Turkey threatens to invade Iraq

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Was Saddam looking out for Iraqi interests, or for Sunni Arab ones? Turkey has to accept that in the New Iraq, Kurds are citizens as well, and have input on national policy. and can shape it in a variety of ways. Iraq is not less sovereign with a Kurd, a Shia, a Turkmen, or anyone else in a high position.

It's of course most natural for the new Iraq to have input from all ethnic groups. The skepticisim is about how sincerely the Kurdish president and Kurdish foreign minister of Iraq is acting on behalf of Iraqi instead of Kurdish interests, given the abject lack of faith shown by Kurds in general about making an input in a unified Iraq in the first place.

Cough, cough. Lebanon. Cough. Or hell, Pakistan. I guess countries have certain senstivities about having their neighbors armies on their soil, pursuing their neighbors interests, even if their own is either ineffective, or otherwise tied up.

In that case it will be a clash of sensitivites because the alternative for Turkey is to watch terrorist attacks mount because those who claim a base for their own sensitivity are incapable of doing anything themselves to allay/negate conditions of those same sensitivities being violated (feeding a vicious circle of violated sensitivities ).

How about Turkey offers to send a division or two help enforce order in Baghdad and Anbar, in return for the promise that freed up Iraqi Army units would go after the PKK?

Well Turkey offered to send 10.000 troops after the American invasion for peacekeeping in the Sunni triangle to make up for its rejection of opening a northern front. Guess who objected to that? Kurds. Turkish troops would be hundreds of miles from their territory but they said "Turks can't be allowed to pass through northern Iraq". They couldn't divorce themselves from their parochial interests even on an issue of such profound importance for Iraq in general .

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Why can't the occupying coalition negotiate with the Iraqi government a way to include a role within the coalition for a counter terrorist contingent from Turkey that would be free to operate against PKK in the area of the PKKs base of operations?

Has Turkey attempted to negotiate such an arrangement?

The iraqi government already seems to want the coalition troops to do all they can to combat terrorists elsewhere in the country.

Northern Iraq Kurds are adamantly opposed to seeing any Turkish troops anywhere in Iraq, even for the most legitimate and accountable reasons. That's what makes skepticism due when thinking about Kurdish enthusiasm for acting as a part of a unified Iraq and about their sincerity when given responsibility on the Iraqi scale.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ancyrean

Well Turkey offered to send 10.000 troops after the American invasion for peacekeeping in the Sunni triangle to make up for its rejection of opening a northern front. Guess who objected to that? Kurds. Turkish troops would be hundreds of miles from their territory but they said "Turks can't be allowed to pass through northern Iraq". They couldn't divorce themselves from their parochial interests even on an issue of such profound importance for Iraq in general .

Ouch. I hadn't heard anything about this. How did they try to justify their absurd objection?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
Kurds. Turkish troops would be hundreds of miles from their territory but they said "Turks can't be allowed to pass through northern Iraq". They couldn't divorce themselves from their parochial interests even on an issue of such profound importance for Iraq in general .

1. In 2003 the insurgency didnt seem nearly as dire.
2. Last I heard neither Turkey or Iraq are landlocked. The US 4th Inf div eventually made its way to Iraq by sea. What would have stopped Turkish troops from doing the same, assuming their goal wasnt in fact to enter Kurdistan?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Ouch. I hadn't heard anything about this. How did they try to justify their absurd objection?

Kinda the way the Poles in the 30s were reluctant to let Soviet troops through to fight the Germans. In 1945 the Russians DID pass through to fight the germans. They left, 44 years later.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Ouch. I hadn't heard anything about this. How did they try to justify their absurd objection?

Nothing other than that they can't allow Turks to passthrough their territory. Nobody can guarantee if the Turks would stop on the way and get trigger happy for no reason. Or something of similar implausability. It was truly unbelievable but equally instructive.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ancyrean

The skepticisim is about how sincerely the Kurdish president and Kurdish foreign minister of Iraq is acting on behalf of Iraqi instead of Kurdish interests, given the abject lack of faith shown by Kurds in general about making an input in a unified Iraq in the first place.

Im not sure what you mean by "input" theyve just agreed to a deal on oil that will share oil revenue across Iraq, and Kurdish troops have been quite active in the fght against the insurgents. Hell, whenever somebody here says how well the IA is doing, somebody says "ah, its only the Kurdish units"

In that case it will be a clash of sensitivites because the alternative for Turkey is to watch terrorist attacks mount because those who claim a base for their own sensitivity are incapable of doing anything themselves to allay/negate conditions of those same sensitivities being violated (feeding a vicious circle of violated sensitivities ).

Im not saying the situation is ideal. Im merely explaining that the reactions of Kurds are not unique. Turkey has to watch terr attacks mount? Well so do Afghans, and Indians. The Israelis have accepted regular rocket attacks from Gaza for months. Fortunately the attacks keep missing. They are also watching as Hezbollah rearms, under the very eye of the Leb govt and the UN.

The world is a nasty place. Im only suggesting that incursions have a way of not working out as planned, and Turkey would be wise to consider that.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Kinda the way the Poles in the 30s were reluctant to let Soviet troops through to fight the Germans. In 1945 the Russians DID pass through to fight the germans. They left, 44 years later.

Would the poles have had trouble agreeing to russian passage if a hundred thousand british and french troops had been garrisoned in Poland battling anarchist terrorists?

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



1. In 2003 the insurgency didnt seem nearly as dire.
2. Last I heard neither Turkey or Iraq are landlocked. The US 4th Inf div eventually made its way to Iraq by sea. What would have stopped Turkish troops from doing the same, assuming their goal wasnt in fact to enter Kurdistan?

