Ostensibly exploring the practice of law before the internet. Heck, before good highways for that matter.
Saturday, October 12, 2019
October 12, 1919. The Truth on Wilson's Condition breaks, Maynard Wins the Air Derby, A Hero Born.
While its commonly believed that "nothing" was really know about Wilson's condition, the opposite is actually true. The news broke on how bad it was on this day in 1919.
What would be done about it, in terms of his role, wasn't apparent. It was generally assumed that the Vice President would be taking over his duties.
And the Air Derby wrapped up, with Lt. Maynard, who was not a "parson", but who had been a Protestant seminary student before the war, the victor.
On this day, in Japan, the Olympus Corporation, (オリンパス株式会社 Orinpasu Kabushiki-gaisha), the famous manufacturer of optics, and now also electronics, was founded. And Dorie Miller, who would become famous for his heroics at Pearl Harbor, was born.
Miller was born in Waco Texas on this day to parents who were farmers, which was his occupation prior to joining the Navy at age 20. He served in the mess section as that was a section open to blacks in the segregated Navy of the era, but his race did not preclude the 6'3" Miller from becoming the West Virginia's heavyweight boxing champion.
On duty in the West Virginia on December 7, 1941, he heroically manned a machine gun and aided the wounded during the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor. He was killed less than two years later when the ship which he was then on, the Liscome Bay, was struck by a Japanese torpedo and went down with heavy loss of life.
Miller was a recipient of the Navy Cross for his heroism at Pearl Harbor. He was the first African American to receive the medal.
Friday, October 11, 2019
The Turkish Spin and a proposal that will be ignored.
According to Turkey, it's invading northern Syria in order to allow 2,500,000 Syrian refugees to return home.
Hmmm . . . all for humanitarian reasons you see.
The endless spins that the current situation in Northern Syria creates are mind boggling. We armed a Syrian rebel group composed of Kurdish militias to take on the Syrian government under the quixotic belief that disparate light infantry bands could take on a modern armored army back by the Russians without direct U.S. involvement. That was naive in the extreme, and no less of military expert (and I mean that sincerely) as John McCain lobbied for it.
We should have know that was absurd from the onset.
Toppling the Syrian Baathist regime was always going to require direct western military involvement to be followed by at least a decade, if not more, of western occupation of the country.
No matter, we ended up committing some troops and, beyond that, we gave moral and material support to the one entity in the war that wasn't either comprised of Islamic extremist or incompetents, the Kurds.
The Kurds can't be blamed for rising up in rebellion on their own ground. They now have a quasi state in Iraq and they've been where they are on the ground in Syria for eons. They'd have their own country now if Woodrow Wilson's alterations of the map of Turkey that ended up in the Treaty of Sevres had come into full fruition. That would have required more American involvement in diplomacy in 1919-20, more military backbone for an already tired France and Britain at the same time (heck, they were both already bogged down in Russia and the British were fighting a war in part of its own "united" kingdom, who can blame them for not getting tied down in Turkey), less greed and blood lust on the part of Greece, and less bizarre territory avarice on the part of Italy.
That would have been asking for a lot.
So, the Ottoman's fell and the Allies carved up the Ottoman Empire as they saw fit, splitting the Ottoman Kurdistan into three separate state administered by three different sovereigns, to which we might add that a World War One neutral, Persia, already was another entity they had to deal with.
And so now, one of our NATO allies is invading a region occupied by one of our Syrian rebellion allies, which we armed, with the invading army using military equipment designed by us and our ally, Germany (most Turkish weapons, but not all, are produced in Turkey) because our President decided to stand aside after we'd already made all the inconsistent commitments. Added to this, this means that Turkey is now effectively the military ally of the Syrian government which will come in and occupy northern Syria as soon as the Turks have subdued the Kurds.
What can be done about this now?
Well, maybe not much.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trumps most solid supporters, is outwardly outraged and has sponsored a bill to sanction Turkey. It'll pass. Wyoming's Congressman Liz Cheney, who has been more independent regarding Trump than we might suppose, is also supporting it.
But what will sanctions do now? It won't force Turkey out of Syria and it won't stop their invasion. Shoot, by the time any sanctions come into effect, the Turks will be out and the Syrians back in.
Just how successful have our sanctions in the region been anyway? Iran hasn't collapsed. Syria's government is going to win its civil war.
No, what the sanctions will likely do is to drive Turkey into the arms of the arch conspirator Vladimir Putin. And we don't need that. It'll be a marriage of convenience, but Putin will be just fine with that.
A better proposal, now that we have blood on our hands and have allowed this mess to occur, would be to require the Turks to remain where they are supervised by a United Nations peacekeeping force. That would be a direct UN intervention in the Syrian civil war and it might be hard to bring about. Absent that, as Turkey remains a NATO ally, the next best proposal would be for a joint NATO force to occupy the region until a real peace settlement can be reached. Failing that, we should see about occupying it in place of the Turks, which the Turks probably wouldn't be too keen on now. And failing all of that, the Turks should just stay there in a supervised fashion until Syria joins the 21st Century with it being made clear that should they screw up, they'll have no friends in the west at all.
But none of this will occur.
Saladin, the Kurd who conquered the Middle East (and who spent more time fighting fellow Muslims than he did Christians, although he certainly fought Christians too). He lived in the last era in which things were on the downside for the Kurds, 800 years ago.
Hmmm . . . all for humanitarian reasons you see.
The endless spins that the current situation in Northern Syria creates are mind boggling. We armed a Syrian rebel group composed of Kurdish militias to take on the Syrian government under the quixotic belief that disparate light infantry bands could take on a modern armored army back by the Russians without direct U.S. involvement. That was naive in the extreme, and no less of military expert (and I mean that sincerely) as John McCain lobbied for it.
We should have know that was absurd from the onset.
Toppling the Syrian Baathist regime was always going to require direct western military involvement to be followed by at least a decade, if not more, of western occupation of the country.
No matter, we ended up committing some troops and, beyond that, we gave moral and material support to the one entity in the war that wasn't either comprised of Islamic extremist or incompetents, the Kurds.
The Kurds can't be blamed for rising up in rebellion on their own ground. They now have a quasi state in Iraq and they've been where they are on the ground in Syria for eons. They'd have their own country now if Woodrow Wilson's alterations of the map of Turkey that ended up in the Treaty of Sevres had come into full fruition. That would have required more American involvement in diplomacy in 1919-20, more military backbone for an already tired France and Britain at the same time (heck, they were both already bogged down in Russia and the British were fighting a war in part of its own "united" kingdom, who can blame them for not getting tied down in Turkey), less greed and blood lust on the part of Greece, and less bizarre territory avarice on the part of Italy.
That would have been asking for a lot.
So, the Ottoman's fell and the Allies carved up the Ottoman Empire as they saw fit, splitting the Ottoman Kurdistan into three separate state administered by three different sovereigns, to which we might add that a World War One neutral, Persia, already was another entity they had to deal with.
And so now, one of our NATO allies is invading a region occupied by one of our Syrian rebellion allies, which we armed, with the invading army using military equipment designed by us and our ally, Germany (most Turkish weapons, but not all, are produced in Turkey) because our President decided to stand aside after we'd already made all the inconsistent commitments. Added to this, this means that Turkey is now effectively the military ally of the Syrian government which will come in and occupy northern Syria as soon as the Turks have subdued the Kurds.
What can be done about this now?
Well, maybe not much.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trumps most solid supporters, is outwardly outraged and has sponsored a bill to sanction Turkey. It'll pass. Wyoming's Congressman Liz Cheney, who has been more independent regarding Trump than we might suppose, is also supporting it.
But what will sanctions do now? It won't force Turkey out of Syria and it won't stop their invasion. Shoot, by the time any sanctions come into effect, the Turks will be out and the Syrians back in.
