Trump’s Heroic Decision to Save the Kurds
Like many middle eastern civilizations, the Kurdish people have had a complicated history. Turkey which 20% of its population consisting of Kurdish people, has not been very friendly over the last century. Several genocides as well as crushed insurgencies has led to different organizations forming. One of the organizations to form is the People’s Protection Units (YPG). This group is recognized by both Turkey and the U.S. as a terrorist organization made up of Kurdish people residing in Syria. These terrorists were once an ally of the U.S. in the war against ISIS/ISIL.
Although Turkey is an ally in the fight against ISIS, the government still wants to and carries out attacks against the YPG forces. Turkey has been attacking the YPG forces because they occupy land in Syria that Turkey wants. These attacks have not been approved by the U.S. because of the partnership in the war against ISIS. Only recently did Trump give the go ahead to Turkey to fully attack this group. Quickly though, Trump restated his decision on Turkey’s involvement in Syria. “As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey,” Trump stated on Twitter.
With this declaration in tweet form, Trump has potentially saved the people that have been wronged in the past. In his statement he says that if Turkey continues to attack Kurdish forces, or pushes further into Syria, the president will “will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey”. Trump can not directly attack Turkey, as the executive power cannot declare war or order acts of war without Congress. A scary thought to think that the president has such power to destroy a country without bombs. But nonetheless, the threat prevents any further damage to an already dwindling population.
ahntkd99
carahall
andrewbecharaa
athenapup4
bane1900
bestbaker123
bmdpiano
comp0327
compclass8
cynicalwordsmith22
doglover441
drippydoughnut
drpaleontology
gcatt310
givemeclouttokens
hershey515
iamsleepy01
imagination4421
influenza123
jackso23
Jayv23
kraemercali
lazybear8
lelebxby
lg102015
lovericeandnoodles
lucbe219
morra2024
mpsj13
roses0102
Sub2MigzFilms
smellycat23
tenere84
thefrontbottom
voxpopuli75
whosyourcookie22
yankeefan25
Newspaperlessness 
Good questions, LazyBear. I’ll do my best to answer them intelligently.
This is correct but doesn’t contribute much to an essay. In this small space you want to emphasize the uniqueness of the Kurds, not their similarity to other people.
—First the grammar: It’s odd, but we use “whose” in cases like this, even for inanimate objects like buildings. “The row home, whose porch was painted blue, was demolished.” So, in this case: “Turkey 20% of whose population are Kurds, has not been very friendly over the last century.
—Now the content: There’s no point being coy about genocide, LazyBear. Your topic is VERY serious and being flippant about a country trying to wipe out a culture is disrespectful.
—Your classmates have addressed the grammar problem: Genocides AND Insurgencies makes a plural subject requiring a plural verb. HAVE led to the formation of organizations.
—Now the content: 1) One genocide would spell the end of an ethnic group. There cannot be Several Genocides for one group. 2) Attempts at genocide would be Turkish actions against the Kurds. Insurgencies would be Kurdish attempts to fight back against the Turks. So . . . attempted genocides LEAD TO insurgency. Follow that logic in your sentence. 3) It’s time to put your cards on the table, face up, Lazy Bear. Their “complicated” history is one of having no homeland and running into the mountains to save their lives over and over again. You can’t be neutral about insurgencies. Is it understandable/regrettable/inevitable that Kurds should form groups to fight back against a country that want to expel and exterminate them?
Still trying to maintain your neutrality here. This claim does not require a separate sentence. The name could be attached to the previous or to the following sentence.
In this context, the word “recognized” is loaded. You have planted your first flag. “Identified” or “labeled” would have been neutral, but “recognized” means you agree. The YPG are terrorists.
This will be hard to justify. The situation is complex. Washington Post: “YPG HAS TIES TO the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a Turkish group that is known as the PKK and labeled a terrorist organization by both the Turkish and U.S. governments. The United States has drawn a distinction between the YPG and the PKK, but Turkish leaders do not and consider the Kurds a security threat at their southern border.” Messy, right? The Turks do not care to distinguish between the two groups, but the US DOES NOT EQUATE YPG with PKK. Turkey wants them all gone or dead. The US has allied with the YPG but not the PKK.
We’re very deep into your article, and we’ve had only one declaration of your position, that the YPG and PKK are both terrorist organizations Turkey wants dead and the US has used against ISIS. But neither claim comes with an ethical or moral charge you’re willing to express. That is VERY TIRING for Editorial readers, who are not reading for the history but for the expression of opinion.
You asked whether you should be providing history or illustrating wrongs done to a people, LazyBear. The answer is you can do both with just a few words. In this sentence, you could advocate for whomever you believe to be righteous.
1. Turkey has been attacking the YPG forces in Syria in an ongoing effort to wipe out the Kurds once and for all.
2. Turkey has been attacking the YPG forces because they pose a terroristic threat to Turkey’s sovereignty from just across the border into Syria.