1. Sure, the US didn't need outside help that much then, but the reason I mentioned the instance was because it was instructive of Kurdish reaction and perspective.
2a. The idea of sending Turkish troops on so long a detour when immediate passage was possible was incredulous enough by itself. But the more important reason was that if Turkey accepted the detour, it would have inherently concurred with the implausible Kurdish fears.
2b. Talabani (prez of Iraq now) and Barzani (now head of Northern Iraq) once travelled around the world on Turkish diplomatic passports so their "sudden attack of sensitivity" really turned people's stocmachs at that point.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ancyrean

1. Sure, the US didn't need outside help that much then, but the reason I mentioned the instance was because it was instructive of Kurdish reaction and perspective.

A perspective that doesnt seem all that unreasonable.

2a. The idea of sending the US 4th Infantry division on so long a detour when immediate passage was possible was incredulous enough by itself.

Fixed.

2b. Talabani (prez of Iraq now) and Barzani (now head of Northern Iraq) once travelled around the world on Turkish diplomatic passports so their "sudden attack of sensitivity" really turned people's stocmachs at that point.

"they're OURS, they OWE us"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ancyrean


Nothing other than that they can't allow Turks to passthrough their territory. Nobody can guarantee if the Turks would stop on the way and get trigger happy for no reason. Or something of similar implausability. It was truly unbelievable but equally instructive.

Given Turkish interest in Kirkuk, Turkish discomfort with Kurdish autonomy, etc, it hardly seems all that implausible.


I rather suspect that if Turkey had joined in the fight against Saddam, nothing the Kurds could have said would have prevented Turkish troops from entering Iraq overland.

However that moment was lost. Turkey got to stand with the Islamic world, and with France and Germany, against the invasion. Turkey has reaped whatever benefits came from that stand, and now is unfortunately suffering the costs.

[Geronimo]

Forgive my straying a bit off topic but a couple years ago I remember reading in an article about addmission of Turkey to the EU about a woman (Layla Zana or something like that?) who was released from supposably having been imprisoned for speaking kurdish in Turkeys parliament right after swearing her oath of office as a member of that parliment.

Does anybody know if that account was exaggerated? Was there a kurdish member of paliment who was imprisoned for speaking kurdish in the parliment? If so what did she say? Was it some inflammatory irredentist call for terrorism or some other statement that would explain the imprisonment rather than the mere fact it was spoken in Kurdish?

[VetLegion]

Ancyrean, is Kurdish population in Turkey still increasing at faster rate than Turkish?

Does Turkish government see that as a long term problem? I know most of them are peaceful, but that can change. Guerillas certainly couldn't operate in Turkey without local support.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im not sure what you mean by "input" theyve just agreed to a deal on oil that will share oil revenue across Iraq, and Kurdish troops have been quite active in the fght against the insurgents. Hell, whenever somebody here says how well the IA is doing, somebody says "ah, its only the Kurdish units"

We were discussing the possible reaction of the Iraqi government to a Turkish incursion and I questioned the true motive behind any such reaction when the prez and FM of Iraq is Kurdish, that how much that reaction would stem from a concern to protect Kurdish interests instead of merely Kurdish ones.

You replied Turkey has to accept that in the new Iraq, Kurds are citizens as well, and have "input" on national policy. That's why I used the phrase "input" in my reply to mean: yes it's natural to accept all groups will take their place in the governance in the new Iraq, including the Kurds; with the caveat that given the dubiousness of their commitment to remain inside Iraq, the reaction of a Kurdish-prez-and-FM Iraqi government is also bound to be dubious.

Im not saying the situation is ideal. Im merely explaining that the reactions of Kurds are not unique. Turkey has to watch terr attacks mount? Well so do Afghans, and Indians. The Israelis have accepted regular rocket attacks from Gaza for months. Fortunately the attacks keep missing. They are also watching as Hezbollah rearms, under the very eye of the Leb govt and the UN.

The world is a nasty place. Im only suggesting that incursions have a way of not working out as planned, and Turkey would be wise to consider that.

Sure, basicly that's also what's happening in practice with regard to PKK. Turkey is holding back for a very long time.

The government and the army is more or less aware of the risks, as you descirbe them. In a recent meeting of the national security council, there was consensus that an incursion would be costly and has risks of causing a lot more trouble than initially planned for. So I guess nobody is really looking at the enterprise as a walk, and that it's better to exhaust other means. They won't rush for anything, it seems.

Having concurred with you on that, I add they were actually acting on this premise for a long time, but it gets harder and harder to remain in that mindset as time passes and attacks continue.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

2a. The idea of sending the US 4th Infantry division on so long a detour when immediate passage was possible was incredulous enough by itself.

Fixed.

Do you mean Turkey did the same to the US so why it's reacting so when it's asked to take the detour itself?

The cases of the 4th ID and the Turkish peacekeepers are fundamentally different. One is an invading force being refused by the parliament of a neighboring country of use of its territory for that purpose. The other is a peacekeeper force which is supposed to be on a stabilising mission for the whole country being vetoed by a self-centric minded section of that country. Besides which, Turkey still agreed to become a main logistics resupply route for the US army in Iraq, whereas the Kurds would hardly have agreed to even the resupply of the Turkish army through their territory, even if the Turks have taken the detour for the initial deployment.

"they're OURS, they OWE us"

It's not because we think they owe us but for highlighting the irony of their discovery of anti-Turkish sensitivities after relying for so long with a straight face on Turkey for so many things, including a passport (in practice saying fine to technically being "Turks").