JUST A THOUGHT - ON THE EXPEDIENT EXPENDABILITY OF THE SPONSORED ARMIES THE END..!
How comes? It is said that their no honour amongst thieves.'
But is this also the case between the changing and expedient alliances involved in the murderous and brutal war taking place on Syrian soil?
Is it really the case that the Russians could not have broached a non-destructive, or less destructive resolution of the Afrin problem?
Were they unable to prevail upon the YPG to move out of Afrin, to remove the need for the Turkish Army to have to intervene?
Did the Russians even tried? Or is it the case that this
Were they unable to prevail upon the YPG to move out of Afrin, to remove the need for the Turkish Army to have to intervene?
Did the Russians even tried? Or is it the case that this
machiavellian conflict has morphed into a stage, where the larger picture or wider objectives require the sacrificing or 'degrading' of the YPG? The decimation of its forces and organization?
The Syrian, Turkish, Iraqi and Iranian governments do not want a Kurdish powerhouse, autonomous region, a 'Greater Kurdistan' on their shared border.
Which is why the YPG pawn, just like the independence seeking Iraqi Kurds before them, had to be sacrificed.
And just as how the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces, and the
' Free Syrian Army', in their turn, will have to and must be sacrificed.
Having become only weaponised tools and pawns to be used to do the face-to-face killing and maiming of the current 'enemies. '
While their 'handlers' use their air force, artillery and sea based missiles to destroy their 'enemies', and their current hosts habitations.
The protagonists, especially where they are or should be responsible governments, such as the Russian, Syrian, Iranian, Turkish and Syrian ones.
Do have a duty to stop trying to 'resolve' 'inter-ethnic conflicts' by simply resorting to trying to wipe-out the 'separatists.'
This is the way of increasing hatred and further legitimising and perpetuating the inter-ethnic grievances and conflicts.
There is a profound lack of prudence and good leadership in the policies adopting this approach.
In the long run, it is very risky for Turkey to be using Syrian rebels, who might become the 'separatists' of tomorrow, to fight its war against Turkish Kurdist separatists.
After all, these Syrian rebels whomTurkey is using as its foot soldiers, are people who are fighting against the Syrian State.
And with probably less legitimacy than the Kurdish YPG and Turkish Kurdish PKK, in their struggle for social and political justice for Turkish Kurds.
It is illogical for Turkey to be training, provisioning and using Syrian 'terrorists' to fight Turkey designated 'terrorist.'
This way of fighting nation's wars is certainly not new, but it is very machiavellianistic, and is probably guaranteed to come back and bite the countries resorting to using it.
The YPG, SDF, FSA and others might and are dispensable, but their dispensability also make them dangerous, unpredictable and, when their sponsors least expect it, a great or grave liability to them.
Which is why Turkey, Russia and the American coalition should think again, before continuing to create and use 'their own terrorists' or contract de facto ones to fight their dirty battles in the Middle East.
It is also why members of the so-called 'Free Syrian Army' and 'Syrian Democratic Force' should give serious consideration to placing themselves beyond the pale .
By becoming traitors to their country, by fighting as mercenaries against their own, or former country.
Which is why the YPG pawn, just like the independence seeking Iraqi Kurds before them, had to be sacrificed.
And just as how the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces, and the
' Free Syrian Army', in their turn, will have to and must be sacrificed.
Having become only weaponised tools and pawns to be used to do the face-to-face killing and maiming of the current 'enemies. '
While their 'handlers' use their air force, artillery and sea based missiles to destroy their 'enemies', and their current hosts habitations.
The protagonists, especially where they are or should be responsible governments, such as the Russian, Syrian, Iranian, Turkish and Syrian ones.
Do have a duty to stop trying to 'resolve' 'inter-ethnic conflicts' by simply resorting to trying to wipe-out the 'separatists.'
This is the way of increasing hatred and further legitimising and perpetuating the inter-ethnic grievances and conflicts.
There is a profound lack of prudence and good leadership in the policies adopting this approach.
In the long run, it is very risky for Turkey to be using Syrian rebels, who might become the 'separatists' of tomorrow, to fight its war against Turkish Kurdist separatists.
After all, these Syrian rebels whomTurkey is using as its foot soldiers, are people who are fighting against the Syrian State.
And with probably less legitimacy than the Kurdish YPG and Turkish Kurdish PKK, in their struggle for social and political justice for Turkish Kurds.
It is illogical for Turkey to be training, provisioning and using Syrian 'terrorists' to fight Turkey designated 'terrorist.'
This way of fighting nation's wars is certainly not new, but it is very machiavellianistic, and is probably guaranteed to come back and bite the countries resorting to using it.
The YPG, SDF, FSA and others might and are dispensable, but their dispensability also make them dangerous, unpredictable and, when their sponsors least expect it, a great or grave liability to them.
Which is why Turkey, Russia and the American coalition should think again, before continuing to create and use 'their own terrorists' or contract de facto ones to fight their dirty battles in the Middle East.
It is also why members of the so-called 'Free Syrian Army' and 'Syrian Democratic Force' should give serious consideration to placing themselves beyond the pale .
By becoming traitors to their country, by fighting as mercenaries against their own, or former country.
Comments