SO Turkey butted out, extra reservists from the US needed on Iraq.

[Bereta_Eder]

Turkey thought better and said, maybe we shouldn't go. So they didn't. So noone (important at least) seems willing to "help" the US bring peace to Iraq (bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity they say ) they say next year the Bush -we -stole -in -Florida -and -played the -african -american- community -for- fools administration will call up many many more reservists.

My naive ignorant question is: what is a "reservist" in the US?


I really don't know. Is it like someone who goes for a little while on the army and then is on "reserve" untill and if they decide to call for him? And what are his financial benefits? Things like that.

[MOBIUS]

Oh dear.

Well the US doesn't need the rest of the world anyway...

[St Leo]

Did Turkey just raise her own chances of being invited into EU in 2004 to over 90%?

[Bereta_Eder]

Nope. Just thought about what it would mean to have Kurds rioting up, again.

[Bereta_Eder]

Sorry, the article.


U.S. Faces Troop Pressure As Turkey Balks
1 hour, 28 minutes ago

By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In a major setback to U.S. efforts to attract military help in Iraq (news - web sites), a Turkish official said Tuesday his country won't send peacekeeping troops without a significant change in the situation there. That makes it virtually certain the United States will have to send thousands more U.S. reservists early next year.


AP Photo




Latest headlines:
· Marines Win Top Navy Award for Iraq Fight
AP - 10 minutes ago
· Senator Spoke to Soon on Iraq Intel Probe
AP - 10 minutes ago
· A Look at U.S. Daily Deaths in Iraq
AP - 12 minutes ago
Special Coverage





No additional countries have contributed forces in Iraq since the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council approved a new resolution last month. Bush administration officials had hoped the U.N. action would persuade reluctant allies to send more forces.


Turkey had been the best hope. But Turkey's ambassador to the United States, Osman Faruk Logoglu, said his country will not send troops without an explicit invitation from the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council — some of whose members have vigorously opposed the idea.


The ambassador said it was up to the Americans to press the Iraqi council to make the invitation — a move he said the United States appears unwilling to make.


"We felt that the Coalition Provisional Authority and also officials here in Washington could have probably persuaded the Iraqi Governing Council earlier on this issue," Logoglu said.


A spokesman for the American-led authority in Iraq, Dan Senor, did not return a telephone message. State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said the United States still believes Turkish troops would make a valuable contribution and that U.S. officials continue talks on the issue.


Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said more international forces would help ease the burden on the 132,000 American troops in Iraq. Right now, there are about 23,000 other troops from more than 30 countries.


The major part of that burden is the continuing opposition to the occupation as evidenced in daily attacks such as Tuesday's mortar barrage into central Baghdad that wounded three people.


President Bush (news - web sites), in California to view damage from that state's wildfires, was asked about deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and the violence.


Saddam "is no longer threatening people, he is no longer in power," Bush said. Asked whether Saddam was instigating the attacks, the president said, "Oh, I'm sure he's trying to stir up trouble."


Saddam loyalists and others are trying to create havoc to force out the Americans, Bush said. "I can't tell you what he's doing," he said. "All I can tell you is he's not running Iraq. And all I can tell you, as well, there's a lot of — some people who are upset by the fact that he's no longer in power."


Pentagon (news - web sites) officials say an infusion of thousands more international troops could prompt a reduction in the number of U.S. forces — although Rumsfeld said last month that any Turkish troops probably would not be in place soon enough to affect the Pentagon's current troop rotation plans.


Under those plans, about 15,000 Army National Guard troops have been mobilized for possible service in Iraq beginning early next year, to replace weary active-duty troops who have been there nearly a year.


The newly mobilized troops are members of National Guard brigades from Arkansas, North Carolina and Washington state who are intended to combine with fresh active-duty troops.


In addition, the Pentagon might need to call up even more reservists in support units if Turkey or other countries don't end up sending troops, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers said recently.


U.S. officials have ruled out the idea of increasing overall U.S. troop numbers in Iraq, instead saying they will speed up the process of getting trained Iraqi security forces into the streets to deal with an increasingly sophisticated and deadly insurgency.