Just how successful have our sanctions in the region been anyway? Iran hasn't collapsed. Syria's government is going to win its civil war.
No, what the sanctions will likely do is to drive Turkey into the arms of the arch conspirator Vladimir Putin. And we don't need that. It'll be a marriage of convenience, but Putin will be just fine with that.
A better proposal, now that we have blood on our hands and have allowed this mess to occur, would be to require the Turks to remain where they are supervised by a United Nations peacekeeping force. That would be a direct UN intervention in the Syrian civil war and it might be hard to bring about. Absent that, as Turkey remains a NATO ally, the next best proposal would be for a joint NATO force to occupy the region until a real peace settlement can be reached. Failing that, we should see about occupying it in place of the Turks, which the Turks probably wouldn't be too keen on now. And failing all of that, the Turks should just stay there in a supervised fashion until Syria joins the 21st Century with it being made clear that should they screw up, they'll have no friends in the west at all.
But none of this will occur.
Labels:
1170s,
1180s,
1190s,
1910s,
1919,
2010s,
2019,
Kurds,
North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
Politics,
Sic transit Gloria Mundi,
Syria,
The War On ISIL,
Treaty of Sevres,
Turkey,
United Nations
Location:
Syria
Old Equipment
For people who are students of military equipment, the tragedy in northern Syria brought about by the United States turning its back on the Kurds provides an odd window into the past. It's hard not to be fascinated by it, even while at the same time. Indeed, it's hard not to feel bad about that even while doing it.
Turkey is not a wealthy nation. It has a really good army, but the quality of that army is in its fighting men (and they are men) and its culture. The Ottoman army performed badly in World War One, but that was mostly due to its poor officer corps, a reflection on the decrepit nature of the Ottoman leadership in general. Well lead, on occasion they were, they preformed very well. The Allied defeat at Gallipoli provides plenty evidence of that. And following the fall of the Ottomans the Turkish army certainly proved itself capable of besting the Greeks and troubling the British and French.
The Turkey that was born out of the fall of the Ottoman Empire sat World War Two out, as we've noted previously, although technically it became an Allied power in February, 1945, when it belatedly declared war on Germany. That declaration didn't mean anything militarily, it merely served to put Turkey on the winning side which, given its hostility to the Soviet Union, was a wise diplomatic move. Turkey did see action in the Korean War, however, where its troops performed brilliantly. There's no doubt that Turkey has a good army and its soldiers are excellent.
Yep, it is.
Inclusion of the Leopard I here is going to make its fans angry, but the Leopard I resembles the M48 more than it does any German tank of World War Two, something that isn't true of all post war German equipment.
One of the most famous of the post war tanks, the Leopard I came in after West Germany had been equipped with M47s and M48s. Wanting to field its own design, West Germany first worked with France to come up with a tank design and then abandoned the pursuit. Going on its own, it came up with the Leopard I.
Turkey is not a wealthy nation. It has a really good army, but the quality of that army is in its fighting men (and they are men) and its culture. The Ottoman army performed badly in World War One, but that was mostly due to its poor officer corps, a reflection on the decrepit nature of the Ottoman leadership in general. Well lead, on occasion they were, they preformed very well. The Allied defeat at Gallipoli provides plenty evidence of that. And following the fall of the Ottomans the Turkish army certainly proved itself capable of besting the Greeks and troubling the British and French.
The Turkey that was born out of the fall of the Ottoman Empire sat World War Two out, as we've noted previously, although technically it became an Allied power in February, 1945, when it belatedly declared war on Germany. That declaration didn't mean anything militarily, it merely served to put Turkey on the winning side which, given its hostility to the Soviet Union, was a wise diplomatic move. Turkey did see action in the Korean War, however, where its troops performed brilliantly. There's no doubt that Turkey has a good army and its soldiers are excellent.
Turkish soldiers memorial in South Korea.
Since the Korean War the only action that the Turkish army has seen has been in Cyprus in 1974, an event that almost resulted in a full scale old fashioned territorial war between Greece and Turkey, two NATO members. That fortunately didn't develop, but there's little doubt which of the two armies was more capable. Other than that, the Turkish army has seen action only against Kurdish militias, which is a different type of war.
For that matter, Kurdish militias are very good at what they do as well, which has traditionally been guerrilla warfare. More recently, in Iraq and Syria, they've filled the roll of light infantry, but that's really what they are at best. They don't have the capabilities to take on an armored regular army like Turkey's.
But in saying all of that, the oddity, as noted, is that the equipment in evidence is strangely like watching an army from the 1980s, or even the 1970s. For those who follow military equipment, as we've stated, it's oddly fascinating.
Turkey uses armor, and it deploys it in all such actions as we are seeing. On the television news there's been scene after scene of the Turkish army unloading tanks for deployment. The tanks they keep showing are M60s.
Turkey's main tank is the M60, of which it has about 1,000. The M60 was an excellent tank, but it was already on its way out of US Army service (it hung around in the Marine Corps longer) when I was a Guardsmen in the 80s.
The second most common Turkish tank is the US M48. The U.S. used the M48 heavily in the Vietnam War, at which time M60s were already coming on (no need to use the best tank in an environment in which tank to tank combat is unlikely). The M48 was a really good tank, but its a bit odd to see them still in a "western" nation's front line service.
M48 Patton
South Korean Army M48, March 1987.
The third US tank in a row to be named in honor of Gen. Patton, the M48 featured the new familiar Pershing chassis but omitted the bow machinegun, the first main U.S. tank to make that omission. It was in fact an entirely new design, obviously based on the old M26 lineage, and was an enormously successful tank.
M48 Patton in South Vietnam.
The M48 would be the principal US tank in the late 1950s and go on to see heavy use by the US and its allies for many years. It was the tank the US principally used in Vietnam. The last variant of it, the M48A5, was sufficiently close to its successor, the M60, that it was up-gunned to the 105mm gun the M60 used and it can be very difficult to tell the two apart. Indeed, the M48A5s actually replaced the M60 in service with the US Army and South Korean army in Korea in the late 1970s, showing how close they really were.
M48A5, equipped with a 105mm gun and much resembling its successor, the M60.
The Turks use smaller numbers of the GERman Leopard 1 and 2.
The Leopard I
The Leopard I? That's a post war German tank.
The Leopard I? That's a post war German tank.
Later variants of the Leopard I in Germany. This one has been up armored. The original Leopard Is were fairly lightly armored. Let's see, six wheels that look remarkably like the six on all of the Pershing descendants. .. rear sprocket drive like the Pershing and its descendants, roller wheels to support the treads up on top (not visible here. . . . hmmm.
Yep, it is.
Inclusion of the Leopard I here is going to make its fans angry, but the Leopard I resembles the M48 more than it does any German tank of World War Two, something that isn't true of all post war German equipment.
One of the most famous of the post war tanks, the Leopard I came in after West Germany had been equipped with M47s and M48s. Wanting to field its own design, West Germany first worked with France to come up with a tank design and then abandoned the pursuit. Going on its own, it came up with the Leopard I.
Earlier variant of the Leopard I with a cast turret that looks remarkably like that on a M46/M47/M48.
You will not be able to find (or at least I couldn't) anything that will claim that the Leopard I was based on part on the Pershing tank chassis and the M47 and M48 tanks. But the similarities are remarkable. Most notably the chassis is nearly identical. something that departed enormously from all prior German tanks. The original turrets were also remarkably like those of the period M48s. Perhaps, just perhaps, there was no influence, but that would certainly counter they way they looked at the time of their introduction.
The Leopard 2 is still a front line tank in many armies and the last German tank to be introduced. It's a contemporary design to the M1 Abrams. The Turks have about 350 of them, about the same number as Leopard 1s. While I can't say, I'd be surprised if they deployed them in Syria for the same reason that its not surprising that we didn't deploy M60s to Vietnam. No reason to send in your most modern tank where its not going to encounter another tank.
