At the time the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, the U.S. put a doctrine known as the “Green Belt” into practice. According to this doctrine, Islam in the Middle East could be used against communism and the USSR. The idea was to surround the USSR with the “Green Belt” by controlling the development of Islam in the countries congruent with the policies of the US and provoking the development of Islam in countries incongruent with them to prevent the infiltration of the USSR’s influence into this region. (1)
As a requirement of this doctrine, the U.S. gave a great deal of support to the insurgents (mujahids) fighting against Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan. One of the most notable names receiving this support was Osama Bin Laden. When Afghanistan was occupied by Soviets between 1979 and 1989, Bin Laden went to Afghanistan and fought against Soviets.
During that time, according to the U.S.’s point of view, the insurgents were the guerrillas fighting against communism for the U.S.’s interests. The insurgents were terrorists, according to occupying Soviets; today, the insurgents continue fighting in Afghanistan, but now they are terrorists according to America. Bin Laden, who was seen as the most loyal fighter of the American deep state in the past, was without any hesitation in a covert operation organized in another country’s lands.
Another example of leaders that the U.S. had been on good terms with once and then announced as its archenemy is Panama’s former ruler Manuel Noriega. Noriega started his career with the “psychological warfare” education he received in the U.S. and then became the head of Panama’s secret service, G2. Noriega, who became the ruler of Panama with the support of the U.S., was so important for America that he was even welcomed to a private dinner with President Bush. However, Noriega later on made some attempts Washington did not like and he was overthrown in 1989 with the intervention of the U.S. Noriega was no longer a loyal ally of the U.S., but “a drug trafficker and an anti-democratic dictator”. (2)
It is possible to see this kind of strategic fluctuations throughout American history. The latest example of this is happening in the Middle East nowadays. The American army, which once fought against communism in Korea and Vietnam, is now busy supporting the terrorist organization the PKK, its branch in Syria the PYD, and its armed wing, the YPG. Well, against whom? Against ISIL who has the same approach as the insurgents that they supported against the communists in Afghanistan.
Spokesperson of the U.S. Department of State John Kirby verified the cooperation between America and Communist Kurdish forces in the region from the official source by saying “They (YPG) have already benefited from coalition air support.” in the daily press briefing in Washington of July the 27th, 2015. (3)
When we look at the past practices of the U.S., it can be supposed that this support given to the YPG will be over once it has achieved certain purposes. It is even possible to say that the YPG will be eliminated by the U.S. deep state itself.
The U.S. gave support to father of Masoud Barzani so that he would revolt against Iraq in the past. But afterwards, the U.S. withdrew this support. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was supported by the U.S. against Iran when the Islamic Revolution occurred and he was used to weaken and keep Iran under control. After the Invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. suddenly remembered that Saddam was a bloody dictator, exactly like Noriega, and ultimately overthrew him with a military operation.
Taking this fairly recent history into account, it is possible that the YPG is also a pawn in the “use and dispose” strategy of the U.S. The main concern is why the deep state of the U.S. needs to use the YPG and what this practice could bring about.
America is considering the problems in the Middle East as independent developments and is regarding war as the solution to these problems. However, it is obvious that the approach of America is not correct and the problems are growing bigger instead of being resolved.
The U.S. supported Latin American dictators and radical Islamic figures against communism during the Cold War but later on, they moved to the stage in which they targeted dictators for removal. When Saddam was targeted in the Middle East, what happened in Fallujah, at the Abu Ghraib prison and at the American detention facility at Guantanamo Bay turned the people of Iraq into radical Islamic figures and made Ba’athist soldiers supporters of extremist movements. According to the data of Iraq’s Ministry of Domestic Affairs, six senior commanders of ISIL were Ba’athist soldiers imprisoned by American forces. (4)
The deep state of the U.S. now sends communist YPG guerrillas to the front line against the radical figures that their own policies created. The war against terror is swiftly leading America into a dead end and now the U.S. is faced with the risk of losing its ally Turkey because they support the YPG.
It is seen that the U.S. trapped in a vicious circle and they are unable to extricate themselves from the Middle East. It is a fact that both communism and the fanatical interpretation of Islam are dangerous, not only for the U.S. but also for the whole world. Nonetheless, it is quite clear that the way to eliminate this danger is not to be found in raining down bombs everywhere.
The best way to struggle against communism is to give scientific answers to its materialist claims: Likewise, the most important thing to do against the fanatical conception of Islam is to explain that the values that this conception defends conflict with the Qur’an. Promoting those Muslim groups that can do this will relieve not only Europe and America, but also the Middle East. If the U.S. does not take these matters into consideration and insists on their familiar policies, they will be faced with new problems, which are far too big and far too extensive to deal with.
Adnan Oktar's piece on Diplomacy Pakistan: