still terrorists lies in Ankara. And it seems the west is agins ready to sell the kurds out. turkey sends boots on the ground and gets northern Syria Kurdistan as a price.. History will judge us.
USA will bobm anyone, anywhere for $
We, USA, will bomb anyone as long as we make a little $. We bet on both fighters of the bout.
This war led by the American-led Nato countries and the oil rich extremist Persian Gulf monarchies is getting messier — bloodier — and more complex by the day, especially when including the Libyan civil war that could easily spread to Egypt.
The end result will likely be major Islamic State suicide and guerilla attacks on oil fields, refineries and export terminals, and even the Suez Canal, that will cripple oil exports to Europe and Asia and result in a severe global economic recession that includes America — a recession that that could quickly expand into a global depression that will also claim the United States economy but will likely leave an economically weaken nuclear-armed and oil and gas rich Russia reasonably strong compared to the rest — much to the chagrin of America and Nato countries, including Turkey that will, when the economic fan hits the poop, crumble into sectarian civil war.
It is unfortunate the United Nations which was designed to prevent such folly is failing as miserably as its League of Nations predecessor — a failure that resulted in the Second World War.
The League of Nations was an intergovernmental organisation founded on 10 January 1920 as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War, says Wiki. It was the first international organisation whose principal mission was to maintain world peace.
Its primary goals, as stated in its Covenant, included preventing wars through collective security and disarmament and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration, according to Wiki. Other issues in this and related treaties included labour conditions, just treatment of native inhabitants, human and drug trafficking, arms trade, global health, prisoners of war, and protection of minorities in Europe. At its greatest extent from 28 September 1934 to 23 February 1935, it had 58 members.
Do not confuse the PKK with the people who identify as kurdish.
The reason the PKK is considered to be a terrorist organization by the various corrupt governments and ISIS is because the PKK does not claim any religion. The PKK wants democratic socialism or something similar and THAT is terrorism to most of the predators involved in this bloodbath.
The notion that there is any irony here is false. For there to be anything ironic about this atrocity, there would have to be some indication that this atrocity is at odds with the intentions of the US.
It is not.
The US Corporate State doesn’t mind slaughter. It is just part of the Capitalist religion and a great moneymaker for the high priests.
It will take two weeks for Ebolavirus to cure Isismenace. Send Anjem Chudhury to Liberia and he will accomplish what Obama can never hope to do.
We have lots of nukes to use, and now is the correct time. First two targets should be Ankara and Riyadh, the rest will fall in line.
Let us hope the launch codes are not still 0000. Will somebody please whack the General in the head with a length of API Specification 5L pipe.
Mr. Hussain
Good article.
“……However, in yet another ironic twist to U.S. foreign policy in the region, this ostensible terrorist organization is now an important American partner in halting the expansion of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS……Though hugely counterproductive to containing ISIS, the Turkish strikes neatly illustrate how contradictory and incomprehensible American policy in the Middle East is right now…..”
I don’t think there is any doubt that US policy is out of whack, but the whole Middle East is in turmoil at the moment because of the Arab Spring; Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian support for the terrorist Assad; and the ISIS filling the power vacuum in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, one really has to question the timing of the shelling of Turkish bases by the PKK. Did they expect that the US was going to abandon a NATO member? As far as the PKK and Turkey go, the US is caught in the middle of a long running war and must work with both to defeat the ISIS in Syria – especially since there will be no US troops on the ground. In addition, the US has continued to help the Kurds in Iraq who are a true US ally and who surely must support (or maintain ties with) the PKK.
Why the US has chosen to bomb the ISIS in Syria speaks volumes about a mixed up US policy in the Middle East. The US rightfully supports regime change in Syria – so why bomb the most effective resistance to the brutal Assad regime? There can be no political settlement in Syria where Assad remains in power. Bombing the ISIS in Syria only helps Assad stabilize his power. The Syrian rebels oppose US bombing of ISIS simply because they understand this dynamic. The biggest foreign policy setback of the Obama administration is his failed policies in Syria which have shown weakness, indecision and contradictory policies toward the biggest terrorist in the Middle East today – Assad. Obama has become a nightmare in the highest office in America.