American officials had pressed Turkey, the only majority Muslim nation in NATO (news - web sites), to approve sending up to 10,000 troops. Turkey's parliament voted last month to allow troops to join the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, Turkey's neighbor to the southeast.





But progress stalled because of opposition from some members of the Iraqi Governing Council, particularly Iraqi Kurds, one of whom now serves as the council's president. Turkey has fought since 1984 with independence-minded Kurdish militants and continues to station thousands of troops just inside Iraq's northern border.

Public opinion in Turkey also remains strongly against the U.S.-led war in Iraq or sending troops to assist in the occupation, Logoglu said. He said some Turkish officials are relieved about the impasse, since it has postponed — perhaps indefinitely — the politically unpopular move of actually sending troops.

Turkey rejected U.S. overtures last winter to allow American troops to invade northern Iraq through Turkey. Logoglu said Turkish officials now recognize they missed an opportunity to help shape postwar Iraq.

"I think we would have been in a more effective position, a more influential position in Iraq had we allowed U.S. troops to go into Iraq through Turkey, but all is not lost," Logoglu said.

L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. diplomat who heads the American authority in Iraq, said Saturday that the issue of Turkish peacekeepers was between Turkey and the Iraqi Governing Council.

Turkey doesn't see it that way, Logoglu said.

"For whatever reason, this (Bush) administration saw fit not to put too much counterweight on the Iraqi Governing Council," Logoglu said. "If the U.S. perception of the need for Turkish troops in Iraq changes, then perhaps that could change."

[Dr Strangelove]

Well, how about a few more Serbs? Come to think of it, we could always invite the Bulgarians, Romanians, and Macedonians.

[Bereta_Eder]

Yeah take the Serbs in Iraq. They could meet all those nice Al Qaeda freedom fighters from Saudi Arabia they were fighting in Kosovo again.

[Space05us]

Saddam "is no longer threatening people, he is no longer in power," Bush said. Asked whether Saddam was instigating the attacks, the president said, "Oh, I'm sure he's trying to stir up trouble."

he's no longer a threat, he's just trying to stir up trouble by killing Ameircan soldiers.

[Ancyrean]

Actually, the US asked from Turkey for troops for deployment in Iraq and the Turkish parliament gave the authority to the government to do so...But just as the details of the deployment were being negotiated with the Americans, it suddenly surfaced that they didnt take into consideration the possibility of Kurds in Northern Iraq objecting to this, and it also seemed they were in a panic not to offend the Kurds and not even try to convince them that this is good for Iraq in general, it can have a positive impact on other Muslim countries to send troops, that there can be compromises to the effect that Turks can be deployed away from the Kurdish region, that this is IMPORTANT for the US...

So we don't have a case here that Turkey suddenly "butted out" about going into Iraq...What happened is that the US, somewhat sheepishly, asked Turkey to not consider the deployment for now, adding the incredible arguement that the Turkish government better talk about this with the Iraqi Governing Council....As if that Council has any real control over Iraq...As if that Council is anywhere near being representative of the Iraqi people...as if that council doesnt exists solely through the good graces, blessing and support of the US...And as if that the US can't convince that Council about anything if it really wanted to ("we can't convice our puppets, so you go ahead and try it")...

Can this be true? Does the US really not know about the country it saved from tyranny? Can it also be true that American foriegin policy, in so crucial an issue, is hostage of the Kurds in Norhern Iraq? I thought the Kurds depend more on the US than the other way around, so why doesnt the US just say to the Kurds to calm down and put the Turkish troops AWAY from the Kurdish region, maybe west of Baghdat or somewhere? Not that the public is dying in Turkey to send troops to Iraq, but... What's up with the US??

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by paiktis22
I really don't know. Is it like someone who goes for a little while on the army and then is on "reserve" untill and if they decide to call for him? And what are his financial benefits? Things like that.

In the US there is the National Guard and the Reserves.


The National Guard is divided up under commands that are answerable to the Governors of each state. The president can call on these guard units to active duty for a certain period of time for service under the Army or Air Force. Under normal times a guardsman serves two days a month, and three weeks for training. They are available for natural disasters and to restore public order within the state of their origin. When the president calls them to active duty they are taken away from the state and sent wherever they are need within the regular army or airforce structure. I'm in the national guard.