The Turks are currently building their own tanks, but they just started. The Altay Turkish tank reflects a global trend of nations once again building their own armor, rather than importing it, a return to past practices. The Altay is based on the South Korean K2 Black Panther, which also reflect that trend. But the Altay just entered service.
Reliance on German weapons is something that the Turks have done since the Ottoman days. At some point Turkey ceased to be an international weapons shopper when it was still the Ottoman Empire and became a German client. For that reason it fought World War One with German designs. In the Interbellum it still used them, and when the Germans took Poland in 1939 the Turks took quite a few unfinished Polish 98 Mausers and finished them themselves.
After World War Two the Germans were briefly out of the weapons business, but when they returend to it Turkey returned as a customer of its small arms. While Turkey has a vareity of odds and ends in small numbers, the G3 and the MG3 are its main infantry squad weapons. If you see a Turkish soldier armed with something else, there's a reason for it. Both are excellent weapons and ideal for the conditions they're being used in. Both date back quite some time now, although neither could be considered obsolete. Only in pistols does Turkey really depart from pattern here, using a locally produced variant of the Baretta 92F, which of course itself is based on the Walther P-38.
Artillery wise, Turkey uses a smattering of things, but those things include a lot of Cold War era American artillery pieces, including the M110, which is something I'm pretty familiar with from my earlier days.
The M110.
Aircraft wise, Turkey has been an American customer and its primary combat aircraft is the F16, made under license in Turkey. Turkey was going to buy F35s, but a purchase of Russian anti aircraft missiles caused the US to cancel the deal. This in fact has been emblematic of recent problems between the US and Turkey, as Turkey has flirted with looking East after the US pretty much ignored the problems created by Turkey shooting down a Russian airplane flying out of Syria awhile back.
I frankly doubt Turkey will continue to look east. .. in that fashion. There's a huge Central Asian Turkish population to Turkey's east and Turkey can't ignore that and Russia is unlikely to do so.
Turkey also isn't ignoring the Kurds, of course, which gives us the reason for the current Turkish offensive in northern Syria, an action which the Syrian government is taking advantage of, and that takes us to the Kurds.
Kurdish combatants have long been users of the AKM, which people commonly imagine to be the AK47. This is a remnant of the days in which the various Kurdish militias fell on the leftward side of the Cold War map and therefore were entitled to Soviet aid, one way or another. The Kurds, as a result, are heavy users of old Soviet weapons.
More recently they've benefited from American and German assistance so they have a variety of old and new weapons. From the US they've acquired M4 carbines, and from Germany G3s and G36s. They possess anti tank missiles as well, but in terms of heavy weapons, they are lacking.
All of which goes to make the current fighting between the Turks and the Kurds, in which the Kurds will give a good account of themselves but lose, an odd late Cold War feel to it.
I frankly doubt Turkey will continue to look east. .. in that fashion. There's a huge Central Asian Turkish population to Turkey's east and Turkey can't ignore that and Russia is unlikely to do so.
Turkey also isn't ignoring the Kurds, of course, which gives us the reason for the current Turkish offensive in northern Syria, an action which the Syrian government is taking advantage of, and that takes us to the Kurds.
Kurdish combatants have long been users of the AKM, which people commonly imagine to be the AK47. This is a remnant of the days in which the various Kurdish militias fell on the leftward side of the Cold War map and therefore were entitled to Soviet aid, one way or another. The Kurds, as a result, are heavy users of old Soviet weapons.
More recently they've benefited from American and German assistance so they have a variety of old and new weapons. From the US they've acquired M4 carbines, and from Germany G3s and G36s. They possess anti tank missiles as well, but in terms of heavy weapons, they are lacking.
All of which goes to make the current fighting between the Turks and the Kurds, in which the Kurds will give a good account of themselves but lose, an odd late Cold War feel to it.
An actual reason, if not a necessarily a moral one, or even a good one, to stand aside in northern Syria. . . Realpolitik
But there's a catch to it.
Turkey has been our ally since 1945. Technically, but fairly hypocritically, Turkey became an American ally when it declared war on Germany in February 1945.
Turkey never fired a shot in World War Two (making Donald Trump's line about the Kurds not being with us in Normandy all the more odd). And Turkey was courted for most of the war by the Germans. Turkey didn't enter World War Two as it guessed German chances correctly, which didn't mean that it was our pal. Rather, Germany had been close to Turkey since the Imperial German and Imperial Ottoman days. The fall of the Kaiser and the Emperor hadn't disrupted that.
And Turkey both had designs on Turkish Central Asia and feared the Soviet Union, which it had good reason to do. There's little reason to doubt that if the Germans had entered Moscow in 1941 and pushed the Soviets over the Volga at Stalingrad in 1942 the Turks would have entered the war and crossed the Soviet frontier, taking Soviet Central Asia. But Ataturk and his men had a better historical memory than Hitler and his cronies, and the Turks weren't convinced that the Soviets would fall.
They also weren't convinced that they wouldn't cross the Turkish frontier in 1944 or 45, so they threw in with the Allies at the bitter end to help avoid that.
After the war the Turks sided with the west as it feared the Soviets, and rightly so. Turkey fought with the United Nations in Korea. It was a steadfast NATO and American ally against the Soviet Union. It allowed the US to position nuclear missiles on its territory in the late 50s and early 60s. It allowed U2 flights to take off from its airfields and cross its frontier into the USSR.
And it might be a useful ally against the Russians today.
All of that is highly cynical. Turkey has gone from being a country basically ruled by its military, which possessed a veto power over its civilian government, to a shaky democracy with an Islamist prime minister. As its done that, it's been less and less friendly to American positions in the world, but the relationship remains.
Presuming that Turkey doesn't fall into being an Islamic republic, and take the same path as Pakistan or, worse yet, Iran (and it probably won't), the alliance between the two nations could remain useful.
But that means that the United States has to accommodate itself to Turkish suppression of the Kurds. Or at least it might.
Playing both side of an alliance; being an ally of a sovereign nation and opposing its armed foreign positions can be done, but it's really tricky. Dwight Eisenhower followed by John F. Kennedy did that in regard to the French in Algeria, whom we did not support even though they were a NATO ally. Eisenhower also managed that in regard to Israel, France and the UK during the Suez crisis, telling those nations close to us not only that they were on their own but that they had no business intervening in Egypt. And the US sort of managed that with the UK in Ireland, although never in any official sort of way.
Maybe we could pull that off in regard to the Kurds, who deserve their own state, and a state that would make Turkey a smaller one. But that would be really tough. That worked in regard to Ireland only because the British were headed in that direction anyhow, and they judged an ongoing relationship with the United States something not to be disrupted.
Which is part of the reason that you need to think out your interventions before you get in.
When we went into Syria, there was no way that we weren't going to end up supporting the Kurds there. After all, we had done that very thing with the Kurds in Iraq.
And that was always going to make Turkey highly uncomfortable.
So at that point, you really have to ask, do you value Kurdish liberty over Turkish support against the Russians, if you need it?
If you don't ask that question, you're going to end up blowing something. Either the Turks become enraged with the US, or the Kurds do.
Make no mistake about it. We have betrayed the Kurds. And we didn't even do it in the Machiavellian Kissinger way of selling somebody out while pretending we aren't. We've done something wrong.
And that error started when we didn't think out Syria well in the first place.
And perhaps now, all the damage that can be done, has been. We've betrayed the Kurds and the Turks have already started to become a shaky ally. So nothing has been achieved.
Kissinger. He probably wouldn't have stopped the Turks either. . . but he wouldn't have gone into Syria in the first place and he wouldn't have offered the Kurds false hopes. Shoot, he'd have made it look like we were doing the right thing, even if we weren't.
