Turkey threatens to invade Iraq

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
Yes, the nature of the threat Hizbullah poses to Israel and PKK to Turkey is different. However, the PKK is still responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians and military personnel in Turkey over the past 15 years. PKK terrorists still infiltrate from across the border regulary to ambush military convoys and units, lay land mines, extort money from the locals. They have around 5000 people across the border to those all these. Not to mention also their extensive network of drugs-guns-people smuggling that reaches into Europe. entire region against Turkey by an orgy of destruction.

Or: The PKK are far more damaging to Turkey on an ongoing basis than Hezb could ever hope to be and deserve to be dealt with even more harshly...



Turkey massacres 20 civilians for every PKK fighter as opposed to the 10:1 ratio the Israelis achieved in Lebanon - that'll teach dem ragheads!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ancyrean


It makes more sense to keep Northern Iraq as much dependant on Turkey as possible instead of turning the entire region against Turkey by an orgy of destruction.

indeed, I would suggest that increasing its economic penetration, and using its economic leverage with the Kurdish leadership, would be a much better way for Turkey to deal with the problem than a war of any kind.

Many Turks seem to see Iraqi Kurdistan as the Piedmont of the Kurds. IE the base for a revanchist state. Why not a model of Iraqi Kurdistan as the Israel of the Kurds, as the national homeland that relieves pressure elsewhere, and perhaps even becomes a draw to Kurdish immigrants?

[lord of the mark]

how many terrorist acts has the PKK commited in Turkey since it declared a ceasefire in Sept 2006? How many Turks killed? of them, how many civilians?


Interestingly, Erdogan has said only a state can agree to a ceasefire, so the PKK's offer doesnt count.

Note Hamas not only isnt a state, it doesnt admit of Israels right to exist.

[Elok]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Yeah, basically you got pwned and looked like a total dick all in one post... Bravo **** for brains...!

Got pwned, certainly, though it was by myself. Total dick, certainly not; I'm miles away from catching up with you in that respect.

EDIT: I might add that I realized I was wrong even before lotm corrected me, as evidenced by the quickness of my response to his post. I didn't edit it just out of curiosity whether anyone would bother to correct the obvious error or if the rest of the polytubbies hated you enough to ignore it.

If you don't believe me, that's fine too; I don't mind looking silly every once in a while, and certainly that was a jackass thing to say no matter how quickly I caught it. This is just FYI.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Or: The PKK are far more damaging to Turkey on an ongoing basis than Hezb could ever hope to be and deserve to be dealt with even more harshly...

Even so, that harsh treatment need only apply to the small area held by the PKK.

Turkey massacres 20 civilians for every PKK fighter as opposed to the 10:1 ratio the Israelis achieved in Lebanon - that'll teach dem ragheads!

See my post below on the numbers.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

indeed, I would suggest that increasing its economic penetration, and using its economic leverage with the Kurdish leadership, would be a much better way for Turkey to deal with the problem than a war of any kind.

Many Turks seem to see Iraqi Kurdistan as the Piedmont of the Kurds. IE the base for a revanchist state. Why not a model of Iraqi Kurdistan as the Israel of the Kurds, as the national homeland that relieves pressure elsewhere, and perhaps even becomes a draw to Kurdish immigrants?

It's much better in the first place to prevent a Kurdish state to emerge. The complications of that possibility is too great, and not limited to Turkey's fears of Kurdish irredentism alone. Even if Turkey overcomes its fears, the reactions of Iran and Syria are too unpredictable to say we'll see when we get there.

But yes, of course, if that state breaks free from Iraq and gets accepted by these two countries, it's better for Turkey to see to it that the Kurdish state become an economic satellite just as Macedonia became for Greece. It's a win-win situation for everyone, including the Kurds .

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
how many terrorist acts has the PKK commited in Turkey since it declared a ceasefire in Sept 2006? How many Turks killed? of them, how many civilians?

I browsed through various Turkish websites and news-sites. The numbers I get average around as follows (I quote an average of numbers I come across. Most of these are official numbers, or from newspieces on total casualties):

PKK is active since 1984.
-There had been a total of 45.000+ incidents by PKK till 2006.
-Around 4300 soldiers, 1500 local security force members perished in these.
-PKK's losses in dead fighters were around 22.000 as of mid 2006.
-Around 300 public officers (engineers, teachers, doctors, clerks, attorneys, sub-provincial governors and so on) got killed in PKK attacks.
-PKK related civilian killings are around 5500 (including 650+ children, 800+ women)

These numbers add up to around 30.000. Numbers of total wounded are in the several tens of thousands.

