Turkey Warns of Lengthy Iraq War

Associated Press ^ | Sun Jul 21, 2002 | SUZAN FRASER

[Colombia59]

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Turkey's embattled prime minister on Sunday warned the United States risked becoming bogged down in a long war if it moves ahead with plans to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"Iraq is ... so developed technologically and economically despite the embargo, that it cannot be compared to Afghanistan or Vietnam," Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said in an interview on state-run television.

"It will not be possible for the (United States) to get out of there easily," Ecevit said after a recent visit to the crucial NATO-member country on Iraq's northern border by Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz. The Pentagon No. 2 was in Turkey to lobby for it's assistance in any U.S. move against Saddam.

Ecevit said he did not know when the action might occur or what shape it might take. President Bush has said U.S. policy demand's the Iraqi leader's ouster.

He said the United States should consider measures other than a military action in Iraq, but did not elaborate.

"There are other measures to deter the Iraqi regime of being a threat to the region," he said.

Turkish leaders, grappling with political uncertainty and looming early elections, are reluctant to back any U.S. action they fear could hamper the country's economic development and lead to the creation of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq.

Turkey has long complained that it has lost some $40 billion in trade with Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War and U.N. embargo.

Turkish officials have also repeatedly said they fear that a war in Iraq would encourage Kurds in northern Iraq to create an independent state, which could in turn, encourage Turkey's own Kurdish population to do the same. Kurdish rebels fought Turkish troops for autonomy for 15 years, in a struggle that has cost an estimated 37,000 lives.

"There is a de facto Kurdish state in northern Iraq, we cannot allow this go any further," Ecevit said.

"President Bush is a friend of Turkey. We do not want to hurt his feelings, but it is our duty to let them know our concerns," he said.

Turkish backing is seen as crucial to any action against Iraq. The country was a launching pad for U.S. strikes against Iraq during the Gulf War and still hosts some 50 U.S. warplanes enforcing a no-fly zone over northern Iraq.

Turkey is also in desperate need of foreign loans to recover from a deep financial crisis and many believe that the country has little choice but to agree to U.S. action.

After the Wolfowitz visit Turkish officials suggested Turkey, NATO's only predominantly Muslim member, would go along provided the United States forgave big outstanding military debts and guaranteed there would be no Kurdish state in what is now northern Iraq.

[Colombia59]

This is the problem with Junior's plan to rewrite history by making up for Daddies mistake in allowing the snake Saddam to survive.

Now we only have the resources to send in a small limited force of less than 300,000 to do the job and we would have to do it with no allied support.

Saddam would love for this to happen because whether he survived or not he would live on in Islamic history as the warrior who challenged the Great Satan and ultimately won.

[joesnuffy]

Well its sure nice to see such a great respect for the Army of Sadaam and so little for the USA
what a crock of shit this is.....BARF ALERT.....
Sadam can bluster all he likes and his islamic buddies in Turkey can try to suck up to him...who gives a rats ass..
If we go..Sadam is history...and as far as all our so called allies...it would be advantageous to us to have them outta the way for a change and not have to consult with every little piss ant general and euro country that donated three cases of c rats and a jeep to the fight.. :) imo of course...

[the_doc]

What Turkey doesn't realize is that we weren't even trying especially hard in Afghanistan.

And they are forgetting that in the Gulf War, we smashed Iraq very quickly. The fact that there were other allies on the ground misses the point. The U.S. was the main power and the U.S. won the war handily.

I predict that the next conflict with Saddam will be over much more quickly.

[ChicagoRepublican]

Note: In the Persian Gulf War all we did was destroy the Iraqi army in Kuwait. An army supported by the logistics of an innefective and long supply line from areas in Iraq. We bombed the hell out of Iraq in a groundbreaking fashion that had never been seen before in military history, then overran the Iraqi army in Kuwait like the Germans did to the French and then proceeded to wipe out a panicking, retreating army.

This time around we'll be invading a country on its hometurf. The mentality of the Iraqi leadership is different. The use of such weapons as stated in the article could really change the war.

Just remember, never fight as in the last war. The next one will be different. I'm still very confident that the US can destroy Iraq's fighting capabilities and crush its current regime. I don't think it will take place in a 90 day period. I don't think the war will happen soon just to please armchair generals.

Joesnuffy, maybe you want to enlist and go fight in the war, instead of ridiculing intelligent opinions.

[Colombia59]

You don't get it Mr. Cowboy, going after Saddam is a worthless and useless task.

We easily won the Gulf War because Daddy did consult with all those "piss ant" countries and generals. If Junior goes in on his own I can guarantee it ain't gonna be the same.

