Syria war: Turkey denounces US 'terror army' plan for border
Key powers involved in Syria's civil war have criticised US plans to help an allied Kurdish-led militia set up a 30,000-strong "border security force".
Turkey's president vowed to "suffocate" efforts to begin training members of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and create what he called a "terror army".
Ankara considers Kurds fighting for the SDF to be part of a terrorist group.
Syria's government decried the "blatant attack" on its sovereignty, and Russia warned it could lead to partition.
With the help of air strikes from a US-led coalition, the SDF has captured tens of thousands of square kilometres of territory from Islamic State (IS) militants.
In October, the alliance took full control of the northern city of Raqqa, the de facto capital of the "caliphate" declared by the jihadist group in 2014. Since then, SDF fighters have been advancing south-eastwards along the Euphrates river valley.
Why is the US creating the border force?
News of the coalition's plan to work with the SDF to train a new Syrian Border Security Force (BSF) was first reported on Saturday by The Defense Post, which quoted a spokesman as saying that 230 individuals were currently participating in the "inaugural class".
The coalition said on Monday that its goal was to create a force with about 30,000 personnel "over the next several years". About half will be Kurdish and Arab SDF fighters and the other half new recruits.
The BSF will be tasked with securing the long sections of Syria's northern border with Turkey and eastern border with Iraq that are under SDF control, as well as parts of the Euphrates river valley, which effectively serves as the dividing line between the SDF and Syrian pro-government forces.
"A strong border security force will prohibit Daesh's freedom of movement and deny the transportation of illicit materials," the coalition said, using a different term for IS. "This will enable the Syrian people to establish effective local, representative governance and reclaim their land."
Why is Turkey concerned?
Turkey has consistently opposed the coalition's support for the SDF because the force is dominated by the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) militia.
Ankara considers the YPG an extension of the banned Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which has fought for Kurdish autonomy in Turkey for three decades. Washington disagrees and insists the YPG has been vital to the battle against IS.
On Monday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the US had acknowledged it was "in the process of creating a terror army on our border".
"It is for us to suffocate this terror army before it is born," he said.
Mr Erdogan added that preparations were complete for a Turkish military operation against the Kurdish enclave of Afrin in north-western Syria, and that it might start "at any moment". Troops deployed at the border were already hitting YPG positions inside Afrin with heavy artillery, he noted.
What do other countries say?
The Syrian government called the creation of the SDF border force "a blatant attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity and unity of Syria, and a flagrant violation of international law".
"What the American administration has done comes in the context of its destructive policy in the region to fragment countries... and impedes any solutions to the crises," an official at the foreign ministry was cited as saying by the Sana news agency.
The source warned that Damascus considered any Syrian fighting for militias sponsored by the US to be "a traitor to their people and nation".
Russia, which backs the Syrian government, said the US move might lead to the "break-up of a large territory along the border with Turkey and Iraq". "This is a very serious issue that raises concerns that a path towards the partition of Syria has been taken," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.
My Response
Audience: I think that the audience of this article are people who are wanting to be in the SDF, or the border control people, and anyone who is already working there.
Bias: I strongly believe that this article has a lot of bias against the United States and what they are doing. In numerous passages of the article, it shows that the US is actually doing more bad than good in the whole situation. Also, this is BBC, and i have found that it is often biased against America.
Purpose: I think that the purpose of this article is to tell people working with the United States in the SDF that many outside countries and Syria itself do not approve of the new "terror army" that is being built up along the borders. I also feel like the article is trying to show how America does things that are frowned upon by the rest of the world at times.
My Opinion: I honestly think that America is doing a good job of trying to think up of ways to help Syrians and control a little bit more of the war. However, i don't think that America, in this situation, did a good job of thinking through cultural differences - like how the Kurds are the people who are mostly doing the SDF - and apply them to the strategy. In this instance, i feel like America should have gotten outside approval, and Syrian governmental approval before doing anything by themselves.
This terror organization seems very controversial because all the nations bordering the would be border patrol are violently against it. However it seems like the countries around the Kurdish people are obsessed with disarming them and crushing any desire of them being their own nation. I think there needs to be some institution to make sure the Kurdish people are not crushed and oppressed after other conflicts in the area end. I agree however that this article is biased against America.