Turkey has been our ally since 1945. Technically, but fairly hypocritically, Turkey became an American ally when it declared war on Germany in February 1945.
Turkey never fired a shot in World War Two (making Donald Trump's line about the Kurds not being with us in Normandy all the more odd). And Turkey was courted for most of the war by the Germans. Turkey didn't enter World War Two as it guessed German chances correctly, which didn't mean that it was our pal. Rather, Germany had been close to Turkey since the Imperial German and Imperial Ottoman days. The fall of the Kaiser and the Emperor hadn't disrupted that.
And Turkey both had designs on Turkish Central Asia and feared the Soviet Union, which it had good reason to do. There's little reason to doubt that if the Germans had entered Moscow in 1941 and pushed the Soviets over the Volga at Stalingrad in 1942 the Turks would have entered the war and crossed the Soviet frontier, taking Soviet Central Asia. But Ataturk and his men had a better historical memory than Hitler and his cronies, and the Turks weren't convinced that the Soviets would fall.
They also weren't convinced that they wouldn't cross the Turkish frontier in 1944 or 45, so they threw in with the Allies at the bitter end to help avoid that.
After the war the Turks sided with the west as it feared the Soviets, and rightly so. Turkey fought with the United Nations in Korea. It was a steadfast NATO and American ally against the Soviet Union. It allowed the US to position nuclear missiles on its territory in the late 50s and early 60s. It allowed U2 flights to take off from its airfields and cross its frontier into the USSR.
And it might be a useful ally against the Russians today.
All of that is highly cynical. Turkey has gone from being a country basically ruled by its military, which possessed a veto power over its civilian government, to a shaky democracy with an Islamist prime minister. As its done that, it's been less and less friendly to American positions in the world, but the relationship remains.
Presuming that Turkey doesn't fall into being an Islamic republic, and take the same path as Pakistan or, worse yet, Iran (and it probably won't), the alliance between the two nations could remain useful.
But that means that the United States has to accommodate itself to Turkish suppression of the Kurds. Or at least it might.
Playing both side of an alliance; being an ally of a sovereign nation and opposing its armed foreign positions can be done, but it's really tricky. Dwight Eisenhower followed by John F. Kennedy did that in regard to the French in Algeria, whom we did not support even though they were a NATO ally. Eisenhower also managed that in regard to Israel, France and the UK during the Suez crisis, telling those nations close to us not only that they were on their own but that they had no business intervening in Egypt. And the US sort of managed that with the UK in Ireland, although never in any official sort of way.
Maybe we could pull that off in regard to the Kurds, who deserve their own state, and a state that would make Turkey a smaller one. But that would be really tough. That worked in regard to Ireland only because the British were headed in that direction anyhow, and they judged an ongoing relationship with the United States something not to be disrupted.
Which is part of the reason that you need to think out your interventions before you get in.
When we went into Syria, there was no way that we weren't going to end up supporting the Kurds there. After all, we had done that very thing with the Kurds in Iraq.
And that was always going to make Turkey highly uncomfortable.
So at that point, you really have to ask, do you value Kurdish liberty over Turkish support against the Russians, if you need it?
If you don't ask that question, you're going to end up blowing something. Either the Turks become enraged with the US, or the Kurds do.
Make no mistake about it. We have betrayed the Kurds. And we didn't even do it in the Machiavellian Kissinger way of selling somebody out while pretending we aren't. We've done something wrong.
And that error started when we didn't think out Syria well in the first place.
And perhaps now, all the damage that can be done, has been. We've betrayed the Kurds and the Turks have already started to become a shaky ally. So nothing has been achieved.
What about Fruit? Foods, Seasons, and our Memories, Part Two. A Hundred Years Ago.
Central Pacific Fast Fruit Train, 1886.
Lex Anteinternet: Foods, Seasons, and our Memories. A Hundred Year...: The last garden I put in, 2017. Another interesting entry on A Hundred Years Ago. The Last Fresh Vegetable Month I've touched ...In that I noted that it was apparently the case that they were not transported by rail.*
Originally I planned on dealing with fruits and vegetables. But I ended up limiting it to vegetables for the most part.
Let's start with the obvious. Fruits native to higher latitudes are pretty limited, globally.
They aren't wholly absent. Apples, for example, do grow pretty far north.
Oranges, however, do not.
Let's also add something that's generally not pondered, that being that where fruit grows today is the product of introduction. Almost every fruit you can think of that we deal with commonly isn't grown today, even if that's just in your backyard, in the area from which it is originally from.
In our current era there's a big movement to be fearful of Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs. Truth be known, however, in terms of plants, unless you are eating a highly local diet purely of what grows there naturally, you are eating GMOs. They're GMOs that came about due to selection of characteristics, and that's farmer selection, not the natural selection that's a feature of evolution. We don't recognize that as its been going on so long.
Apples we mentioned above. Apples are interesting in that they're spread around the globe now and in a zillion varieties. There are apple groves all over. But apples are originally from Central Asia. They've spread everywhere from there, thanks to humans, as we like apples.
Even the word "apple" is interesting in this context. Apple is a cognate of the German word Apfel, and that word is one of the words we know to have been passed down from Indo European. It's an ancient, ancient word. It predates history. We don't know, however, if the word referred to apples. The better guess is that it just referred to any kind of fruit.** The fruit early Indo Europeans were eating aren't well known today. They could have included apples, but more likely were pears, which have a gigantic natural distribution.
The point is that everything we write about, or experience, is in some ways defined by the era. This blog focuses on the 1890 to 1920 time frame, although it dabbles in everything else and every other era. But when we're speaking of food in these recent posts, we're dealing with the early parts of our own era, and going back about a century or so.***
If we go back further, we're dealing with a much different set of circumstances. If, as an example, we're dealing with Bob CroMagnon in the year 10,000 BC, well we're dealing with highly local foods, rather obviously. If we're dealing with the year 1774, however, and talking about the North American East Coast, we're already talking about a highly altered food landscape with lots and lots of foods being grown and consumed locally that weren't natural.
Put another way, when you or your predecessor go out in your backyard in the 42 deg North region in North America, and pick an apple or perhaps a pear, you are picking a non native, and frankly highly selectivised fruit. Jonathon Apples weren't here when Columbus showed up. . . for that matter they weren't here when the Vikings showed up either.
Neither, of course, were a lot of other things you eat.
Diverting a bit, none of this is intended to pick on locavores. Rather, it's to point out that even a less resource intensive or a more "natural", or agrarian, lifestyle still makes use of a lot of consumables that didn't originate here.****
Anyhow, as we've already dealt with, in the winter months in the upper half of North America, the fresh vegetable season ended in October. And as I've also addressed, I know that fresh fruit was quite restricted during the winter months most places. Indeed, a common memory for people my parents age was getting fruit for Christmas. My mother recollected that for Christmas she normally got a book and some fruit, and she thought that a pretty good Christmas. The 1964 Valdez Alaska tidal wave was so devastating as young people had gathered at the docks to get fruit from ships that came in, something they traditionally brought that time of year as a gift.
That resulted in the horrible loss of life, but in terms of what we're observing, there is no earthly way that young people today would gather at the docks to get oranges.
It just wouldn't happen.
I note all of this as its clear that transportation of fruit isn't what it now is, but that some of it did occur. How much, I'm not sure. So little that it did make the gift of fruit a real gift, but enough so that in Montreal you could get it.
So clearly a closer look was in order.
In looking up this topic I ran across one fruit company advertisement from the 1910s or 1920s (I'm not sure which, but likely the 20s) depicting a young woman with a hitched up skirt, posing with an orange.***** On the advertisement wast the logo of the Union Pacific Company.
And that reminded me of the Pacific Fruit Express.
All of which means I may have been partially in error. Or maybe not. Or maybe partially. Or not at all.