As for English sources, I could dig out an Amnesty International report from 1996. Despite very largely criticising Turkey's human rights record at the time, they couldn't help but note this summary on the PKK's arbitrary killings and other assorted atrocities as of that year.

Remember that this was 11 years ago, and only a snapshot. Their style didn't change in the meantime, intensifying, if anything.

The PKK is no romantic liberation movement. It's a truly vile organisation despicable in every manner that one can possibly imagine. Turkey's right to defend itself is undeniable by any standard.

Interestingly, Erdogan has said only a state can agree to a ceasefire, so the PKK's offer doesnt count.

Given the nature of PKK as I tried to describe above, it's only natural that it can't be taken as a counterpart. Nobody will ever talk about anything with these people, least of all "ceasefire".

[lord of the mark]

Turkey certainly has a right to defend itself.

But as everyone has been saying for the last year, tht right must be expressed "proportionately" and based on current conditions.

So given that was is proposed is a Turkish incursion into another sovereign state, one whose political future is precarious, and whose movement toward stability is important to the whole region, what is the CURRENT threat posed by a group in the region, IE the PKK to Turkey? Yes over the years the PKK was bloody. As was Hamas. As was Fatah, for that matter. As are the Sunni Arab insurgent groups the US has already attempted to talk to. Again, has the PKK targeted Turkey since Sept 2006? Are they building up resources such as missiles with which to attack Turkey in the future? What is the imminent threat?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ancyrean


It's much better in the first place to prevent a Kurdish state to emerge. The complications of that possibility is too great, and not limited to Turkey's fears of Kurdish irredentism alone. Even if Turkey overcomes its fears, the reactions of Iran and Syria are too unpredictable to say we'll see when we get there.

But yes, of course, if that state breaks free from Iraq and gets accepted by these two countries, it's better for Turkey to see to it that the Kurdish state become an economic satellite just as Macedonia became for Greece. It's a win-win situation for everyone, including the Kurds .

well the best way to prevent an independent Kurdish state is to give the Kurds a good deal within Iraq, which may well involve a considerable degree of Kurdish control over Kirkuk, with protections for non-Kurds there. While the man on the street in Kurdistan may aspire to independence, AFAICT the leadership is pragmatic on that. If the current Iraqi political situation is not such as to protect the Kurdish area from incursions, Id say that takes away some of the incentive for them NOT to declare independence.


My suggestion however was based on Turkey using its existing economic leverage over the Kurdish leadership, and did not assume a Kurdish DoI. IE that Turkey use its soft power, and not rush to hard power.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Turkey certainly has a right to defend itself.

But as everyone has been saying for the last year, tht right must be expressed "proportionately" and based on current conditions.

I agree with you on that and the Turkish government in all likelihood would agree on this principle from what I gather from the Turkish press.

So given that was is proposed is a Turkish incursion into another sovereign state, one whose political future is precarious, and whose movement toward stability is important to the whole region, what is the CURRENT threat posed by a group in the region, IE the PKK to Turkey? Yes over the years the PKK was bloody. As was Hamas. As was Fatah, for that matter. As are the Sunni Arab insurgent groups the US has already attempted to talk to. Again, has the PKK targeted Turkey since Sept 2006? Are they building up resources such as missiles with which to attack Turkey in the future? What is the imminent threat?

PKK attacks continued since September 2006, the so called ceasefire, in the form of remote controlled mines and hit and run ambushes. Tens of soldiers died as a result of these. 3 soldiers were killed like that just a few days ago. PKK incursions does not seem to let up, only to die down in intensity, probably because of the winter snow. The PKK bases right across the border are teeming with activity, they have resupplied themselves in all ways since last autumn and continue to do so.

Of course the threat posed to Turkey by the PKK is by no means comparable to that by Hamas to Israel. The very existence of Turkey is not at stake as such. However, the PKK caused enough pain over long enough a time and maintains enough means to cause more, if left alone. Turkish publc is truly fed up with news of more ambushed soldiers killed in impunity and a profound outrage is mounting because of that. If the PKK doesn't stop these attacks, pressure will increase continuously for the government to do something about it.

Additionally, any Iraqi outrage at intervention into Iraqi sovereignty is received sceptically here because the president and the foreign minister of Iraq is Kurdish. There's a healthy degree of cynicism in the Turkish public opinion as to how much these officials are looking after Kurdish interests as opposed to Iraqi ones. People also find it inexplicable why Iraqi government would object to the destruction of a group hostile to Turkey based in Iraq, given the fact that Iraqi government itself is utterly incapable of doing the job itself. It's interpreted as either Iraqi complicity or lack of sympathy with fundamental Turkish concerns. This breeds lack of sympathy for cries of infringement of sovereignty (itself largely fictional on multiple accords).