ReplyDeleteI think that the audience is anyone who is critical of American Foreign policy which means the crowd is not only people outside of America, but many people within the United States who disagree with, not only the large sums of money spent on the military, but also the sometimes intrusive behavior of the United States. Krista brings up a good point in saying that the U.S. should have been more concerned about the ethnic quotas of the SDF because (as Jones says) most of the people bordering the Kurds hate them. We also need to look to the future. When Iraq was liberated, the Kurds in Iraq tried to claim the land that they had won, so Iraq took that land from them by force. If the Kurds win more land in Syria, they will most likely try to claim the land they win in war and the situation could very quickly escalate into a Civil War between the Kurds and Syria's pro-government forces. That is what America could possibly be responsible for.
ReplyDeleteI think the audience for this article is people who are interested in American affairs and who are involved in the international relations with, or who are interested in the news and interests of the United States. Based on the language and "hints" in this article it is clear to see that the author is for the Syrian movement and against the Kurd's, since they are in the wrong. when looking at this article my gut reaction or bias towards this article would strain towards the Syrian side, I am for their case, and I naturally strain towards the underdog, in this case the Syrian side.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this article seems to have a strong bias against the United States. I would widen the audience and make it more global. I agree with Daniel that the audience is really anyone who disagrees with America's Foreign Policy. It's great that land is being taken from ISIS by this force, but in doing good they could also wreck havoc on what they leave behind. In some cases the United States works well as a mediator, but in this case I feel like they came in and tried to help without understanding ethnical differences. ISIS is not the only issue in the area and it's possible America could create more problems by charging in with a force that's made up of people that the surrounding area is already against. This force would be better if it was more diverse, led by surrounding countries who have decided together that it is time for ISIS to leave.
ReplyDeleteI do somewhat see the bias that is shown in the article against the US, i believe that it is unfair that ISIS is taking away the land from these people that could be used for farming and as a home for these people. I agree with Aaron with which i also feel more strong towards the Syrian people and the hardships that they have to face. This is an issue that has not only escalated over the years but has also been neglected. This backlash is only creating more problems, the more diverse the people group as Lindsey mentioned and that they should decide and vote to drive ISIS away.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Krista and the others in that there is a lot of bias against the US. A lot of negative statements about what the US is doing clearly shows the author's position in this event. I don't exactly know a lot about this situation with the "terror army", but judging from this article, I think that there will most likely be some violence with the border control and the people trying to take more land.
ReplyDeleteI think that the author did a good job in giving different perspectives from Syria, the US, Russia, and Damascus because that shows that this issue involves not only Turkey and the United States, but other countries as well.
This is the same article i chose, and yes, I strongly agree that this article is against or like Andrew said, "People who are interested in the affairs of America". I feel many people now days, thinks America is to blame, everyone hates America and try's to but them down. what i am saying is kind of going with what Lindsey and Daniel are saying. I feel that a lot of the world disagrees with America's foreign policy. A lot of the world doesn't like America and what they do., so the fact that America was helping a Kurdish militia secure its borders, the Syrians went up in arms, because, like always america is trying to " butt in" and help out, but Turkey was not having any of it, and want to denounce it.
ReplyDeleteBased on the opinion of the Syrian officials expressed in the final section of the article it really does seem like the United States jumped into something that they were not necessarily ready for in that they had not talked with other nations and because of their involvement in the area are now being held in contempt by the other nations. I do not really know what the whole backstory is on this, but it seems like although the US has good intentions in the area they are rather hurting their relations with the other nations and may not actually be accomplishing everything they are hoping to.
ReplyDeleteI found there to be much bias in this articles which (as others have already mentioned) is against the US and mentioning how they are not doing enough to help though this. I agree with what Nathan said about america going into something that is not yet at their level of comfort so I think that the bias is understandable but also usually in such a case. It seems like the us did not make a wise choice in jumping is so quickly as they could have waited or thought and talked it over more. And as Lindsey said though america having their forces involved more trouble could arise.
ReplyDeleteJust like everyone else has said there is an obvious bias against the US. And honestly I think that these people have a right to be angry with the US. Throughout history the US has gotten itself involved in other peoples conflicts and generally they have made it worse. So it makes sense to me that people don't want them involved in this. I do believe that there are good ways that the US could help in situations like these but they haven't done so in the paste so there isn't good reason to believe that they would do so now.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou can really see the bias in this article. America is trying to help out the Kurds, but other countries don't agree with what America is doing. This article doesn't point out what good that could possibly come out of a more secure border. I do think that America should have sought surrounding country's approval before acting on this because this could effect their countries as well. America doesn't really have a good approval rating in the Middle East as it is right now. My countries feel that America is trying to force their way into other countries.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat the United States is trying to do is wonderful in theory, but does everything that someone or something does always come out perfect? In this instance it does not look like it does. Yes, people don't seem to be happy with the United States that they are helping to create this army, and they have a right to be. Would anyone want to have an army just pop up out of no where with no consent or anything? Much of what you see in today's news is hate and violence. This is another example of what happens when everyone does not agree on one plan of action.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would agree and say that the audience of this article is the SDF. This article definitely has bias that is going on throughout the article. The bias is going against the United States and what they are trying to do. The article does not point out the good of what the United States is trying to do. I feel like the United States is trying to help the Kurds and help control different aspects of the war. Other countries might not agree with what the United States is doing but it might end up being good for what they need. America is doing good to help them out.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that there was a lot of bias against America in this article. I've also noticed in other articles that they seem to try and make America look like a bad country. They make it seem like America isn't trying to help the Kurdish. Other countries don't Like what we are doing. My opinion is it isn't your country so i don't see why its there business.
