Ken Hiebert
2014-10-20 18:25:43 UTC
Michael Karadjis said:
I think that's right, and while we can easily declare, from afar, that this policy is "mistaken" it is obviously a lot more difficult given such realities of the situation. Yet another reason that trying to apportion all blame for past FSA/PYD tensions to the FSA side is just a little too easy, but incorrect. There are 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Turkey; and the FSA relied on the willingness of Turkey (as a "front-line state", willingly or otherwise), to allow it recruit in the camps, and cross the border to and fro.
Incidentally, that is why I thought the criticism of Turkey we continually hear for "allowing jihadists to cross the border" has not been well thought out. Turkey may well have been deliberately doing that too, and if so, should be criticised; however, with an 822 kilometre border with Syria, with 1.5 million refugees living along it, it may well have been more difficult to police every movement than people assume. I for one am glad the FSA and the refugees have had this friendly border in light of the apocalypse unleashed by the Syrian regime. I hardly think a call for the Turkish army and police to create a massively militarised anti-refugee, anti-movement, border is progressive. Of course, Turkey does need to be critcised precisely for not giving the same leeway to the PKK/YPG cadres who wanted to cross the border to help the struggle in Kobani (as well as for much else), and that is a much better way to criticise Turkey's border policy.
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Hiebert via Marxism
Speaking from a distance, I would speculate that in addition to the problem of understanding the Kurdish struggle the FSA was very aware of their dependence on the co-operastion of the Turkish government and reluctant to upset them with a clear policy of support to Kurdish self-determination
* * * * * * * * *
Ken Hiebert replies:
Having now experienced the power of the Kurdish resistance, I wonder how the FSA will look back on their previous hesitations about the Kurdish struggle, granting that some of that hesitation may have been for tactical reasons. What would have been lost and what would have been gained if they had embraced the Kurdish struggle earlier?
In any case, those leftists who used their connections with the Syrian struggle to alert Syrians to the importance of the Kurdish struggle were contributing to the common struggle.
I think that's right, and while we can easily declare, from afar, that this policy is "mistaken" it is obviously a lot more difficult given such realities of the situation. Yet another reason that trying to apportion all blame for past FSA/PYD tensions to the FSA side is just a little too easy, but incorrect. There are 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Turkey; and the FSA relied on the willingness of Turkey (as a "front-line state", willingly or otherwise), to allow it recruit in the camps, and cross the border to and fro.
Incidentally, that is why I thought the criticism of Turkey we continually hear for "allowing jihadists to cross the border" has not been well thought out. Turkey may well have been deliberately doing that too, and if so, should be criticised; however, with an 822 kilometre border with Syria, with 1.5 million refugees living along it, it may well have been more difficult to police every movement than people assume. I for one am glad the FSA and the refugees have had this friendly border in light of the apocalypse unleashed by the Syrian regime. I hardly think a call for the Turkish army and police to create a massively militarised anti-refugee, anti-movement, border is progressive. Of course, Turkey does need to be critcised precisely for not giving the same leeway to the PKK/YPG cadres who wanted to cross the border to help the struggle in Kobani (as well as for much else), and that is a much better way to criticise Turkey's border policy.
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Hiebert via Marxism
Speaking from a distance, I would speculate that in addition to the problem of understanding the Kurdish struggle the FSA was very aware of their dependence on the co-operastion of the Turkish government and reluctant to upset them with a clear policy of support to Kurdish self-determination
* * * * * * * * *
Ken Hiebert replies:
Having now experienced the power of the Kurdish resistance, I wonder how the FSA will look back on their previous hesitations about the Kurdish struggle, granting that some of that hesitation may have been for tactical reasons. What would have been lost and what would have been gained if they had embraced the Kurdish struggle earlier?
In any case, those leftists who used their connections with the Syrian struggle to alert Syrians to the importance of the Kurdish struggle were contributing to the common struggle.