The big dilemma here is that, those fellows are all the same. Spreading terror all the time, none has any shame.
I agree Assad is the most egregious party in this conflict today. And despite their denials they are certainly helping Assad by going to war not against him but his most effective enemy.
‘Shock & Awesome..’
With all due respect, what is your ‘promotion’ of war w/ Syria based on? His..
A) Dictatorship?
B) Civil War?
C) Gassing Citizens?
D) Other?
E) All of the Above?
You’ve made this ‘claim’ in a past article, but have yet to validate said opinion w/ substantive proof. Now, I know “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom-cloud” (.. this time), but it is in my humble opinion that humanity deserves better than the propagandized rhetoric currently being offered as a basis for war.
Safe Travels..
With all due respect, have you really learned NOTHING from our imperialist adventures of the last 14 years?
I
Your title implies that the US actually has a formal policy. Could have fooled me!
Thanks for the analysis
I see no irony at all. The US is trying to save the lives of the people remaining in the town. Plus clearing it of IS so the 160,000 or so people can return to their homes in and around the town without walking into death, and a horrible death at the hands of these murderous maniacs it would be. It’s the people I am talking about, real people, not theory of what is happening in the minds of Posters here who don’t think they are important other than as inanimate stick figures used to illustrate yet another twisted view of the Middle East and how bad the US is and all the other blather. Since being, once again, the first ones to step up and take action, not to create a solution to the problems of the whole Region but to actually save lives the US looks pretty Noble to me. Deserves praise for a good and humane campaign.
The recent dip in oil prices is Saudi Arabia’s way of blackmailing us into complying with their desire to leave ISIS alone so they can occupy Iraq and Syria. Under the circumstances, Putin and not Obama can do something to get the Saudis rein in the ISIS clowns. We, under the great leadership of Commanders-in-Chief Bush and Obama, have lost all moral authority to adjudicate on this matter.
I don’t think that’s the irony necessarily. The irony is that the U.S. is unable to hew to its own FTO list, because the idea of having an FTO list is flawed and unnecessary.
So, you believe it is unnecessary to place ISIL on a list of extremely dangerous organizations?
Ok, you have a taken a position. Bravo. But, if you truly believe that America is wise to take up arms against IS because it threatens the innocents in its immediate vicinity (and/or because it is a threat to “the homeland”), then at least have the guts to take the idea to its logical conclusion – namely, that if IS is such a “clear and present danger” to all rational people, we should raise an army (i.e., have a draft) and put 2-3 million soldiers on the ground in the ME to “keep the peace.” Because, I submit, that the current “half measures” are doing nothing but making matters worse.
And the criticism that most critics of the US WOT in particular (and/or US foreign policy in general) are motivated by ideological bias or spite against the US is stale.
“…all rational people, we should raise an army (i.e., have a draft) and put 2-3 million soldiers on the ground in the ME to “keep the peace.”
Well, your idea is not realistic and rationale at all.
1)The US or any other country cannot provide this amount of troops if the Iraqis themselves are dropping their weapons and running away. The British, the Russians did fight the NAZIS in WWII.
2) Iraq is a majority Shia country. This is not Normandy, France in 1944. Most of them will never accept Sunni troops on their soil and most of them view Christians as infidels.
3) How would you convince the people in democratic countries in Europe or in America that they need to send this amount of troops in the ME? Countries run by dictators such as SA or Iran do not need approval from their people. However, Saudi troops in Iraq would enrage the Shia majority and Iranians troops in Iraq would enrage the Sunni tribes.
“the current “half measures” are doing nothing but making matters worse”
Are you really serious? How worse could it be? ISIL is enslaving women, killing prisoners for YouTube viewers, massacring Shias and non Muslims, driving out thousands of refugees away from their homes. All these crimes are done openly and proudly. You cannot really believe as a civilized individual that helping the Kurds taking over more than twenty villages from ISIL and preventing ISIL from taking over Kobane is “making matters worse”.
Guess you cannot win them all!
Cindy, please do elaborate. To spare you from having to defend an indefensibly broad position across the history of the U.S., how about we stick to the subject of the Islamic State. How about you start by breaking down what is arbitrary about the U.S.’ efforts against IS and its interactions with ME stakeholders, and then clarify how the U.S.’ policy decisions RE: IS in Syria and Iraq are indeed not complex. Good luck!