It's one of those things I don't know, and which is surprisingly hard to learn about easily. I'm sure it could be fleshed out, but not in an easy net sort of way.
The story, apparently, of the fast rail transportation of edible vegetation starts with oranges and California. Oranges were grown early in California with the planting of orange groves at Catholic missions in the state early on.****** Commercial growing of oranges commenced in the state in the 1840s and the arrival of the transcontinental railroad in the 1860s was exploited almost immediately by fruit growers, who shipped iced fruit back east, which was at a bare minimum already well known as a method of preserving fish. Coincidentally this same technological development coincided with the invention of the railroad refrigerator car, which we've dealt with elsewhere. As we've seen here already, the refrigerator car lead to the rise of the beef industry in a very rapid way, changing American's diets in that regard, and it lead to the rise of large scale breweries as well.
It also lead to the rail transportation of fruit.
By the 1870s, hybridization of oranges had lead to new varieties and oranges became sort of a national mania.
By the 1890s this had become such a big deal that t he state entered its "Orange Era". The Santa Fe exploited citrus by introducing a large fleet of fast refrigerator cars to move citrus. This lead the Southern Pacific and the Union Pacific to combine to create the Pacific Fruit Express in 1906, which grew to be the largest refrigerator rail car leasing entity in the world.^
Grapes being loaded into refrigerator car in 1923. Predictably, this scene is from California.
Having refrigerator cars already, Armour, the meat packing company, soon entered into competition with Pacific Fruit Express. The Sherman Anti Trust Act intervened, however, and Armour had to divest itself of its fruit shipping branch, which lead to the creation of the Fruit Growers Express in 1919.^^ It merged with Great Northern Railway into a new entity in 1923 designed specifically to compete with the Pacific Fruit Express, emerging as the Western Fruit Express.
Refrigerator car being loaded with strawberries, 1939.
So what this tells us is that by 1900 shipping fruit by rail was already a big deal and becoming a bigger deal. If fruit was shipped this way, logic would hold that other produce also was, but it's exceedingly difficult to find any reference to it or photographs of it, which leaves doubt as to how common it was. Seemingly not very, if it occurred at all.
But fruit was definitely being shipped in that fashion.
So why was it regarded as a treat?
I'm not really sure. Some of that may have to do with economics of earlier times. And some of it may be that we now live very much in the "cheap food" era. If we go back a century or so, that wasn't the case and there were no governmental incentives or directives to keep food cheap, which now there is. That's something that really was an offshoot of the Great Depression but more than that agricultural policies that came out of it and into full fruition during the 1950s.^^^
It's also, as we have seen, a byproduct of transportation.
We've clearly seen that in regard to the impact of railroads upon food, starting with our earlier look at refrigerator cars and meat and refrigerator cars and beer. Now we've looked at in regard to refrigerator cars and fruit. Railroads, during the time we're discussing, were the only fast way to move anything, but it's also the case that the time period we're discussing saw the onset of a major effort to improve roads and to create an interstate highway system. That pioneering effort had started some time ago, but the 1919 Motor Transport Convoy really put it into focus. Even something like the 1919 Air Derby, which we've also been reading about, did as well. In 1919 the highways remained primitive most places, a recent Casper paper here reported on somebody's trip to Denver taking 16 hours by car, for example. But they were about to be very much improved. As that occurred, the trucking industry would start to make its appearance, giving the railroads competition in everything. Once that was fully established, everything became to change in the produce world.
The first refrigerated truck trailers, cooled by ice, came in during the 1920s, so we're on the cusp of that now in terms of the focus of the blog. The first mechanically cooled truck trailers, came in during the 1930s, and that's a huge deal. Once that occurred, the ability to transport cooled vegetables really advanced. Now, of course, this has developed to where trucks have replaced trains entirely, at least for the time being, shipping right to the grocery store.
What we didn't address, however, and need to, is reefer ships. We don't think of refrigerated ships being part of this picture but they are. By 1876 the mechanically cooled reefer ship had come about and had already taken a load of meat from Argentina to Europe. By 1899 refrigerated ship deliveries of fruit to the United states were over 90,000 tons per year. Prior to World War One the United Fruit Company had already introduced refrigerator ships, some also hauling passengers, to ship its produce globally.
*I also linked this in to our companion blog on railroads, in case my assumptions about rail transportation are in error, fwiw.
**FWIW, another long surviving word is "Bear". That says something. The Indo European word "apple" having survived so long due to people liking fruit and needing to eat. Bear, on the other hand, is still around as bears are dangerous.
***I know that is popular to talk in terms of "modern" vs. "post modern". Well that's a load of crap. When historians look back two centuries from now, 1890 is going to be part of the same era you are living in right now. We'll deal with that some other time, but the whole post modern thing is the age old phenomenon of people defining any era they live in as the best of all times, or the worst of all times, or both at the same time.
****As an aide, just recently the Tribune ran an article on a fellow, and some of his disciples, who really, really eat local, and have for a long time. The individual, dating back to the 1970s, pretty much wondered around the Red Desert making use of what's available there.
*****Early orange advertisements, or at least those of the 1910s and 1920s, are exceedingly strange which is why I haven't posted any of them here. They seemed divided, basically, into three categories.
One of them featured Western scenes, such as cowboys, even though cowboys aren't noted for their orange consumption. The only example of such advertising I've seen in person is of that type, featuring a hard working cowboy, his cowboy pushed to the back of his head, admiring an orange.
Another type, however, featured young women. Some just featured young women, but some featured young women in alluring poses. More than a few featured young women who were barely dressed. All of this is really an unmistakable attempt to sell oranges based on something other than oranges, but why?
A third type featured Plains Indians, who are not noted for their orange consumption. Of course, oranges aren't native to North America at all, so it'd be really unlikely that a Sioux warrior would pop up over a hill and observe an orange grove. But that sort of depiction was common.
A hybrid type featured Indian women who had lost part of their clothing. That's odd in and of itself but semi nude women were common in advertising art prior to 1930 and therefore perhaps that's not as odd as it might seem. It is odd, however. It's sort of bizarrely imperialist in fact.
Attractive Indian women linger on, albeit barely, in advertising in two ways. The Land O Lakes dairy entity, a cooperative, still features their very early advertising logo of an attractive, but at least fully clad, Indian woman, even though Indian women of the era depicted would have found any dairy product unusual. The Navajo Trucking company still features its attractive stylized Indian woman on the doors of their trucks, in a very much post World War Two, pre 1960, type of illustration. I'm particularly amazed that the latter logo, and indeed the company name, haven't changed.
******While California today is desperate to deny it, and while its fairly clear the problems in the state have eclipsed its rise and its in a state of continual decline of all sorts, California owes its existence to Catholic missionary endeavors.
It owes its modern existence in part to mining, which is rather obvious, and partially even to oil exploration, but overall, very much to agriculture. In that sense, modern California is an example of the "tragedy of the Commons" written large. It's still a major food producer, but its also built over and paved over its base industry to a shocking degree.
^Rail cars are often leased, rather than owned.
^^That year again, 1919. It's amazing how important of year 1919 was in all sorts of ways.
^^^We're so used the there being certain Federal departments today, such as the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Education, that we tend to think they must have always existed.
The Department of Agriculture was actually created in 1860s, although some of its duties had bounced around in the Patent office prior to that. The Department of the Interior, therefore, very much predates the Department of Agriculture in any form. It didn't become a cabinet level department until 1889, almost the era that this post deals with.
That's significant for a lot of reasons, most of which we'll skip for the time being. Worth nothing here, however, is that the Federal government became hugely interested in agriculture during the 1930s, due to the Great Depression. Lots of programs sprang up at that time designed to deal with farm relief and environmental conditions that the 30s demanded. Not all of those were successful by any means.
