Khodadad Rezakhani

I generally do not mess with the politics, since I have no expertise in it. But who can avoid politics these days, with everything, even being an academic, becoming politicised? So, consider this not a statement, rather a question. Yes, it has a "commentary" to it, but I mean it only as a way of posing the question and don't expect support or refutation, rather answers and ideas.

Turkey bombed the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq for the second time today. They had done it a few days before and the reaction from the US government was quite mild, although not as mild as when Israel bombed Syria this summer, when the news barely made it to the network televisions. Basically, all that was said was that the US government understands the Turkish position and is just worried about Turkey getting carried away (incidentally, that is exactly what they said about Ethiopia when it attacked Somalia earlier this year, and also often about Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories). Now, how far "getting carried away" is of course as vague as anything in politics. Were today's attacks "getting carried away" or just the equivalant of the school bully stealing someone's lunch money? Let's not get away from the subject.

Actually, let's: I have to say that I never understood how "bombing" another country would add-up to defending one's own country. I didn't get it when Iraqis bombed us or when we bombed them, and I still don't get it when air strikes are prescribed for all security ills. It is sort of like Iranian doctors who prescribe an injection for any sickness you might have, from cold to cancer.

So, again, going back (sorry for the messy style), I wonder about the recent Turkish attacks on Iraqi Kurds and the lack of outrage in part of the US. It seems like Iraq has become everybody's testing ground. Apparently whatever problems we have gets solved by bombing Iraq (where is that credit card bill?). So, why is this tolerated? Why are Kurds left to defend themselves with bare hands when Turkish planes bomb them?

I am in the habit of looking for a Mafia like situation whenever things like this happen. In the Mafia, if Mr. X refuses to pay the monthly dues to the local Mafia head, his nephew might be found in the local park seriously beaten by the Capo's henchmen, or his daughter might get raped, as a "warning". So, is the Turkish action and the American inaction a sort of "warning"? Is it because Jalal Talebani, the "president" of Iraq (sic.) who is a well-known Kurdish leader, has in the recent times snobbed Americans and refused to meet with the US Secretary of State? The fact that he has been given the empty title of "the President" might, just might, have given the Iraqis the idea that he must have some power. In turn, he might have wanted to actually test and see how real this power is, by refusing to do EVERYTHING the Americans ask. Now, since he has refused to pay the dues, his sister is being raped and his nephew is getting beaten up by the local roughs so he can remember to pay the dues next time around. What do you think? Any merit to this?