Malaysia and Singapore. Ethiopia and Eritrea. The Czech Republic and Slovakia. Yugoslavia. Serbia and Montenegro and Kosovo. Indonesia and East Timor. Sudan and South Sudan. Many countries which once swore they would uphold their territorial unity have acquiesced to partition. Turkey may be the next.
The Turkish government, its military, and Turkish diplomats may deny any implication that partition could be Turkey's fate, and US officials will do so publicly, but behind the hot denials, it seems increasingly likely that some sort of division will be the second order effect of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's cynical drive toward autocracy.
It is now clear that Erdogan's much ballyhooed interest in a peace process with the Kurds was motivated less out of a desire for peace and more for electoral gain. Erdogan hoped that he could leverage Kurdish support to provide a deathblow to Kemalism while at the same time providing Erdogan with the support he would need to change the constitution to solidify his position.
When the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) agreed to a ceasefire in 2013, they were in a strong position: They controlled territory in Hakkari and southeastern Turkey, and had growing overt support among Turkey's Kurds. Years of purges and arrests of the top brass by Erdogan had left the Turkish Army demoralized and a shadow of its former self. Indeed, the Turkish military has in just over a decade gone from being among NATO's fiercest and capable to little more than a banana republic level of competence. The PKK also had nothing to lose. Imprisoned since 1999, Turkish authorities had long declared PKK leader Abdullah Ăcalan irrelevant. But, by seeking to negotiate with Ăcalan, Erdogan affirmed his relevancy as the predominant Kurdish politician.
Erdogan's buffoonery also has had a price. Diplomats may favor stability over change, but Turkish support in the international community is no longer solid. The list of places where Erdogan has made himself persona non grata is long. He is not welcome in Egypt, Libya, the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and perhaps even Saudi Arabia. His reception in Europe and a post-Obama United States will be cool. By embracing Hamas as both a liberation movement and a group with democratic legitimacy, he undercut any opposition to the outside world treating the PKK the same. After all, the PKK--through its electoral proxies--has won majority support in southeastern Turkey. The major difference between Hamas and the PKK is that the former targets civilians with terrorism and attacks indiscriminately, while the latter wages much more of an insurgency.
Erdogan may have been shocked by his failure in June 2015 to win a majority of seats in parliament, but rather than abide by the spirit of democracy, he has sought to subvert it further. New elections will now be on November 1, but the combination of Erdogan's drive to assert dictatorial powers and his efforts to suppress the main Kurdish party and its supporters may be the final nail not in Kemalism but rather in the territorial integrity of the Republic of Turkey. Charismatic Kurdish politician Selahattin Demirtas, co-chair of the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP), has declared that the curfew imposed by the government on Kurdish supporters of the HDP gives the Kurds little choice but to demand autonomy.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk declared the Republic of Turkey almost 92 years ago. Erdogan increasingly shows himself to be the anti- Ataturk in more ways than one. It's no longer a question of secularism vs. Islamism. It may take a decade, but it is time to begin the countdown to the partition of Turkey. The Kurds will have their state, and its capital will ultimately be Diyarbakir, not Erbil.
#1
Seems they have three choices because of demographics:
One become a giant Kurdistan; two, partition; three genocide.
I think partition on their terms is probably the most palatable since they still can't accept any admission regarding the Armenian genocide and the Kurds wouldn't go quietly.
#2
IMO the Kurds are saavy enough NOT to push Turkey's buttons too much or too soon - the ISIS/ISIL, OTOH, likely won't care and will begin attacking Turkey as soon as is feasible.
THE REAL QUSTIONNE' IS WHETHER MIGHTY "RED LINE" NOT-A-DEFENDER POTUS OBAMA = US-NATO/EU WILL ALLOW NATO-EU ALLY TURKEY TO BE PARTITIONED???
[DAWN] THE numbers are staggering. According to a new report by two international think tanks, Pakistain is estimated to possess 120 nuclear warheads. Within the next decade, the report claims, it could have up to 350 nuclear weapons, making Pakistain's the third-largest nuclear stockpile in the world. Not bad for a country that has a 4000 MW energy shortfall.
During a trip to Joint Staff Headquarters last week, a Senate defence committee heard why arms stockpiling continues at this pace. India is Pakistain's only external threat, the committee was told, and it continues to amass Pakistain-specific weapons worth billions. This apparently meant that Pakistain had few options but to stock up too.
But there are other ways to view this conundrum. Writing in this paper last week, Toby Dalton and Michael Krepon, the authors of the above-mentioned report A Normal Nuclear Pakistain, argued that Pakistain currently has sufficient nuclear stockpiles to deter India from engaging with it in a conventional war or deploying nuclear weapons. They called for Pakistain's military leadership to acknowledge its success in achieving 'strategic' deterrence -- enough to prevent war, nuclear or otherwise -- rather than pursue 'full spectrum' deterrence, which would entail the endless acquisition of more nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/31/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Investor's Business Daily] A matchup between Lockheed Martin's F-35 vs. the older A-10 Warthog isn't so "silly" after all. The Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation said late Thursday that it would run tests to evaluate how the F-35 stacks up in close-air support vs. the A-10, according to Defense News. The tests will use the latest upgrade of the 3F software for the F-35 and take place in 2018.
Lockheed shares fell 0.9% to 203.61 in late-afternoon trade in the stock market today.
The announcement comes after Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the press Monday that he wasn't aware of any tests between the two planes and said a matchup "would be a silly exercise."
He said the planes were expected to perform different functions: The F-35 can survive in high-threat, close-air support environments with its advanced stealth and other high-tech features, while the A-10 can't.
