advertisement


Trouble in the Middle-East

As I understand it, but I do not claim to be an authority on the subject, the Turkish system was inefficient and very corrupt. In practice a kind of post-feudal system with Turkish governors. From reading the book on Gertrude Bell, it would seem that the Brits did not so much "impose" a (Hashemite) king, but gave their approval and material support to a king and a supporting ruling class which was viable in that context. The purpose being to have a regime which was stable, but also obediently friendly to Britain. The main reason being oil.

Around 1905 - 1915 warship design shifted from coal-fired boilers to fuel oil. I don't think the the discovery of Persian oil prompted this, so much as progress in ship design. Although obviously the availability of oil permitted this. But then there was already a large supply of oil from the United States, and it would make sense for the Royal Navy, on which British national and imperial power rested, not to wish to be totally dependent on America, but to have its own tame sources. And by the 1920s the demand for oil had also grown enormously for other purposes, motor vehicles, merchant ships, aircraft, factories. So oil was a key element in the industrial, military, and political rivalry between Britain, France and Germany. As well as the maintenance of what was still a global empire.

I also do not claim to be any kind of expert on the subject, much of my impressions being gleaned from several books, on Iraq, this one:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0760792682/?tag=pinkfishmedia-21

which details the attempts of Churchill, very much a 19th century imperialist, to remake Mesopotamia in his own image, and as cheaply as possible for a Britain that was essentially broke and in hock to the USA. That meant the formation of a single entity out of something that had not been a single entity since the Caliphs ruled from Baghdad. The Turkish arrangement conveniently separated the potentially warring parties.

The move to oil is captured in this book:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0099524023/?tag=pinkfishmedia-21

Britain had lots of coal, but then apparently no oil, so the Persian discovery by British geologists in 1908 drove the change and led the British to secure that supply by setting up its own company, free of market dominators Standard Oil and Shell. So far as I know (and I admit that that's not terribly far) oil wasn't discovered in Iraq until long after the establishment of Iraq. But thank you for mentioning Gertrude Bell. I knew she was involved deeply in the whole business, but I clearly must read more.
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
I also do not claim to be any kind of expert on the subject, much of my impressions being gleaned from several books, on Iraq, this one:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchills-Folly-Winston-Churchill-Created/dp/0760792682/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=churchill's+folly&qid=1570804506&s=books&sr=1-6

which details the attempts of Churchill, very much a 19th century imperialist, to remake Mesopotamia in his own image, and as cheaply as possible for a Britain that was essentially broke and in hock to the USA. That meant the formation of a single entity out of something that had not been a single entity since the Caliphs ruled from Baghdad. The Turkish arrangement conveniently separated the potentially warring parties.

The move to oil is captured in this book:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0099524023/?tag=pinkfishmedia-21

Britain had lots of coal, but then apparently no oil, so the Persian discovery by British geologists in 1908 drove the change and led the British to secure that supply by setting up its own company, free of market dominators Standard Oil and Shell. So far as I know (and I admit that that's not terribly far) oil wasn't discovered in Iraq until long after the establishment of Iraq. But thank you for mentioning Gertrude Bell. I knew she was involved deeply in the whole business, but I clearly must read more.
Massie's "Dreadnought" book is an interesting insight into the British and European colonial rivalry and the naval arms race with Germany in the lead up to the first world war. Splendid Isolation is a very bad idea...
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
I think the interesting question is - will the EU accept the Kurdish refugees or turn a blind eye to Turkey - I know where my money is...
 
The EU will make a modest song-and-dance and let Erdogan do as he likes. The EU has no foreign policy as such, no military organisation of its own, and as far as sanctions go, each country is out for itself, if necessary through third countries. Sad to say, but "European Union" took its main positive step with the Euro, and very little since then. Not even a uniform tax system! It is not "their" fault, but the fault of all of us who vote for domestic and EU elections.
 
Regarding Iraqi oil and warships, it may well be that in the 1920s there was no inkling that there was oil under Iraq, but I'm not so sure. But what I've just been reading is that the move from coal to oil by the Royal Navy before WWI took place, yes, because Churchill supported it, but he was advised by Admiral Jackie Fisher who pointed out that the Germans were already building oil-fired ships, which were more efficient and faster, and that the UK must not lag behind. I don't know where the Germans were getting their oil from, Romania perhaps?
In any case, since Britain had lots of its own high grade coal at the time, the shift to oil was seen as risky and may have conditioned policy in the Middle East.
 
Does anyone have any Idea what Turkeys end goal is here?

Are they heading to the oil fields to `recoup` themselves financially for hosting the 3.5 million people they are
threatening europe with?
Are they going to secure the ISIS fighters or create chaos around the camps allowing them to jailbreak and blame the
Kurds for letting them escape?
Will the better backed fighters be able to buy thier freedom if they do `secure` them?
Are there going to be more demands for money from the EU to stop even more people escaping from the region?
Or could they be going in for humanitarian reasons?

It seems that the troops that have been sent in are instructed to shoot anyone that has so much as a pointy stick and
there have already been jailbreak attempts, looks like some dark times ahead
 
I haven't the slightest idea, but three possibilities spring to mind:

1/ Erdogan worried by the presence of an organised Kurdish militia on his border that could rally Kurdish nationalism.
2/ Keeping "the mob" happy with a magnificent show of Turkish martial prowess.
3/ Showing the world that he and Turkey are the top dog in the area, and at the same time garner respect and admiration from out of the fragmented mess that is Syria and much of Iraq. After all, both countries were, not so long ago, part of the Turkish Empire. And it is no secret that Erdogan has some nostalgia in that direction, maybe a lot of Turks have a soft spot for their imperial past. But I'm just guessing....
 