The Reserves are similar but are always under federal control.
You have the
Army Reserves
Navy Reserves
Marine Reserves
Air force Reserves

there is also the Individual Ready Reserves which is made up of people who have been in the active services and have gotten out. For a cetain period of time they are eligible for re activation. Recently the different branches have found out that their process for the IRR is seriously flawed due to inaccacurate information on address of those on the rolls.


And yes we are paid. Not enough, but we are paid.

http://www.military.com/Resources/Re...erve_Ready.htm

[Ned]

From my understanding, the Iraqi government does not want Turkish troops anywhere in Iraq.

The real question is, why didn't someone discuss this with the Iraqi's beforehand. This is a real FUBAR.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ned
The real question is, why didn't someone discuss this with the Iraqi's beforehand. This is a real FUBAR.

Well D'OH! This is the US occupation of Iraq we're talking about!

I must admit I laughed when I first heard about this hare-brained act of desperation - and look what's happened... We really didn't see that coming did we!!?

I guess that's another 10,000 US soldiers lives that are going to be made hell...

The US has Guantanamo Bay - The Fundamentalists have Iraq and Afghanistan...

[Bereta_Eder]

Thank you very much Spray.

[Sava]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Yeah take the Serbs in Iraq. They could meet all those nice Al Qaeda freedom fighters from Saudi Arabia they were fighting in Kosovo again.

yeah, the Serbs would try and fight the terrorists, and then get bombed by the US again... stupid NATO...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

This is also a lovely example of how completely fricking inept the Turks are at diplomacy.

Iraq was a rock-and-a-hard-place for the current government: on the one hand, 90% of the Turkish population are opposed to the occupation and opposed to sending troops; on the other hand, the military wanted to send troops, and the U.S. (which is still Turkey's only real geopolitical friend) also wanted them to. Quite a bind for a populist government that nevertheless needs the good will of Uncle Sam. So the Iraqi refusal of troops was a godsend; the government could vote to send troops (making the military and US happy) and then end up not sending them anyway (making the people happy). All they had to do was wait until the US said, "sorry, your troops will be more trouble that they're worth." But do they wait? Noooooo. These boneheads take the initiative, and thus risk pissing off the US and the Turkish military all over again.

Worst. Diplomats. Ever.

[Whaleboy]

@Turkey
@USA

[Bereta_Eder]

Actually quite democratic if you think about it.

[Bereta_Eder]

The military is the yoke on any hope for real democracy and these people no matter how inept actually listen more to the opeople of turkey.
as for the military i'm sure he'll have his hands full trying to infindge on greek airspace

[Bereta_Eder]

of course they get negiative fashion/culture points when visiting foreign countries in the west since their wives of the pm or foreignminister wears the scarf.

[Pekka]

I've been saying this over and over again, and I continue to say it: the US needs to establish foreign legion. Their 'threat' to US can be limited effectively, and it is possible to make it work in way that every other foreign legion failed (except FFL, it's good model and still working good).

Just think about it. What if, let's say Iran started pressuring the US? Sure, US can still handle Iran, but the army is already so streched and it will seriously to start take toll if further conflicts emerge soon.

Foreign Legion however should not be used to do 'peacekeeping' or deal with the mess that the active part of war brings to more 'peaceful' times. They should be used as spearhead, to be effective, to eliminate enemy forces without passions for religion, nationalities... True professionals.

Keep then highly movable, ready to be deployed at all times and ready to move in fast anywhere in the world.
Somewhere from 20 000 or less at first, and maybe even that's pushing it. Deployed outside US at all times, to make security risks lower. Kept apart from the regular army, but partly integrated. To avoid possible enemy infiltration and possible sabotage missions. But partly integrated (perhaps officers.. maybe FFL style, officers mostly French).. there must be some kind of physical link, so there will be flexible co-operation between the two. In fact, it should be part of the regular army.

Highly trained, highly effective, wanting to fight for the legion most of all. Can not be used inside US, to prevent anyone from using the legion forces against its own citizens. OOoooooooooops I'm going little off topic here..

edit: active army personel and politicians can PM me for free consultation and developing services. Comission will be asked after Project American Legion starts and has funding. Thank you.