ReplyDeleteI think this article has a lot of bias against the United States, we aren't perfect, no one is perfect, and I don't think we try to be. But I think that Syria has a right to be angry with the United States. I think that the U.S is basically jumping into things they aren't ready to be in. The article basically says that the U.S is doing more bad than good, which may or may not be true. The U.S is trying to help Syria, but the U.S is also stepping into something we have no business being in, and we aren't taking into consideration what Syrians want or need.
ReplyDeleteThis terror organization seems very controversial because other countries were violently trying to control the borders. I believe this article has a bias towards the United States, maybe you can try to open up more for both sides. I think the United States tried to jump into something that is not yet at their level. I think the audience is for more people than just people in one country, which means this involves people inside the United States and out of the United States.
ReplyDeleteI think it is not a good idea to help them. It seems like we are fighting a losing battle because America are helping Syria try and take out ISIS but we are also against Syria because we do not like Assad who runs Syria. I think we should help Assad to take out ISIS and then we not help Syria anymore.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this article is bias against America. I believe that the United States should be able to help them if they want. Not everyone agrees on the same thing all the time. I also think that it is good to help them. I think that they need the dividing lines between the SDF and Syrian Pro-government forces.
ReplyDeleteLike most people have already said, there is a lot of bias against the US here. Although they obviously dived in to the situation with good intentions, it is likely that they will end up causing more harm than good. While I definitely want the land to be taken away from ISIS, I think their are better ways it could be done. I agree with Daniel is saying that the intended audience is probably anyone who disapproves with American foreign affairs. Like Andrew says, it is hard not to feel sorry for the Syrians in this situation.
ReplyDeleteI think that I agree with what lot of other people are saying in these comments. Krista was spot on when she said that the article is very against the US, which is normal for the BBC. This is a key insight into their audience - people who also are against the US but another aspect of their audience is people who are interested in what the next few years will look like for the Middle East. I also have a bias as I want to see Syrian be able to be a part of their solution so while the US may have good intentions I think that they need to allow the nations who are closer to the situation have a bigger say in what is going on.
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about how the bias against the US gives us insight into the audience. I think that is very spot on, and is a good indicator of what the audience is going to be. I will keep this in mind next time.
DeleteThis article (as everyone has stated) is biased against the United States, which is a common bias to find outside of America, much of the world is critical of the United States since the Trump administration and often holds America to a higher standard. However, I can understand some of the bias and being critical of the United States decisions in the Middle East. While I side with everyone else in saying that the US has good intentions its very hard to predict how far these good intentions will last in the region especially with concerning comments which the Trump administration has made about relations in the Middle East. There is a due concern for why the rest of the world can be skeptical.
ReplyDeleteI do think that there is a bias present against the United States present in this article, but as David said, I can see why there is bias because of previous situations that have been intervened by the US in the Middle East can cause the preconceived ideas by the reader and also by the author. I do think that the audience for this is broader than just the SDF and as Andrew said people who are interested in what the States is doing around the world. Personally, I don't have any position on the new army that have set up because I don't have any background on what the army is supposed to do or why they set it up apart from the few basics of the war.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a bias against the US. I feel as if we the United States need to stay out of peoples business and try to help resolve the problems in our country first before stepping in other countries. If we are helping the i agree we need to get an outside approval, to make sure this is the best way to help. If it's not the best way to help, then we need to fix our approach.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the bias analysis that others offered. The actions of the US definitely seem to be actions that are controversial which raises the question again of what role the US really should have in global affairs. In the past they have acted as a "policeman" of the world and this article suggests that they are still taking on a large role outside of their own country. I am slightly biased against the US getting involved overseas from my own experience and think that their involvement might simply be perpetuating a problem and turning more people against them.
ReplyDelete