and the USA, while we wait for the news of that meeting. Fikret Bilâ's interview with the former Land Forces Commander Aytaç Yalman inspired me to do this.  

    General Yalman adopts a very rational and pragmatic approach to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the Kurdish issue is as he explains America's reasons for delivering the group's leader, Abdullah Öcalan to Turkey in 1999: �I believe that the USA counted on Kurdish support as it intervened to Iraq. It needed the assistance of Barzani and Talabani to plan the whole operation, whereas Abdullah Öcalan was the alternative to Barzani and Talabani.  In my opinion, the US delivered Öcalan to Turkey… in order to strengthen Barzani and Talabani… pleasing Turkey at the same time.� There is no doubt that this is a very plausible explanation. However, it is not that easy to say that President Clinton, who was in power at that time, had already foreseen and planned in 1991 an aggressive intervention to be staged in Iraq during the term of U.S. President George W. Bush.

  The policies implemented during President Clinton's term differed from latter policies. After the First Gulf War in 1991, Iraq was subjected to extensive sanctions determined by the U.N. Security Council. The U.N. had also established a control mechanism to prevent Iraq from developing mass destructive weapons.  However, Iraq never let U.N. controllers do their work. Tired of Saddam's obstructive efforts, the Clinton administration launched a series of intensive air attacks against Iraq in December 1999. Immediately afterwards, it lent support to Saddam's opponents, who wanted to overthrow him, and to the Kurds within the same context. The Washington process, which General Yalman mentions in his interview, was started in 1998 as part of this policy. However, it's impossible to document that Clinton's vision had included the eventual occupation of Iraq. Even Dick Cheney, the Republican candidate for vice president in 2000, confirmed the necessity of continuing Bush Sr.'s policy not to occupy Iraq. It took the events of 9/11 to transform Cheney into a most fervent supporter of war. Prior war plans had been prepared by neoconservatives like Wolfowitz, Edelman and Perle, and by the Jewish lobby that supported them. The view, which now starts to prevail in the U.S., is that the war in Iraq is directed at the protection of Israel and the consolidation of its power within the region.

Complicated history

  America has tried to use the Kurds to foster its own ends in the Middle East almost as frequently as it has betrayed them. For example, in 1972, Iran and the USA �upon the Shah's instigation- began to provoke and help the Iraqi Kurds to weaken the Baas regime in Iraq.  Britain, Israel and even Jordan supported this operation. When the Shah of Iran later settled his border issue with Iraq, however, the Kurds were abandoned to their own fate. When the Kurds rebelled against Saddam immediately after the First Gulf War, Washington did not lift a finger to help them. CIA's plans to activate the Kurds against Saddam in 1993 and in 1996 were also unproductive.  Therefore, there's nothing surprising about America's present wish to use the Iranian Kurds against Teheran.

  There is a considerably prevalent view in Turkey that the USA backs the PKK and wants to divide Turkey. According to the former Chief of Staff General Doğan Güreş, even the EU shares this objective. In that case, we'd have to review our NATO and EU-related policies without delay. On the other hand, if the government and the general staff do not share this view, they should state this very clearly, too. The public doesn't know what to believe. It is being driven into seeing enemies everywhere, and it is becoming very angry. This emotional state could easily lead to dangerous reactions.

İLTER TÜRKMEN