The Depression was followed by World War Two which created a massive strain on the county's food production.
And that was followed by the Cold War and the 1950s, which started a really odd era of "get big or get out" that was partially fueled by Cold War fears, partially fueled by the "cheap food" policy of the era, and partially fueled by apocalyptic food scenarios that the government feared. We still live in that era as its become institutionalized, although in terms of direct involvement, the Federal government has much reduce its activities.
October 11, 1919. Air Derby, Disasters At Sea, Strife in Russia, Newspapers by Air.
Lt. B. W. Maynard, right, in front of a DH-4. Sgt. Kline was Maynard's mechanic and in the second seat. This photo was taken during the Air Derby.
The press was taking an interest in a particular pilot, B. W. Maynard. Maynard was an Army aviator, but the press liked the idea that Maynard was an ordained minister, which he was not. Rather, prior to World War One, he had been a seminary student at Wake Forest.
Maynard had become an Army pilot during World War One, and he was still flying in 1919, just after the war was over. He was killed in 1922 preforming stunts in a "flying circus" event.
Too much was going on, on this day, otherwise to really summarize it. Even the headlines of the papers were a mess.
One new oddity was, however, that the Casper Herald flew newspapers to Riverton, showing how much the Air Deby had captivated the imagination of the state.
Thursday, October 10, 2019
The Secondary Waves of the Great War.
World War Two, for obvious reasons, looms large in our imagination as the biggest event of the 20th Century. The biggest, and the most significant.
But are we wrong?
It seems lately that the echos of World War One are resounding pretty loudly.
World War One smashed the old order and demolished the borders of centuries. The interbellum tried to reconstruct them, but did so in a metastasized and imperfect form, giving rise to new malignant orders that sought to fill the voids left by the death of the old imperial ones. World War Two pitted three forces against each other, fascism, communism, and democracy, with democracy and communism ultimately siding with each other against fascism. After the war, the results of the Second World War gave rise to a contest between the two victors, communism and democracy, against each other until the vitality of free societies and free markets drove the rigidness of communism to and beyond the breaking point.
And now that communism is dead and gone, buried alongside its evil cousin fascism, the old unsolved questions of the Great War are back. The rights of small nations, including those with out countries, against the possessions of older larger ones. The demise of great empires giving rise to smaller ones. Nationalism of all stripes against everything else.
It's 1919 all over again.
Indeed, rather than do that, it fought it out.
It can't be blamed. The Greeks had a quasi legitimate claim to Smyrna, but only quasi. A lot of ethnic Greeks lived there, which is no surprise as Anatolia had been Greek. The Ottoman's were invaders to the region, finally taking it in the 1450s. But it had a large Ottoman population that they were bloodily brutal towards and they engaged in conquest, with the help of their Western allies, in Anatolia proper, seeking in a way to reverse what was lost centuries prior.
The Italian claim, moreover, to islands off of Turkey was absurd.
But the Armenian claims to their lands weren't.
The region sought of Armenia marked for a plebiscite is Kurdistan. The Syria that ran to the sea and down to Palestine was an Ottoman province carved away from the Empire. So was the Mesopotamia, i.e., Iraq, that appears on the map.
In 1990, the United States intervened in the Middle East to force Iraq, the British post World War One creation, out of Kuwait, a desert province that the British had protected during their stay in the Middle East, launching operations, with the assistance of others, from that region of Arabia named for the Sauds, that Arabian family that spent the Great War and the immediate interbellum consolidating power at the ultimate expense of the Hashemites, that Arabian noble family who had made war on the Turks. The British dolled out kingdoms to that family as consolation prizes, with the Hashemites taking Iraq and the Transjordan. The French got to administer Syria, a region that it claimed an historical affinity to, with the British taking administration of Palestine and Egypt, both of the latter having been Ottoman provinces although Egypt was long administered by the British in an arrangement that nobody can possibly grasp.
And so now, the old fights, and the interbellum struggles, reappear. The peoples not accorded nations would like to have them. The old empires would like to keep their domains. Borders drawn by European nations, with the help of Woodrow Wilson, are treated as real, when perhaps they were never correct.
Labels:
1910s,
1919,
2019,
Armenia,
Egypt,
Greece,
Interbellum,
Iraq,
It was because of World War One,
Italy,
Jordan,
Kurds,
Ottoman Empire,
Palestine,
Saudi Arabia,
Syria,
The Cold War,
Treaty of Sevres,
Turkey,
World War Two
Location:
Middle East
October 10, 1919. The Air Race
The 1919 Air Derby was the big news, already displacing the Red Sox's victory over what would become to be known as the Black Sox in the 1919 World Series.
The race in Wyoming, however, was marred by the news that a pilot had gone down near Elk Mountain, or more accurately sought of Elk Mountain over Oberg Pass.
The aviators were actually flying near Coad Peak, but the result was just as deadly.
Death would also be visiting a 16 year old in the state. . sentenced for murder.
And Casper was getting into the aviation world as well with plans to become the aviation center of the state.
It would in fact achieve that goal, but not for some years. Cheyenne, in fact, would become that first, and then lose that position given its close proximity, in air miles, to Denver.
Naval base, Hampton Roads, Virginia. October 10, 1919.
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
Blood on our hands
The fate of prisoners taken in war uniformly depends upon the views of the captors, combined with their capacity to act in compliance with their ideals.
It's never been an enviable fate to be a prisoner taken in war. And by that, I don't just mean prisoners of war, those combatants taken in battle, but also those individuals who become captives because of war.
In the Old Testament the Law modified the custom of the pagans in providing that women who were taken as prizes in war were allowed to morn their dead husbands and were to be treated fairly by those Jewish captors who took them as prizes. This is often misunderstood to mean that the Old Testament sanctioned taking widows of combatant opponents as forced brides. It did not. It restrained an existing universal custom by putting some elements of kindness and humanity into it.
And so commenced a long tradition in the Jewish world, and then the Christian world, of trying to treat prisoners of wars humanely.
It's not a universal norm, and it hasn't been even among those peoples who Christianity has reached.
During the Revolution, at least at the start, the British kept American prisoners, who after all were rebels, in horrible condition contributing to their high death rate. A way out was to switch sides and join the British, which more than a few did.
During the American Civil War both sides, for much of the war, paroled enemy prisoners, simply sending them home on the promise not to fight again. Some did fight again, and eventually both sides stopped the practice. In the prisoner of war camps on both sides the conditions were awful, with those in the resource starved South the most horrific.
During the Boer War the British found it expedient to depopulate the countryside and make prisoners of the Boer women and children. The British have generally been decent, post 18th Century, to captives in war but these concentration camps had appalling conditions and many of the prisoners died.
During the Great War the Allied nations treated the prisoners it took fairly well, as they did those that they interned during the war. The Germans less so, but still not like what was to come.
During World War Two a soldier surrendering to the Allied in Europe, who survived the tense first moments of that experience, were treated quite well. The Germans were less kind, once again, to western Allied POWs in their hands, ultimately shooting quite a few in one spectacular instance of mass escape from Stalag Luft III.
In the east, it was different. The Germans were brutal to Russian prisoners, assuming that they survived the experience in the first place. The Soviets reciprocated as the war went on. Civilians on either side ran great risks from the enemy in their midst. Civilian foreign prisoners of the Germans faced dreadful uncertainties.
Of course, anywhere, prisoners falling into the hands of the SS risked death for that reason alone.
In the Pacific, the Japanese tried to avoid surrendering, and as the war went on the Allies didn't make much of an effort to take them prisoner. Allied soldiers falling into Japanese hands were horrifically treated, and civilians weren't treated much better.
During the Korean War prisoners of the United Nations forces were fairly well treated. UN POWs were not well treated by the Communists. ARVN and US troops who fell into North Vietnamese hands were horrifically treated by the North Vietnamese. Treatment of NVA and VC prisoners by the South Vietnamese was mixed.