Oh, now it’s ‘complex’!!! The word complex is not the same as the word complicated, just so you know. Think twice before conflating the two.
I shall elaborate only on one thing, that you certainly don’t understand (or don’t want to understand) how arbitrary US foreign policy is if you genuinely and innocently really think US foreign policy in the Middle East is all about “efforts” against terrorists.
Don’t play dumb with me. At least, not so convincingly, please.
dictionary.com seemingly disagrees (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complicated) but SURELY you are in the right. I will play along: acknowledging that I actually meant “complicated” instead of complex, will you now elaborate!?
As to your second comment, responding with the ol ‘you don’t understand nothing!!’ retort and then lofting a strawman my way doesn’t really qualify as an elaboration. It’s just an elementary tactic to avoid discussion. After all, did I ever say or imply that U.S. policy is “all about ‘efforts’ against the terrorists”? (the answer is: “no.” And if I had, wouldn’t that be a rather simple, non-complicated viewpoint!?)
What it does tell me is that you cannot even begin to support your assertions. Cindy, your tactics here are unbecoming of an otherwise decent commenter.
You said “the U.S.’ efforts against IS and its interactions with ME stakeholders,” and, you meant by that:
US foreign policy. (rim shot)
Now, I said “I shall elaborate only on one thing, that you certainly don’t understand (or don’t want to understand) how arbitrary US foreign policy is if you genuinely and innocently really think US foreign policy in the Middle East is all about “efforts” against terrorists.”
So you are saying your phrase “and its {presumably the US’} interactions with ME stakeholders,” – which you added to the anti-terrorism part(“efforts against IS”) precludes you from being defined as someone reducing US foreign policy as “‘efforts’ against terrorists,” when it is clear to any objective observer that US support for the oppressors of the region, and US intervention on a scale that makes Pakistani children fear the blue sky (as it then might contain a drone), your qualifying statement leaves much to be desired.
And to think, all the time my major point was that your pathetic word “efforts” as an approach against the “enemy” summarizes the anemic nature of “fighting” a threat that looks suspiciously and endlessly useful to the arms industry and other interests.
Cindy, if you cannot back your assertions, just say it. Your rambling response isn’t conducive to further discussion.
As for your linguistics lesson, pardon my yawn. Again, it adds nothing but filler to an already boring conversation. Take it up with dictionary.com.
What didn’t you get? I pointed out your claim of US foreign policy being ‘complicated’ and not arbitrary is wrong.
I think this is all “backed” by what the US does, not what it “says.” (Certainly not by what you say.)
As for the dictionary, of course words are used to describe other words, since there is no alternative, but one has to see which synonyms are immediate and which are remote to get at the essence of each. And the simplest of dictionaries is not going to reveal the nuance and connotation of each word as well as the more comprehensive ones.
And at the risk of seeming pedantic, the word ‘complicated’ connotes a difficulty of operating (“byzantine”) beyond that of ‘complex.’ It is a point of nuance and poetry, I admit, but the words indicate certain emphases, and I’m convinced you reduced ‘complicated’ to ‘complex’ with the (perhaps subconscious) intention of reducing the impact of the laughable perception that only ‘those in the know’ could penetrate the sprawling inscrutability of the subject matter (foreign policy) – a perception to which I’d drawn attention.
Can you answer a simple question? (Not to me, you are unable to do that, but to the readers). Is it wrong for the US to bomb ISIL? I hope it is not a complicated, complex, sophisticated….question that requires experts in the English language to provide their opinion.
“……And at the risk of seeming pedantic, the word ‘complicated’ connotes a difficulty of operating (“byzantine”) beyond that of ‘complex.’ It is a point of nuance and poetry, I admit, but the words indicate certain emphases, and I’m convinced you reduced ‘complicated’ to ‘complex’ with the (perhaps subconscious) intention of reducing the impact of the laughable perception that only ‘those in the know’ could penetrate the sprawling inscrutability of the subject matter (foreign policy) – a perception to which I’d drawn attention……”
In over your head Cindy?