3. Turkey has been attacking the YPG forces despite their alliance with the US because they don’t recognize the distinction between the nationalistic YPG seeking a homeland and the PKK bent on mayhem and destruction.
Even here you don’t fully credit the Kurdish fighters as worthy of protection. Do you mean to? Do you see how flimsy your support is?
Of course, he wouldn’t characterize his withdrawal of US troops as a “go ahead” for slaughter. If you do, you could say so much more accusatorially.
Something’s missing here. Because he was misunderstood? Because of the backlash from virtually everyone? For some other reason?
He did. That’s what he said. You could certainly, in a very few words, phrase that claim to indicate your position on it.
Cool. There we go. Trump is the potential savior of the Kurds through the threat of economic devastation. How did I have no idea you were going to end up at that position? It should have been clear from Sentence One or Two.
Why do you need to repeat the quote two sentences later?
You mean, Trump cannot MILITARILY attack Turkey. But as Commander in Chief, he’s just repositioned those troops to Iraq. Couldn’t he send 10,000 troops to the Syria-Turkey border without declaring war? Wait to be attacked? Respond defensively with shock and awe?
But justifiable? If, as I think I understand you to mean, he is acting to defend a long-suffering ethnic group that can’t stand on its own against a powerful army, and which is facing the real threat of ethnic cleansing, is it scary or heartening to know that the president could fight back without shedding American soldiers’ blood?
As you say, it may be a devil’s bargain, but it could protect some people who have earned the right to protection.
I hope you found this point-by-point reaction helpful, LazyBear. By all means, after you’ve made significant revisions, put this post back into Feedback Please and I’ll be happy to provide even more interference.
LikeLike
I’ll be back to provide peer review for this one.
LikeLike
In overall, the background is pretty clear, but it makes pretty confused to someone who don’t know the topic. So, you should make topic more clarify.
LikeLike
It is obvious where you stand from the title you picked but in the editorial itself I feel like your point of view is not as easy to discern. Overall I think you should include more argument/make your argument clearer. Especially somewhere in the first couple of sentences. This will help better catch readers attention.
Some grammar/structure things I noticed
In P1 you say:
“Turkey which 20% of its population consisting of Kurdish people”
You may want to use “with” in place of “which” in this sentence
“Turkey [with], 20% of its population consisting of Kurdish people”
In the next sentence in P1 you say:
“Several genocides as well as crushed insurgencies has led to different organizations forming.”
You may want to use “have” instead of “has” in this sentence in order to make it easier to read but, I’m not 100% sure on this one.
“Several genocides as well as crushed insurgencies [have] led to different organizations forming”
As other commentators have pointed out, you give the reader a lot of background knowledge about what is happening which is good since it helps get the reader up to speed and understand the entire situation.
I hope my feedback is useful to you in some way
LikeLike
Hello! I like how you provide a bit of background information to catch those up who do not know certain terminology. It aids people as you continue reading.
A little bit on grammar and structure.
In P3, you say:
In his statement he says that if Turkey continues to attack Kurdish forces, or pushes further into Syria, the president will “will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey”.
-Remember, periods are always in the quotations.
-You should delete the “will” outside of the quote. Two “will” does not make sense.
Overall, I would suggest leaning into your argument more. People want to know the strong side you hold. Also, using more language that supports your side would help. For example, you are painting Trump in a good light, so use language to help push that to your readers.
LikeLike
I’ll be back to provide peer review for this one.
LikeLike
I’ll be back to provide peer review for this one.
LikeLike
I’ll be back for peer review
LikeLike
When I first started the read the editorial, the first thing I picked up on was it is hard to find what your point of view on the topic. Changing around wording and even adding a line in the third or fourth sentence clearing stating your opinion will allow for readers to understand and decide right away if they want to continue or not.
Within the editorial there is wording that should be changed such as “has” to “have” in the second paragraph and remove the first “will” in paragraph three. But also, to remember that periods go inside of the quotation marks.
You are very clear with background information, but you need to be clearer on your point of view. Overall the topic you chose is great and hopefully you will use this feedback to make some minor but drastic changes to improve your editorial.
LikeLike
I will be back to provide peer review
LikeLike
peer review
LikeLike
review
LikeLike
Feedback Please! I’m not sure how much history of the Kurdish people is enough/too much. I don’t want to saturate the editorial with a history lesson, but I also want to illustrate the wrongs done to the people. I was also wondering how many solutions to the problem I should give besides the one presented.
LikeLike
Also my citation did not stay in the editorial for some reason so before I repost after changes here is a citation
Baker, Peter, and Lara Jakes. “Trump Throws Middle East Policy Into Turmoil Over Syria.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Oct. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/us/politics/turkey-syria-trump.html?module=inline.
LikeLike