The point?
All of this points out the difficult nature of this question to start with.
And now the Turkish army is set to overrun the areas of northern Syria held by the Kurds.
And he Kurds are holding a lot of ISIL prisoners, including a lot of women and children of ISIL combatants.
Under the Christian world view the west possesses, whether it is willing to admit the origin of that view or not, these people are people, and they should be allowed to live as humanely as possible. And while I suppose its possible that the Kurds have been acting in this manner is due to their own views, I sort of doubt it. My guess is that prisoners of war of one Middle Eastern combatant who fall into the hands of another, or just prisoners in general, aren't treated really well.
I could be wrong, of course.
In any event, in very quick time, the Kurds will have to leave these prisoners. I don't think they'll hang around to do a change of flag ceremony.
So, what will become of them?
Well, we're not going to take them.
The Kurds might simply kill them. That's horrific, but its expedient, and the Kurds have plenty of enemies, don't need any left alive, and don't have a lot of time.
Or they might let them go, in which case these still very radical ISIL adherents will see their situation as a just perseverance vindicating their views, and go on to be trouble for us, Syria, and Iraq. Trouble we don't need.
President Trump has suggested that its a European problem as they were "headed to Europe". Maybe some would head to Europe, but trouble for Europe doesn't help us. And disregarding a problem and suggesting its a European problem will come back to haunt us.
Or perhaps they Turks will overrun them. They don't want to deal with them either, however, and what happens next isn't clear. They won't hold them for years.
Maybe they'd turn them over to the Iraqis, or the Syrians. It'd certainly be better to be turned over to the Iraqis. The fate of people turned over to the Syrians would be grim.
All of this, of course, is something we wouldn't have to face if we hadn't have gone into Syria in the first place. But we did. And we supported the Kurds whom we're now abandoning. By doing that, we encouraged the Kurds to hold the prisoners we did.
So we are responsible for whatever occurs.
It's never been an enviable fate to be a prisoner taken in war. And by that, I don't just mean prisoners of war, those combatants taken in battle, but also those individuals who become captives because of war.
In the Old Testament the Law modified the custom of the pagans in providing that women who were taken as prizes in war were allowed to morn their dead husbands and were to be treated fairly by those Jewish captors who took them as prizes. This is often misunderstood to mean that the Old Testament sanctioned taking widows of combatant opponents as forced brides. It did not. It restrained an existing universal custom by putting some elements of kindness and humanity into it.
And so commenced a long tradition in the Jewish world, and then the Christian world, of trying to treat prisoners of wars humanely.
It's not a universal norm, and it hasn't been even among those peoples who Christianity has reached.
During the Revolution, at least at the start, the British kept American prisoners, who after all were rebels, in horrible condition contributing to their high death rate. A way out was to switch sides and join the British, which more than a few did.
During the American Civil War both sides, for much of the war, paroled enemy prisoners, simply sending them home on the promise not to fight again. Some did fight again, and eventually both sides stopped the practice. In the prisoner of war camps on both sides the conditions were awful, with those in the resource starved South the most horrific.
During the Boer War the British found it expedient to depopulate the countryside and make prisoners of the Boer women and children. The British have generally been decent, post 18th Century, to captives in war but these concentration camps had appalling conditions and many of the prisoners died.
During the Great War the Allied nations treated the prisoners it took fairly well, as they did those that they interned during the war. The Germans less so, but still not like what was to come.
During World War Two a soldier surrendering to the Allied in Europe, who survived the tense first moments of that experience, were treated quite well. The Germans were less kind, once again, to western Allied POWs in their hands, ultimately shooting quite a few in one spectacular instance of mass escape from Stalag Luft III.
In the east, it was different. The Germans were brutal to Russian prisoners, assuming that they survived the experience in the first place. The Soviets reciprocated as the war went on. Civilians on either side ran great risks from the enemy in their midst. Civilian foreign prisoners of the Germans faced dreadful uncertainties.
Of course, anywhere, prisoners falling into the hands of the SS risked death for that reason alone.
In the Pacific, the Japanese tried to avoid surrendering, and as the war went on the Allies didn't make much of an effort to take them prisoner. Allied soldiers falling into Japanese hands were horrifically treated, and civilians weren't treated much better.
During the Korean War prisoners of the United Nations forces were fairly well treated. UN POWs were not well treated by the Communists. ARVN and US troops who fell into North Vietnamese hands were horrifically treated by the North Vietnamese. Treatment of NVA and VC prisoners by the South Vietnamese was mixed.
The point?
All of this points out the difficult nature of this question to start with.
And now the Turkish army is set to overrun the areas of northern Syria held by the Kurds.
And he Kurds are holding a lot of ISIL prisoners, including a lot of women and children of ISIL combatants.
Under the Christian world view the west possesses, whether it is willing to admit the origin of that view or not, these people are people, and they should be allowed to live as humanely as possible. And while I suppose its possible that the Kurds have been acting in this manner is due to their own views, I sort of doubt it. My guess is that prisoners of war of one Middle Eastern combatant who fall into the hands of another, or just prisoners in general, aren't treated really well.
I could be wrong, of course.
In any event, in very quick time, the Kurds will have to leave these prisoners. I don't think they'll hang around to do a change of flag ceremony.
So, what will become of them?
Well, we're not going to take them.
The Kurds might simply kill them. That's horrific, but its expedient, and the Kurds have plenty of enemies, don't need any left alive, and don't have a lot of time.
Or they might let them go, in which case these still very radical ISIL adherents will see their situation as a just perseverance vindicating their views, and go on to be trouble for us, Syria, and Iraq. Trouble we don't need.
President Trump has suggested that its a European problem as they were "headed to Europe". Maybe some would head to Europe, but trouble for Europe doesn't help us. And disregarding a problem and suggesting its a European problem will come back to haunt us.
Or perhaps they Turks will overrun them. They don't want to deal with them either, however, and what happens next isn't clear. They won't hold them for years.
Maybe they'd turn them over to the Iraqis, or the Syrians. It'd certainly be better to be turned over to the Iraqis. The fate of people turned over to the Syrians would be grim.
All of this, of course, is something we wouldn't have to face if we hadn't have gone into Syria in the first place. But we did. And we supported the Kurds whom we're now abandoning. By doing that, we encouraged the Kurds to hold the prisoners we did.
So we are responsible for whatever occurs.
Why an understanding of history is important.
They (the Kurds) didn't help us in the Second World War; they didn't help us with Normandy.Donald Trump on the Kurds.
Of course they didn't.
In 1944-45 the Kurds were where they are now, which means that they were unwilling citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey. Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey also didn't help us in the Second World War.
Indeed, the Turks were courted by the Germans throughout much of the war but wisely stayed out, having learned their lesson by siding with the Germans during World War One. Turkey was a neutral power, lead by the aggressively secular military man Ataturk,.
Syria was a French possession going into World War Two, a League of Nations mandate from World War One. It became independent in 1946 basically as the British forced a weakened France to depart. Iraq became independent in 1932 but following a pro fascist coup at the start of World War Two, the British defeated it in a short war in 1941. Iran was a neutral during the war, but a neutral that leaned heavily towards the Allies and which allowed transportation of supplies from the Western allies to the Soviet Union across its territory.
So what does one make of all of this?
Well not much.
World War Two was the single most significant event of the modern era, but it's now 75 some years ago. All of the nations that were our allies, or perhaps more accurately that we became allied to, are still our allies. But the two major nations we fought in World War Two, Germany and Japan, are also our allies. One of the nations that was a major ally of ours during World War Two, the Soviet Union, would be our major opponent for decades thereafter. Russia, its predecessor and successor, can hardly be called our friend.
