Turkey mainly, Iraq and the Kurds (2006-2014)

[Jedburgh]

So are we going to give other nations/groups a similar pass on the presence of groups identified as FTOs? Regardless of what the Kurdish priorities may be at the present, there is still a LARGE presence of PKK/Kongra Gel militants in the vicinity of Mout Qandhil. In addition, there continue to be elements of MEK and Ansar al Sunnah in the Kurdish regions as well.

Didn't I just reply to this?

Are we going to give the Pakis and Afghanis a similar pass when it comes to locating and capturing groups identified as FTOs? Are we going to give the Colombians a similar pass in tracking down the FARC?

I would argue that we already do give these countries "a pass", in the context I believe to which you are referring. Pakistan certainly stands out, a review of key figures in Afghanistan both regionally and nationally will illustrate many operating on at least a temporary "pass", and as for Columbia, more so than the FARC, we are giving them a "pass" on the right-wing paramilitaries.

In some aspects, the "passes" are gross errors of policy judgment, in other cases they are viewed as expedient temporary oversights that permit continued application of pol-mil pressures in higher priority areas. Sometimes these oversights are necessary to preserve a precarious balance of stability until effective alternatives and/or countermeasures are in place.

We get all over the Syrians and even the Lebanese for the presence of extremist groups, though in the case of Lebanon, Hizballah has been democratically elected, yet we say nothing to the Kurds. I think the average American would not want US dollars going to groups that are on the FTO list.

Selective application of moral righteousness is a long-standing aspect of foreign policy.

However, I believe you are going a bit far in your analogies. The last part of your statement would have one believe that US aid dollars to the Kurds are being further funneled to terrorist organizations in a form of policy-directed state-sponsored terrorism. That is utterly and completely false - but it is certainly along the lines of what the government of Turkey is continually disseminating in its long-standing strident propaganda campaign against the KRG.

As I stated in my first post, far more than the Kurds, it is the US that is responsible for what little cohesive bits of the MEK remain in Iraq. I already stated why, and that little moral dilemma is something that has received extremely little coverage by any media source.

It just seems as if we hold the Kurds up as a bright shining example of the "possible" in Iraq, when in fact, they harbor groups we have identified as FTOs. Are we in a war on terror or not?

Despite the weaknesses and faults of the KRG, in contrast to the rest of the country they certainly are a "bright shining example of the possible". Hell, go spend a week each in Baghdad and Basra, then do the same in Suleymaniyah, Irbil and Dohuk. The experience will be enlightening.

And, for emphasis, the KRG is not "harboring" any of these groups, as in the nature of actively providing support and refuge as a matter of policy. The closest to that characterization would be the Kurdish militants from Turkey - and I already attempted to clarify the difference between popular support (as many in the US supported the IRA for years) and official (open or clandestine) support provided by the KRG. The former does exist (strongly in some places - take Boston to further my analogy), the latter does not.