The Fall of Aleppo

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

Member of the Ankara riot police. The government will spin it that the shooter was a Gulen supporter but I'd bet more that he was an Erdogan supporter.

It's pretty clear from the one-finger pose and the shouts that he's an Islamist of some sort. Turkish police has recently been accused of all sorts of connections with both ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

So in that sense it's probably somewhat irrelevant which local authority he's been supporting lately. In any case the responsibility for the colossal security f-up is obviously on Erdogan.

EDIT:

In addition, during his power grab, Erdogan has been filling the police force and various government positions with Islamists, who obviously have been most opposed to traditional Turkish secular democracy. (There's for example video of the Turkish police attacking demonstrators shouting 'Allahu Akbar' from this year...)

This assassination is a pretty big warning sign that Erdogan might not have enough control over the beast he's been feeding. So this is not only a diplomatic disaster, it's going to create an internal s***storm.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

An independent Kurdistan is just not feasible.

There already is, in effect, an independent Kurdistan.

They claim a huge swath of land, much of it resource rich and their settlements are not contiguous. Infrastructure connecting settlements runs through areas populated by other groups that have no interest in helping them form a state.

This is both ignorant of local politics in the area, and completely removed from both their political goals and from the history of modern nations.

When nomads in central Asia were playing musical chairs for land, they held out for too long.

The current political map of Middle East was drawn by western colonial powers and has nothing to with "musical chairs".

Also, Kurds have been settling down and ruling lands for at least a thousand years.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It is a colonial backlash that hasn't been seen since the second world war forced Europe to divest of their world wide holdings.

Not all of the world's political ills are rooted in colonialism. People in that part of the world were revolting, having civil wars, and assassinating their enemies back when Europeans were still running around in furs hurling spears at one another.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Itse

There already is, in effect, an independent Kurdistan.

There is a Kurdish autonomous region, but it is not an independent country, at least not one recognized by the international community. And "Kurdistan" as defined by Kurds covers a much larger area then just the autonomous region in Iraq.

The current political map of Middle East was drawn by western colonial powers and has nothing to with "musical chairs".

It does though. The Kurds, due to their relatively recent nomadic ways, lacked centralized power and had little power and recognition when colonial powers drew the borders. Kurdish communities stretch from almost Afghanistan to the Bosphorus. It's a nation of enclaves that overlaps many other countries.

Also, Kurds have been settling down and ruling lands for at least a thousand years.

And in the big picture, that is fairly recent. Many of Europe's remaining nomads settled around the same time and you see some of the same kind of overlapping of nations.

[Itse]

To me your whole point and view of history seems weird and off, to the point that it would probably take way too much effort (relative to potential benefits) to turn our different views into an informative debate. I mean it seems we'd have to get into really huge topics, like differences in how we see the general history of nations, history of Middle East and general history of nomads )

So you know. Agree to disagree I guess, I'm satisfied with having my disagreement on the record here

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Not all of the world's political ills are rooted in colonialism. People in that part of the world were revolting, having civil wars, and assassinating their enemies back when Europeans were still running around in furs hurling spears at one another.

Fortunately we are talking about the political ills that did largely come from colonialism, like forcing disparate and often historically conflicting ethnicities into poorly drawn borders by their colonial masters and then undermining those within the colonial borders with destabilization, power plays and outright coups.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Fortunately we are talking about the political ills that did largely come from colonialism, like forcing disparate and often historically conflicting ethnicities into poorly drawn borders by their colonial masters and then undermining those within the colonial borders with destabilization, power plays and outright coups.

Given the impossibility of the Ottoman Empire enduring after WW1, the region was going to collapse into disorder one way or another. What are the 'natural' states in that part of the world, that has been part of either the Ottoman Empire, the Abbasid Caliphate, or Byzantine Empire for over two thousand years? Draw me a timeline untainted by Western interference that leads to a secure and prosperous Syria or Iraq today?


If 10-20 small states had sprung up in the region in the wake of the Ottoman collapse, I find it hard to imagine there would have been less war and conflict. And the 'blame colonialism' narrative overlooks the fact that the most vicious and enduring conflict in the region is the Sunni vs Shia schism. Even the most ardent Chomskyite can't lay that fanatical bloodletting at the feet of the West.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Fortunately we are talking about the political ills that did largely come from colonialism, like forcing disparate and often historically conflicting ethnicities into poorly drawn borders by their colonial masters and then undermining those within the colonial borders with destabilization, power plays and outright coups.