All in all, if Turkey didn't intervene till now, it's in large part due to its listening to US concerns, as you summarised them. Unfortunately, things might be dangerously getting close to the limit of what Turkey can take anymore.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ancyrean

Additionally, any Iraqi outrage at intervention into Iraqi sovereignty is received sceptically here because the president and the foreign minister of Iraq is Kurdish. There's a healthy degree of cynicism in the Turkish public opinion as to how much these officials are looking after Kurdish interests as opposed to Iraqi ones.

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.

People also find it inexplicable why Iraqi government would object to the destruction of a group hostile to Turkey based in Iraq, given the fact that Iraqi government itself is utterly incapable of doing the job itself.

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.


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?

[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.

[lord of the mark]

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.

The PKK's base area is nowhere near the base of groups acting against the Iraqi govt and people. A Turkish CT force contingent there would do nothing to aid the security and safety of the people of Iraq, and were it public, would alienate lots of Iraqs Kurdish citizens, who look on the cause of the Turkish Kurds with some favor. I would think they would need some major carrots/sticks from Washington to agree to that. And we are already pressuring the Kurds and their Shiite allies for concessions on oil, on amnesty for Baathists, and on other issues. To have to also press them on the PKK is just one more headache, at a very bad time. Given that the level of violence from the PKK is not above normal, it would be very good from the POV of those who want to see the new Iraq achieve stability and some form of good government to hold off a bit longer. I hope that the govt of Turkey can see that a stable Iraq, with a govt that reconciles the different groups and is opposed to terrorism in general, is in Turkeys long run interests.


BTW, I wouldnt be surprised if some more quiet activity on the part of agencies of the Turkish govt is going on.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

well the best way to prevent an independent Kurdish state is to give the Kurds a good deal within Iraq, which may well involve a considerable degree of Kurdish control over Kirkuk, with protections for non-Kurds there. While the man on the street in Kurdistan may aspire to independence, AFAICT the leadership is pragmatic on that. If the current Iraqi political situation is not such as to protect the Kurdish area from incursions, Id say that takes away some of the incentive for them NOT to declare independence.

You have a point about Iraqi Kurds getting alienated from the central government if it fails to protest incursions into Kurdish territory. However, consider this:

- Iraqi Kurds disregard central government absolutely anyway and are not inclined to cut any slack for it
- As a result, if they will remain inside Iraq, it will be in large part only because of a realisation that neighbouring countries will not let it survive. At the point of autonomy they currently enjoy, no domestic incentive will alone be enough for them to let go of a DoI.
- That being said, Iraqi Kurds don't seem to make a distinction between seperatist terrorists and other Kurds by not letting Turkey pursue legitimate self defence;despite the fact that Turkish incursion will only target a small amount of terrorist controlled territory.

My suggestion however was based on Turkey using its existing economic leverage over the Kurdish leadership, and did not assume a Kurdish DoI. IE that Turkey use its soft power, and not rush to hard power.

Turkey is trying to use soft power in the region and using it exstensively already. Northern Iraq's welfare and development is already heavily dependant on Turkey. If it's a heaven of reconstruction, it's in large part due to Turkey's encouragement of and help to it. The entity of Northern Iraq itself came into being and survived this long thanks to Turkish acquisence and effective protection during the Saddam era (no fly zones that protected the region were enforced from bases in Turkey). In light of these, Turkey's possible intervention will surely not aim at destroying the wider Kurdish authority in the region and the (non-PKK) Kurds have to see it as such.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The PKK's base area is nowhere near the base of groups acting against the Iraqi govt and people. A Turkish CT force contingent there would do nothing to aid the security and safety of the people of Iraq, and were it public, would alienate lots of Iraqs Kurdish citizens, who look on the cause of the Turkish Kurds with some favor. I would think they would need some major carrots/sticks from Washington to agree to that. And we are already pressuring the Kurds and their Shiite allies for concessions on oil, on amnesty for Baathists, and on other issues. To have to also press them on the PKK is just one more headache, at a very bad time. Given that the level of violence from the PKK is not above normal, it would be very good from the POV of those who want to see the new Iraq achieve stability and some form of good government to hold off a bit longer. I hope that the govt of Turkey can see that a stable Iraq, with a govt that reconciles the different groups and is opposed to terrorism in general, is in Turkeys long run interests.


BTW, I wouldnt be surprised if some more quiet activity on the part of agencies of the Turkish govt is going on.

All true. But once it becomes clear to the Iraqi government that such turkish intervention is imminent won't they prefer that it be done under the umbrella of the coalition?