Barzani and Morales Imitate Che Guevara Che Guevara lives! In fact, the world now has two new Che Guevaras. Massoud Barzani is the Che Guevara of the Middle East. Evo Morales is the Che Guevara of South America. If history is a guide, the fate of the 1968 Guevara of defeat and destruction of his movement will be the fate of Barzani and Morales as well.

The 1968 Che gambled on a quick success in 1968 Bolivia. Likewise, Massoud Barzani and Evo Morales are gambling on quick success-- Barzani against Turkey, and Morales against his domestic democratic opponents. Barzani is gambling that Turkey will retreat from removing the PKK from northern Iraq. Morales is gambling that Bolivia's democrats will accept his decision to dissolve Bolivia's Senate, now in the hands of his political opponents.

Barzani and Morales, like Guevara before them, have placed the wrong bet. They will lose because they are both ultra-leftists, Che Guevara types, who are carried away by revolutionary fantasy. Barzani and Evo Morales are making the same mistakes made by Guevara in 1968 Bolivia.

First, Barzani and Morales significantly underestimate the resolve and capabilities of their right wing opponents. Turkey's military forces and Bolivia's democrats will not give way without a serious fight.

Second, Barzani and Morales underestimate the ability and willingness of the local allies of Turkey and Bolivia to mount a rescue effort on their behalf. Turkey's local allies consist of the Arab states, while the local allies of Bolivia's democrats consist of Brazil, Chile and Argentina. These countries strongly oppose seeing Barzani dominate the Middle East or Morales dominate South America. These local allies will provide substantial assistance to Turkey and to Bolivia's democrats, including military support if necessary.

Third, again like Che, Barzani and Morales lack significant international support. It is true Barzani has Ahmadinejad, and Evo Morales has Hugo Chavez. However, Ahmadinejad and Chavez do not bring additional allies, especially from the European states, Russia or China. Moreover, Ahmadinejad and Chavez are unlikely to offer military support to either Barzani or Morales.

Fourth, like Guevara, Barzani and Morales are trying to turn marginalized ethnic groups -- the Kurdish and the Inca tribes -- into a revolutionary vanguard. These tribes do not constitute a modern nation state much less a cohesive revolutionary vanguard. The Kurds will have no followers in the Middle East, and the Inca tribes will have no followers in South America.

In contrast, compare Barzani and Morales with Stalin, who was a successful revolutionary. Stalin never underestimated his opponents, always took the regional balance of power into account, and never made a big international move without significant allies. Moreover, Stalin -- who was from the marginalized nation of Georgia -- picked Russia as his platform and went on to build Russia as a superpower. Finally, the primary challenge for any revolutionary is finding a way to isolate the domestic ultra-leftists so as to placate domestic right wingers. Without success at this task, the revolution’s rightist forces will break out in open revolt, while the revolutionary leader will become a captive of the ultra-leftists. Both Barzani and Morales have conspicuously failed to rein in their ultra-leftists and instead have become captives of the ultra-Leftists, Barzani on the Greater Kurdistan issue and Morales on economic issues. As for Stalin, he had a genius for outflanking, manipulating, and finally destroying Russia’s right wing on key issues.

In short, Barzani and Morales today-- like Che Guevara of 1968 Bolivia -- are ultra-leftists who are facing certain defeat. Che paid for his revolutionary fantasies about radicalizing Bolivia and South America’s Incas with his life. Do Barzani and Morales want to pay the same price?