That's a massive oversimplification, Turkey and Syria are both remnants of ancient cultures that were for the most part, free of colonial influence. Bad choice for the "colonial influence" push button explanation.

In this case, if you want to simplify it, this is a case of Obama's "Don't do stupid s**t" rule applied to the Russians. Putin may have stepped into it, 27 years after the Russian pullout from Afghanistan.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

That's a massive oversimplification, Turkey and Syria are both remnants of ancient cultures that were for the most part, free of colonial influence. Bad choice for this particular "push button" explanation.

Yes, Syria was under French colonial rule for 25 years. It was under Ottoman rule for 500.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yes, Syria was under French colonial rule for 25 years. It was under Ottoman rule for 500.

I stand corrected on that, memory failed me. The Ottomans did accept the local language(arabic) and cultural norms of Syria, though they did exploit it economically.

Still I think the Russians, in getting involved in Syria, could be in for a repeat of their Afghan adventure in the late 80s. I can understand Putin's goals in eastern Europe, they are out of there depth in the middle east.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I stand corrected on that, memory failed me. The Ottomans did accept the local language(arabic) and cultural norms of Syria, though they did exploit it economically.

Still I think the Russians, in getting involved in Syria, could be in for a repeat of their Afghan adventure in the late 80s. I can understand Putin's goals in eastern Europe, they are out of there depth in the middle east.

During Ottoman rule, the area was full of Assyrians, Armenians, Greeks, etc.. They did not speak Arabic, and the Ottomans decimated them.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If 10-20 small states had sprung up in the region in the wake of the Ottoman collapse, I find it hard to imagine there would have been less war and conflict. And the 'blame colonialism' narrative overlooks the fact that the most vicious and enduring conflict in the region is the Sunni vs Shia schism. Even the most ardent Chomskyite can't lay that fanatical bloodletting at the feet of the West.

That's every bit as simplistic an explanation/statement as one based entirely in colonialism. It's a whole host of factors that has led the ME to where it is today, but your decision to name that "schism" as primary is pretty indicative of the narrative you're pushing.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Given the impossibility of the Ottoman Empire enduring after WW1, the region was going to collapse into disorder one way or another. What are the 'natural' states in that part of the world, that has been part of either the Ottoman Empire, the Abbasid Caliphate, or Byzantine Empire for over two thousand years? Draw me a timeline untainted by Western interference that leads to a secure and prosperous Syria or Iraq today?


If 10-20 small states had sprung up in the region in the wake of the Ottoman collapse, I find it hard to imagine there would have been less war and conflict. And the 'blame colonialism' narrative overlooks the fact that the most vicious and enduring conflict in the region is the Sunni vs Shia schism. Even the most ardent Chomskyite can't lay that fanatical bloodletting at the feet of the West.

I'm not laying it at the feet of colonialism, but you can't exactly.ignore that the French and the British largely ignored the demographics and desires of middle Eastern ethnic communities after the fall of the Ottoman empire, which might be part of the reason it took the French 3 years to forcefully put down the various resistance groups in Syria following the first world war.

The what if game is extremely poor historiography, it's pulp history. We can only discuss the events as they actually happened and partitioning middle Eastern states along arbitrary lines, bringing their populations under the yoke at the barrel of a gun and then spending the next 70 years actively participating in their destabilization under the auspices of anti-communist initiatives is the only real history we have to go off.

You can try to reduce me to some kind of chomskyite if you want but that is THE accepted history of the region and it continues to be reinforced as primary documentation is unearthed from government archives. What you are arguing has merit as the ethnic religious tension in the region predate western involvement in many cases but the political apparatus that the conflicts currently manifest themselves is a western creation.

Sami mayoubed(sp?) has some good material on the subject.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It is a colonial backlash that hasn't been seen since the second world war forced Europe to divest of their world wide holdings.

Feels like we are in the midst of a redrawing of of the entire world map of power.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Not all of the world's political ills are rooted in colonialism. People in that part of the world were revolting, having civil wars, and assassinating their enemies back when Europeans were still running around in furs hurling spears at one another.

Sorry Cliff, I just read these posts back to back and this is a miscommunication in my part. I should've used 'client state' instead of 'colonial' and it changed the entire substance of what I keant to say.

I think we are seeing a power shift that may change the status quo national state relationships between the major powers. Turkey seemingly drifting away from NATO, the Russians reasserting themselves in the Ukraine and along their southern Asian border.

I don't think there has been a Geo political shift like this since the fall of the Berlin Wall but more realistically since the second world war ended.