[the_doc]

You forget that we were cruising down the road to capture Baghdad itself in the last war when the POTUS stopped the war--not so much for reasons of projected casualties, but because it was obvious that we were going to topple Saddam's government if we weren't a lot more careful.

With regard to invading a country on its hometurf, we need to realize that more than twenty percent of Saddam's army has already gone AWOL. It would appear that they agree with my assessment of their defensive position.

Then, there's the anti-Bath Party folks. They want Saddam's head.

And with regard to the idea that we faced only a panicking, retreating army on the ground last time, I say that there is every reason to believe that this will happen again.

It's not merely that the Iraqis were overextended in the last conflict, but that they were badly outgunned. In the previous conflict, eight Marine Corps tanks destroyed more than forty top-of-the-line Iraqi tanks which were not panicking or retreating. We suffered zero casualties in that engagement.

The Turks have not seen this sort of thing firsthand. The Iraqis have seen it (which does account for the AWOLs).

Don't worry. We'll do it right. Iraq's weaponry is better, but so is ours. The thing which we have to be most wary about is counterattacks on American soil.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

ping

[a_Turk]

Thanks for the ping Giovanna!

This article has already been posted here.

Our current prime minister is a weak figure, who is about to lose his career as a politician both because of his failures as well as his extreme age. I would not worry about his BS.

Also, having been burned worse than Saddam after the Gulf war, politicians in Turkey are blowing on the yoghurt, as the saying goes, after having burned their lips on hot milk :)

[Faraday]

The Turks have the right to demand that no Kurdish state be established in Iraq post-Saddam. No problemo. But Saddam...he's history. The Iraqi people know that this is not a war of aggression and occupation, but of liberation. This war will be swifter than the war in Afghanistan. It is also the first domino in the replacement of the oppressive Islamic regimes. Enjoy it! The world is being remade for the better.

[Colombia59]

Seems strange that we don't see people in the streets rioting against these "repressive regimes" as they did with the Shah.

The fact is that these types of regimes are what the people there have always preferred, and all the huffing and puffing by the United States and people like you is not going to change this reality.

[Faraday]

Might want to do a little research into current events. Plenty is happening in both Iran and Iraq. The natives are definitely restless. However, just because you believe man's "natural" state is one of oppression under tyranny, doesn't mean that people will stop rebelling against same. Nor will we (USA) be deterred from removing WMD threats against our people. Get use to it.

[Colombia59]

If you buy into all of this WMD crap coming out of the Bush administration then you need a vacation.

[section9]

Ah, the Second Coming of Scott Ritter....

If you buy into all of this WMD crap coming out of the Bush administration then you need a vacation.

Now then, having read your posts, I am rather amused at your assessment of Saddam's strength.

The Iraqi military has had the wherewithal to invest in one thing: WMD, primarily chemical and biowar weapons. Nuclear weapons are still off in the future, primarily because even the black marketeers are afraid to sell weapons grade stuff to the Mad Hatter of Baghdad.

To simply discount the last ten years of developments in Iraq as "crap" bespeaks a level of ignorance that is surprising, even to me.

WMD are the only cards Saddam has. Here's why: You say that we'll be fighting an army on its "own turf". I say that the Iraqi army, the average conscript Joe formations, are merely underpaid, undertrained mobs, led by generals whose chief characteristic is an uncanny ability to keep thier noses up Saddam's ass. This is not the Army that stormed into Iran in the late summer of 1980. It is a hollow shell. Indeed, when the CIA attempted to use the Kurds in the north to attack the Iraqi V Corps back in 1995, that Corps was only saved by the fact that Anthony Lake, then chief of the Clinton NSC, ordered the CIA agent on the ground to withdraw his support from the Kurds.

Not the first time the Toon f%&ked up, and certainly not the last time.

Anyhoo, the Iraqi army has become a stagnant mess, while American weapons systems have improved immeasurably in the last ten years. The only question I have is the quality of American soldiery coming out of boot camp, such were the detrimental effects of the social experimentation that was a common denominator of the Clinton years.

Iraq's "Army" isn't a national army at all, but a collection of regionally based units that are loyal to their commander. For the time being, the commanders are loyal to Saddam.

Until we offer them a better deal. After all, there is a reason that Saddam keeps executing his generals.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Admin Moderator]

Colombia59 was a troll. He's gone.

[Valin]

Turkish officials have also repeatedly said they fear that a war in Iraq would encourage Kurds in northern Iraq to create an independent state, which could in turn, encourage Turkey's own Kurdish population to do the same.

BINGO!! The real reason they are worried.