I think our esteemed leader here in the USA is underappreciated . His impressively vicious tweets are doing a excellent job of keeping the GOP organized (not a common state for a US political party) - who would have thought the Republicans were such a sensitive lot ? And we never had a president with the a absolute talent for insult that Donald can effortlessly produce : a.) The population South of the Rio Grande has got to love being labeled as murders and drug dealers. Since the Monroe doctrine is taken a whole lot less seriously the further South you go in the Americas - wouldn't a few Russian or Chinese basses in Nicaragua or Honduras be interesting ? Not sure the Russians could afford it -but the PRC is still doing pretty well economically ? b.) The Kurds: paraphrasing here - but our esteemed leader has claimed the Kurds were well paid mercenaries ? Personally - I'm waiting to meet my first well paid infantryman (sorry -the Kurds have women under arms - so this gendered description doesn't apply to them). OTH -I've known enough widows and orphans of foot soldiers to think their husbands/wives/parents earned every single penny of their pay . b.) I wondered about the relatively small number of US SF/FAC that were in the Turks way ? It was pointed out to me that most places we need to watch our backs - but nobody I've talked to can remember a serving Kurdish militia/soldier attacking Americans ? So teams didn't need to provide for their own self protection. c.) I have no idea where Donalds comment about the Kurd's not being with us on D day comes from ? Did he really say this ??? Even for a stable genius blessed with world class historical ignorance - I still don't get this ?
 
Does anyone have any Idea what Turkeys end goal is here?

Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the foundation of modern Turkey, the Turks have always been conscious of the Kurds on their border. The Kurds are, I think, the largest ethnic group without their own country. A future Kurdistan would include a rather large chunk of Turkey (plus chunks of Armenia, Iraq, Syria and Iran, none of whom are also wild about losing territory to a future Kurdistan). See map here:

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/01/15/20190115-kurds-map.png

The cause of the Kurds wasn't helped by the terrorist activities of the PKK (Kurdistan Worker's Party), a far-left militant group that combined Marxist doctrine with Kurdish identity. The Turks see a Kurdish-dominated territory on the border as a threat, but I personally suspect that this is Erdogan's excuse to justify striking against the Kurds.
 
I'm amazed by the lack of interest in this thread. A huge disaster is taking place directly involving 2 countries, plus thousands of ISIS people now roaming around, plus the prospect of hundreds of thousands of refugees, plus involvement by the Russians and the West, and where are all our armchair statesmen who always know who the good guys and bad guys are?
 
I agree Paul,

What makes it worse of course is that Turkey is a member of NATO but can act almost without fear of sanction because of its important strategic position in acting as a buffer between the bulk of the NATO countries and the hot spots in the Middle east.

Also, the Kurds have not helped themselves historically as they have been divided into three competing factions with names not a million miles away from those in Life of Brian.

I was surprised at Saudi's muted response to the attacks on its livelihood as they despise Iran as one of the main bastions of Shia Islam and would readily retaliate in my experience.

Ray
 
Last edited:
I'm amazed by the lack of interest in this thread. A huge disaster is taking place directly involving 2 countries, plus thousands of ISIS people now roaming around, plus the prospect of hundreds of thousands of refugees, plus involvement by the Russians and the West, and where are all our armchair statesmen who always know who the good guys and bad guys are?

More than two countries - Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia and the US. And probably what should be one more - Kurdistan.

But I do think you hit on the main point, and perhaps it does explain the lack of posts. As so often the case in the Middle East, it can be hard to tell good from bad. Are the PKK terrorists, or oppressed freedom fighters? As the host to 3.6M Syrian refugees, does Turkey have any right to invade Syria for purposes of establishing a safe zone for their resettlement? Or is that complete bullsh*t, and their sole aim is to kill as many Kurds as possible?

Trump’s decision to move the thousand or so US troops in Syria away from the Turkish border precipitated this new attack. I am now left to wonder what their role, if any, will be. By their mere presence, they seemed to be doing a decent job of deterrence. But there are those who would argue that any US military in Syria is a bad thing.

The UN is ineffective and Trump has lost interest, so I guess it is up to Russia and the regional powers to find some sort of balance. I think we can all agree it is a horrible mess, and will likely get much worse.
 
Last edited:
Quite right too - I shall be having goose this Christmas instead.

I think the appropriate bird at the mo' in that area is 'duck!'. Certainly can't be chicken for the Kurds. Erdogan really is a pheasant plucker, isn't he?

Of course, the Kurds are a people virtually surrounded by Islam of one sort or another and are unloved by most. It's unfortunate that so-called Kurdistan comprises four other countries, so their recent territorial 'gains' may prove to be the high point in their quest for self government.
 
Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims - they are (for lack of a better term) -pretty progressive in the practice of their religion. I think it's also worth considering the strategic plan that Turkey has for this strip or buffer zone = resettling the Syrian refugees. Take a look at Gaza before you decide this is a great idea. And my better idea for 3 million plus refugees in Turkey right now is ...........
 
Latest news is that Syria is moving up troops to push back the Turks. Presumably with Russian (I almost wrote "Soviet," old age I suppose) support. So maybe a Turkish-Syrian war coming up now. Reminds me a bit of 19th century Balkan wars, lots of them, now completely forgotten, but messy at the time.
 
Lots of kinds of people and religions in that area. Various Christians groups, Yazidis, Druze, Sunni Moslems, Shia Moslems, Armenians (Christian) and probably a few others I don't know about. The Yazidis (IIRC) have their own (Zoroastrian?) religious tradition. The Druze are are an early break-off from Islam, do not consider themselves Muslims, but just Druze. A fine kettle of fish!
 
This is more ethnic than religious. Turks are of Central Asian origin, mixed up with Greeks and Romans.
Kurds seem to be of Persian origins.
Neither are Arabs.
 


advertisement


Back
Top