But Michael Gilmore, director of the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, said the tests would help the Pentagon understand the differences between the close-air support provided by the two planes and identify any gaps in the F-35's abilities.
The F-35 hasn't done well against older jets in prior tests. According to a report earlier this year in the military blog War Is Boring, an older General Dynamics (NYSE:GD) F-16 outmaneuvered the expensive F-35 in an air combat test in January.
But the F-35 Joint Program Office has said the report was misleading and didn't use the F-35's updated software.
The Air Force is looking to retire the A-10 fleet to save money and meet constricted budget requirements. But if the F-35 can't provide the close-air support needed, the Air Force might need to invest in a follow-on jet.
#2
The A10 is an aircraft in which the real end user (ground troops aka the Army) had a lot of input of what they wanted in the design and operation. How much has the F35 had? Now that's a matchup I'd like to see.
#9
As I understand it, the major benefit of the F-35 is not supposed to be dogfighting or actual close ground support, but beyond visual range engagements where the pilot never even sees the enemy up close. So why don't we just hang all that gear on a drone, as the pilot is basically out of the loop anyway? (Aside from that the airdales want a shiny new toy.)
Posted by: ed in texas ||
08/31/2015 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I think this contest is stupid even if y'all are using it to continue to tell me all the usual commie lies about the F-35 being useless for the tasks it was designed for (basically, interdiction). I don't think the answer to all the tests y'all are pretending weren't rigged and full of half-truths isn't to come up with some rigged ones of our own.
#12
What I'm trying to say is, the plane isn't as bad as y'all think, for all the reasons I talked about the first time around with that website's half-truths that y'all accepted as gospel, and the Russians have been spending the last thirty years working on missiles designed to kill the A-10.
#13
By your argument Thing, the Army should also give up the attack helicopter as well due to the lethality of the low level support environment created by the Soviets.
[Wash Times] They were the first troops to hit the ground in Afghanistan while al Qaeda's dirty work still smoldered back in the United States.
On foot, helicopter and horseback, Army Special Forces showed that if the U.S. was to win a long counterinsurgency war against Islamic extremists, the special skills of Green Berets would be fundamental.
Nearly 14 years later, these soldiers, some of the military's smartest and best trained, are still creating lots of headlines, but not necessarily for heroics.
In recent months, the Army has disciplined, admonished and ended the careers of a number of Green Berets for actions that the soldiers themselves believe were part of combating an evil enemy. Pristine standards for fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda are not achievable, some in the community say.
"There is certainly a belief that upper echelons of leadership have morphed into political positions, and leaders are a lot less willing to risk their own career to support their soldiers," Danny Quinn, a former Green Beret team leader and West Point graduate, told The Washington Times.
Examples abound:
- Army Secretary John McHugh stripped a Green Beret of his Silver Star for summarily killing a Taliban bomb maker.
- A military investigation blamed two Green Berets for the worst U.S. friendly-fire incident in Afghanistan, when critical errors were made by the Air Force crew that dropped the bombs onto their soldiers.
- The Army fired a Green Beret from his hostage rescue post at the Pentagon and put him under criminal investigation for whistlingblowing to Congress.
- The Army is kicking out a Green Beret for pushing an Afghan police officer accused a raping a boy.
Maj. Matt Golsteyn, one of the Green Berets in the Army's crosshairs, said the group's motto, De Oppresso Liber ("To Free the Oppressed"), presents a "moral imperative for action against those who would use violence and injustice as means for repression."
"It would seem the lives and careers of Green Berets who would dare to see the organization's motto realized on foreign soil are sacrificed for politics and careerism," the Afghanistan War veteran told The Times. "As we witness continual displays of failure after failure in military leadership, our collective failure to liberate the oppressed in Iraq and Afghanistan should confuse no longer."
No one says the military is specifically targeting Green Berets, but there has been a rash of punishments for these soldiers for actions in warfare that they believed were justified.
Joe Kasper, chief of staff for Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, said the discipline is "causing a high sense of discomfort and concern with that small community."
"What we hear consistently is what many of these soldiers can't say publicly, and that is Army leadership has created an environment that has soldiers second-guessing themselves and hesitating constantly, and one misstep -- whether intended or not -- is a career killer," Mr. Kasper said. "All of it has had an impact on morale and retention, and it should sound alarm bells for the Army."
#5
Meanwhile, Obama can't be bothered with our military, he is busy renaming Mt. McKinley and trying to erase Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson from our money.
#7
We all know that BO has claimed to love America, and only wanted to change it for the better
But actions are proof.
If BO actually wanted the destroy the institutions, traditions, underlying culture and character of the country he viewed as racist, colonial, and guilty of oppression worldwide, what would he not do that BO has done?
Besides me how many of us on here, former military would be in Leavenworth right now if the current leadership had been in place back when we were "rough men ready to do violence in their behalf"
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
08/31/2015 21:34 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Malaysia and Singapore. Ethiopia and Eritrea. The Czech Republic and Slovakia. Yugoslavia. Serbia and Montenegro and Kosovo. Indonesia and East Timor. Sudan and South Sudan. Many countries which once swore they would uphold their territorial unity have acquiesced to partition. Turkey may be the next.
[Investor's Business Daily] A matchup between Lockheed Martin's F-35 vs. the older A-10 Warthog isn't so "silly" after all. The Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation said late Thursday that it would run tests to evaluate how the F-35 stacks up in close-air support vs. the A-10, according to Defense News. The tests will use the latest upgrade of the 3F software for the F-35 and take place in 2018.
