By Dr. Adnan Bozan
The purpose of this article is neither to defend one side over another nor to absolve any official of political or media-related mistakes. Rather, it is an attempt to examine the Kurdish political landscape as it is, free from emotional reactions and partisan bias. Today, the Kurdish cause is in greater need of rational criticism than of applause or mutual accusations of betrayal.
I closely followed the interview given by Samir Aso (Siban Hamo), the former military commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who now serves as Deputy Minister in the new Syrian government's administration for the Eastern Region. From a professional standpoint, it is difficult to describe the interview as a strong one. It was marked by weaknesses in political messaging, inconsistencies in expression, and several verbal slips that could have been avoided, in addition to statements that lacked sufficient precision and clarity.
But is that really the central issue?
In my view, it is not.
When a political figure moves from the battlefield to the institutions of the state, he inevitably has to adjust his language, his rhetoric, and his political priorities. It appears that Siban, whether out of goodwill or political innocence, sought to create common ground between the Syrian Democratic Forces and the new authorities in Damascus. He may succeed or fail, and he may express himself effectively or poorly. Nevertheless, his statements should be interpreted within the context of a new political phase rather than being isolated from their context and turned into material for public condemnation.
The real paradox did not lie in the interview itself, but in the reactions of certain Kurdish circles, which seemed more interested in putting the man on trial than in analyzing the broader political reality.
This raises a legitimate question:
If these voices possess such profound political awareness and such confidence in judging others, where were they when Kurdish cities were facing their most difficult moments? Why did so many leave for Europe or neighboring countries at the very beginning of the war, leaving the Kurdish political and military file in the hands of those who remained on the ground, regardless of whether one agrees with them or not?
Every individual has the unquestionable right to emigrate in search of security and a dignified life, and no one should be accused of disloyalty simply because they left. However, it is difficult to accept that some who chose to remain far from the realities on the ground now present themselves as guardians of the Kurdish cause, playing the role of heroes from behind computer screens while others continue to bear the political and military burden.
Had these critics possessed a genuine political project, why was the political arena left, to a considerable extent, to forces such as the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), and other actors that eventually became the dominant political force in the region? Where were the political parties, intellectual elites, and movements that today claim to possess the complete truth?
Politics is not measured by eloquent social media posts. It is measured by the ability to organize, build institutions, manage crises, and assume responsibility. It is always easy to criticize events after the battle has ended; what is far more difficult is making decisions when outcomes remain uncertain.
It is also noteworthy that many of the loudest voices in today's criticism were never meaningfully involved in Kurdish political activism—neither during the rule of the Ba'ath regime nor after 2011. Many offered neither a political vision, nor a national initiative, nor a practical strategy. Instead, they confined themselves to the role of commentators who find fault with everyone else without ever placing themselves in positions of responsibility.
As for the controversy surrounding Siban's remarks regarding his Arab origins, I believe the issue has been exaggerated far beyond what it deserves. Syrian identities—particularly in ethnically mixed regions—have evolved through centuries of social interaction, tribal affiliations, and cultural interdependence. They should not be transformed into instruments of political denunciation or tests of national authenticity. Even if Siban deliberately adopted a more inclusive language in addressing Syria's new government, such rhetoric may simply reflect the political requirements of a transitional period rather than represent a rejection of his Kurdish identity or personal history.
It is also well known that the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), as a movement rooted in leftist and internationalist thought, has never based its project exclusively on ethnic nationalism. Rather, it has historically included members from diverse ethnic and social backgrounds. Consequently, reducing this complex political context to a single statement or interview cannot accurately reflect either the movement's ideological foundations or the realities of the current political stage.
Conversely, advocates of uncompromising Kurdish ethnic nationalism should also subject their own political experience to the same critical scrutiny they demand of others. The Kurdish cause cannot be advanced through slogans, emotional rhetoric, or nationalist one-upmanship directed at those working on the ground. It requires a coherent political project, functioning institutions, and the capacity to unite Kurds around a shared national vision.
For decades, the Kurdish political movement has suffered from a culture of mutual accusations and political delegitimization. Verbal mistakes have often been treated as more serious than strategic failures, while personal attacks have overshadowed meaningful debates about political programs and long-term visions. This is one of the principal reasons why Kurdish political discourse has struggled to build a unified public opinion capable of defending Kurdish national rights within a realistic political framework.
Today, the Kurdish cause needs fewer judges and more politicians. It does not need virtual heroes; it needs statesmen with the courage to make difficult decisions, even at the risk of making mistakes. Politics is not the art of infallibility; it is the art of managing what is possible in a world where political realities shift every day.
For that reason, genuine criticism should focus on political performance, public policies, and strategic decisions—not on campaigns of character assassination or populist grandstanding. Those who continually raise the banner of uncompromising nationalism without presenting a viable political project or assuming any real national responsibility should first answer one simple question:
What have you actually contributed to the Kurdish cause—other than words?