Scowcroft In Turkey: Did Someone Talk About 'Hate'?

Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush and the former Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush, gave an interview to the Aksam newspaper as the Chairman of the American Turkish Council in Turkey last week. This interview is important because General Scowcroft's confessions are shocking!

He stated that the PJAK, the Iranian wing of the PKK operating against Iranian armed forces, was supported and encouraged by the Bush Administration. The 84-year-old former adviser added that the US administration did not want to go after PKK forces during the Iraq War as the Northern part was more quiet than the Southern fronts where they were waging a war; whereas the situation changed with the Obama Administration.

Here is the full transcript of the related part of the interview conducted by the Turkish journalist Nagehan Alci:

N. A. – It is alleged that a winding-up decision will be taken for PKK in a Kurdish General Gathering in Erbil in April. Do you think that it is possible?

B. S. – I hope that it is. For me, the optimum situation is ceasefire. At the end of the day, at least, the Kurdish Provisional Government will be persuaded; an agreement will be signed; and border passings will be prevented. There are many ways to end this situation but the most important one is to put an end to the terrifying situation taking source from PKK now.

N. A. – Do you mean that PKK's ceasefire decision is in favour of the US?

B. S. – Yes, absolutely it is.

N. A. – Why? What changed?

B. S. – PKK and its PJAK branch were also operating against Iran. That is why we were giving support to and encouraging them. However, the situation has changed. We do not want to give harm to the people we want to get on well with. We want Iran beside us.

N. A. – Do you mean that there is no need to support PKK?

B. S. – Yes, there is a new approach towards Iran in our agenda. We were fighting on the Southern fronts during the Iraq war. The Kurdish region was relatively more quiet to the rest fronts. We did not want to waste our power by going after PKK. Indeed, it was not possible as well.

N. A. – What does this 'new approach towards Iran' include?

B. S. – We want to tell them that 'You are a big state in the region. You have many problems, with security being in the first place. We should talk on these through dialogue.' We have operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We want to solve the problems in the region so that everyone can feel safe.

So, it has been proven once more that the hawkish policies of the Bush Era were based on irrational, naïve and superficial evaluations and strategies. Using PKK which had already been designated a 'terrorist' organization by the United States of America against a country which has been accused of escalating the tensions through financing the terrorist groups against the US forces and innocent people of Iraq is far from the claim of pursuing a general 'democratization' plan based on the values of the Enlightenment: freedom, rationality and reason. This is not just a crime against the people of Iran and Iraq, but also against the American people who have been worrying over their children's future.

Another part of the story is apparent from the rest of his inconsistent statements. When his opinion is asked about Turkey's mediation efforts, General Scowcroft states: “Turkey's efforts are very meaningful and significant for us. The US does not know the region and its dynamics. This geography is Turkey's backyard. You have a history in the Middle East. We take heed of this.” If the US has no knowledge and experience in this region and pays attention to this, why did the Bush Administration ignore the wails coming from all around Turkey in the face of the increasing tensions between the Turkish armed forces and the terrorists/separatists and did not work with its ally in the region? If the main goal had been to democraticize and keep the region safe, then the Bush Administration would not have strengthened and encouraged an armed faction against two powerful states in the region.

I think these confessions are sufficient to give an answer to the basic discourse continuously pumped by the official institutions: “Why do they hate us?” Thank you General for your confessions... And thank you for being miles away from the decision-making process.

Comments

[Josh Mull]

You're right that this probably counts as some sort of on-the-record confession, but the notion that the US was supporting terrorist elements in Iraq, Kurdistan, and Iran goes along with other "notions" such as Jordanian combat troops in Afghanistan or US special forces in Somalia where, indeed they are entirely unproven, but there is enough data for you to still comfortably use them in your calculations.

One of the problems with foreign policy assessments in the mainstream media is that they lack simple nuances like those found above in Kurdistan. And without these slight variations, overtime they accumulate into massive gaps and misunderstandings, and finally wind up as dangerously inaccurate revisionist histories (See: The Surge Worked!)

Obviously I am not encouraging anyone to go wild and include every tiny conspiracy theory they might come across, but the right blend of discretion and confidence can go a long way toward reaching previously unattainable conclusions.