And bizarrely, perhaps World War One now has more to do with what's gong on in that region than World War Two, at least in some ways. World War Two, followed by the Cold War, put the issues that the Great War's peace shoved into prominence back on the back burner. The major wars were too big and the ideologies too deep for the rights of small peoples to take the place that seemed so prominent in 1918.
Now those issues are back.
Yes, the Kurds didn't fight at Normandy. How could they? But the Western Allies didn't save the Armenians from the Ottomans. How could they? The Allies didn't save the Turks from the Greeks nor did they save the Greeks from the Turks. They probably could have done something about that.
In 1918 the European powers that carved up the Ottoman Empire, as well they should have, imagined a much smaller Turkey. That Turkey would have suffered injustices. Greek claims to the interior of Turkey were unjust. Italian claims to some of Turkey were absurd. But the imagined Kurdish and Armenian states that some saw were not. And Armenia did manage to emerge. Kurdistan did not. We didn't do anything about that.
Maybe we couldn't have. But we could have kept this from breaking out.
Turkey's grievances against the United States (according to the Wall Street Journal)
Turkey is about to invade northern Syria in order to take on the Kurds, our allies, there. (I started this before the in fact did do just that) They have a green light in this from President Trump.
Most people who have looked at this have been horrified. The Kurds have put up an admirable successful fight against long odds, aided in party by their long martial history obtained while trying to secure a state of their own.
A few pundits, however hold the opposite view and feel that Trump is correct. Very few, and most of them put their opinions in much different terms than Trump has. But, giving them their due, what could be the basis for pulling out and handing over an ally to their enemies. Well, no less of journal than the Wall Street journal has declare has declared that the Turks have a point in being upset with the Untied States.
But do any of them justify stepping aside and allowing Turkey to invade northern Syria in order to put down the Kurds. Only one, and only if you agree with the logic of taking sides.
The Journal notes that the Turks cooperated with the U.S. effort in Syria in spite of having misgivings, but that the U.S. didn't rally to its defense when it shot down a Russian combat aircraft. That action, which occurred during the Obama Administration, is very shoddy treatment of an ally, but it doesn't justify an invasion of Kurdish Syria. The Journal also notes that the United States has been harboring an odd religious figure who is in opposition to the Turkish government and whom some believe is associated with a recent coup attempt. That also is plenty reason for the Turkish administration to distrust the US but it's also no reason to invade Kurdish Syria.
The real reason to take that position, and the only one that makes sense as an argument, it that the US, in order to combat ISIL in Syria, armed one of the Kurdish militias which we've formerly branded as a terrorist organization and which has caused lots of deaths in Turkey in the past. That would be a shocking proposition for Turkey and hard for it to accept. And defeating that militia, which is aligned against it, is something that the Turks would wish for.
But here's the rub.
There's no justifying terrorism in any sense. But there's also no good justification for occupying the lands of another people. The Turks are occupying part of Kurdistan and some Kurds are reacting with violence, and have been for a long time. Neither position is acceptable.
But quite often we excuse one or the other. People will glorify Michael Collins, the Irish terrorist leader, and refuse to accept he was a terrorist who was seeking Irish Independence by illegitimate, if successful, means. Irish desires for independence were legitimate and the British occupation became illegitimate. But one doesn't excuse the other in either direction. Likewise some have glorified any other number of terrorist organizations along similar lines or those opposing them.
So Turkey has a legitimate beef about the U.S. again under President Obama, arming the Kurds. But then the Kurds have a legitimate beef with Turkey for occupying their territory when they are not wanted there, particularly in light of the fact that its a historical accident that Kurdistan is not a state while Syria is, even though both were Ottoman territories until 1918. If Turkey has been our ally since more or less 1945 (it really wasn't in any sense before that), it still doesn't excuse this oddity any more than the United Kingdom being our ally meant that we should have opposed Irish independence.
And on the status of Turkey being an ally of the United States, it is, in a formal sense. It's a member of NATO. But it's an ally because it was an opponent of the Soviet Union, the dangerous Communist state that was once on its border. Being a democratic state was not a requirement for being a member of NATO. Turkey often was, but it sometimes wasn't, a status it ironically shared with Greece, which fought a war with Turkey, while both were members of NATO, over Cyprus. It was a minor war, but a war none the less.
NATO membership is still important, to be sure, but the dynamics that lead Turkey into the western alliance have changed. The United States was allied to more than one less than democratic nation during the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War the necessity for such alliances had diminished, and with it the necessity that an allied power meet certain standards should have risen.
The problems begin when those standards start to be applied here. Turkey is our long time ally, as noted above, and is using some American armor in its invasion. The Kurds are largely left wing socialist in orientation. But the Kurds are fighting for what we said we were for in 1917-18 and claim to have been for every since, the right to national self determination. Turkey is a state that retains remnants of its Ottoman past principally in the form of having a large Kurdish territory within its borders.
In the end, the Turkish fight with the Kurds is over that. They'd like out, the Turks would like to keep them in, whether they like it or not. They're not a small group that can be ignored like some other ethnicities that are too small to form a viable state. And a Kurdish state right now would likely be among the most western and most secular in the region. The fact that there isn't such a state is itself a remnant of 1918, when the European powers carved up the region based upon their own ideas, and apparently none of those ideas reflected an independent Kurdistan.
Anyway its looked at, if we'd stayed in, the Turks likely would have stayed out. If that would have weakened our relationship to the current Turkish government, that frankly likely wouldn't have mattered much. It likely also would not have lead to a Kurdish state. But it might have kept the bloodshed we see now from occurring.
And on the status of Turkey being an ally of the United States, it is, in a formal sense. It's a member of NATO. But it's an ally because it was an opponent of the Soviet Union, the dangerous Communist state that was once on its border. Being a democratic state was not a requirement for being a member of NATO. Turkey often was, but it sometimes wasn't, a status it ironically shared with Greece, which fought a war with Turkey, while both were members of NATO, over Cyprus. It was a minor war, but a war none the less.
NATO membership is still important, to be sure, but the dynamics that lead Turkey into the western alliance have changed. The United States was allied to more than one less than democratic nation during the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War the necessity for such alliances had diminished, and with it the necessity that an allied power meet certain standards should have risen.
The problems begin when those standards start to be applied here. Turkey is our long time ally, as noted above, and is using some American armor in its invasion. The Kurds are largely left wing socialist in orientation. But the Kurds are fighting for what we said we were for in 1917-18 and claim to have been for every since, the right to national self determination. Turkey is a state that retains remnants of its Ottoman past principally in the form of having a large Kurdish territory within its borders.
In the end, the Turkish fight with the Kurds is over that. They'd like out, the Turks would like to keep them in, whether they like it or not. They're not a small group that can be ignored like some other ethnicities that are too small to form a viable state. And a Kurdish state right now would likely be among the most western and most secular in the region. The fact that there isn't such a state is itself a remnant of 1918, when the European powers carved up the region based upon their own ideas, and apparently none of those ideas reflected an independent Kurdistan.
Anyway its looked at, if we'd stayed in, the Turks likely would have stayed out. If that would have weakened our relationship to the current Turkish government, that frankly likely wouldn't have mattered much. It likely also would not have lead to a Kurdish state. But it might have kept the bloodshed we see now from occurring.
Mid Week At Work. Margaret D. Foster
Margaret Foster, the first female chemist employed by the United States Geological Survey. October 4, 1919.
Blog Mirror: Small planes, big mountains: Retracing the 1919 ‘Air derby’
Oberg Pass. The Site of the first aircraft fatality in Wyoming.
Which occurred as part of the 1919 Air Derby.
This crash, discussed elsewhere, is usually referenced as occurring "west of Cheyenne". It is west of Cheyenne, but the pilot was following the Union Pacific Railroad and a much better description would have been north west of Laramie, or even south of Medicine Bow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)