Perhaps just a little over yours, Craig. The importance of connotation and nuance is considerable, and is a major focus of advertising and propaganda. So there it is.
Simple solution. The U.S. should pull out of the middle east. Let Saudi Arabia and Turkey rid the middle east of ISIS and other terrorist groups.
The majority of Iraqis are Shia Muslims. They will never accept military interventions from Saudi Arabia, a Sunni country, on their soil. The Kurds might be requesting help from Turkey in Kobane, but they will not accept Turkish troops in their areas in Iraq. So, it is not as simple as the Intercept tries to portray it.
So let me get this straight: Turkish (not U.S.) airstrikes hit the P.K.K. in southeastern Turkey and that supposedly “shows Everything That’s Wrong with U.S. Foreign Policy.” I can almost hear Murtaza grabbing the NYT piece and turning on the spin machine.
Murtaza says:
What an easy answer: the Islamic State is a far greater threat than the PKK. Murtaza knows this, yet pretends we’re supposed to be dumbstruck by the supposed irony. After all, it was just last month when he said the U.S. should ally with Iran to address ISIS: “Refusing even limited cooperation with Assad or Iran on principle while maintaining close relations with murderous governments in Egypt, Israel and Iraq, is both contradictory and inimical to the objective of defeating ISIS.” So it is “contradictory” to refuse to cooperate with one adversary and also “contradictory” to cooperate with a former adversary. Murtaza Hussain, having his cake and eating it too.
So no, this isn’t an article that shows what’s wrong with U.S. foreign policy, but how foreign policy in general is complicated. It shows that your enemy today (or in this case, October 1997 when the PKK was added to the list) could be your ally tomorrow. What it tells us about Turkey is in the NYT article that Murtaza spins out of control:
Murtaza, I know your job requires turning all world events into an indictment against U.S. policy, but at least make it less contrived.
“…this isn’t an article that shows what’s wrong with U.S. foreign policy, but how foreign policy in general is complicated.”
Sometimes, Nate, you are hilarious. Sometimes you are interesting. And sometimes you are a windbag, unfortunately. This, your latest, is a windbag post.
“Foreign policy in general is complicated.” Realize that you actually typed this pablum.
No, you really did.
US foreign policy is ARBITRARY, and depends on the perceived needs of the warped interests that currently govern the state. It’s not complicated.
I think that what’s contradictory – as I’ve mentioned before – is the fact that the U.S. is unable to maintain consistency with regards to its own FTO list. Its obvious that ISIS is a greater threat to American interests than the PKK, yet because of their own designations they have more or less given de facto approval to continued military action against the PKK. By defining almost every party to this conflict as an enemy this completely negates the ability to target genuine, intractable adversaries like Islamic State.
I believe it is more realistic than contradictory. There is nothing new in that scenario. The two hardcore capitalist governments in the world, USA and UK, decided to support Stalin, the undisputed leader of communism, against the NAZIS who were the communists’ deadliest enemies during WWII. International politics consists of choosing between the bad and the worst. In this particular case, the choice is obvious. PKK is in the terrorist list of many countries including, the US, New Zealand, and Iran. It also faces severe restrictions in many other countries such as France and Switzerland. The reason is that PKK has in many occasions specifically targeted civilians in their assassination and bombing campaigns. However, the Kurds have not shown any intent to change the world into a 10th century caliphate in which massacres of civilians are the norms. Therefore, it is pragmatic to rely on Kurdish fighters to fight the common enemy who is attempting to take over their land.
Q:Who are our allies and who are our enemies? How do we know who to bomb?
A: Bomb everybody. This will unite everyone against us. Then the question of who to bomb will become simple.
What is the best expression here?
A) The enemy of my enemy is my friend
B) It’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind.
We technically didn’t bomb the Kurds. We just told Turkey where they could drop the bombs if they decided to do so. Would that count as conspiracy to commit murder in this country if you told a guy hell bent on shooting his wife where she was hiding out? I am not a lawyer so I don’t know the answer to that question.
I don’t think bombing ISIS is a mistake though. I think we should have started bombing them sooner and prevented them from taking over in half of Iraq. The mistake was giving Turkey information that they turned around and used to bomb the Kurds.