U.S. in Talks on Allowing Turkey to Occupy a Kurdish Area in Iraq (Screwing the Kurds)

ANKARA, Turkey, Feb. 6 — American diplomats are engaged in delicate negotiations here that could allow tens of thousands of Turkish soldiers to occupy part of northern Iraq behind an advancing American army, Turkish and Kurdish officials said today.

A United States official confirmed that the negotiations were under way, but said that the Turks would be restricted to a limited area close to the border and that the numbers discussed by the Turks and Kurds were exaggerated.

The plan, which is being negotiated in closed-door meetings in Ankara, the Turkish capital, is being bitterly resisted by at least some leaders of Iraq's Kurdish groups, who fear that Turkey's leaders may be trying to realize a historic desire to dominate the region in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The Kurdish officials say they fear a military intervention by the Turks could also prompt Iran to cross the border and try to seize sections of eastern Iraq.

American diplomats and senior military commanders, led by President Bush's special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, are said to be encouraging the Kurdish leaders to accept the Turkish proposal. While Washington has strongly supported the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq over the past 12 years, it is eager to secure the permission of Turkey's leaders to use Turkey's bases for a possible attack on Iraq.

The proposed deal between the Americans and the Turks moved closer to fruition today when the Turkish Parliament voted to allow American engineers to begin preparing Turkish military bases for possible use by American troops. A vote on whether to allow American troops to use those bases is scheduled for Feb. 18.

The size of each projected military force — American and Turkish — is still unclear. American officials had sought to base as many as 80,000 troops in Turkey. But some Turkish officials have suggested that the American force will be significantly smaller, perhaps no more than 15,000 to 20,000. In negotiations today, Turkish officials said they wanted their forces to outnumber American ones by a ratio of two to one.

With a war looming, Turkey has sought assurances from the Americans that the toppling of Mr. Hussein would not result in the establishment of an independent Kurdish state, which it fears would encourage a revolt by Turkish Kurds.

Turkey's leaders are determined to prevent a repeat of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, when southeastern Turkey was swamped by a half million Kurdish refugees fleeing attacks by the Iraqi Army. Turkish officials say that pro-Kurdish guerrillas crossed into Turkey along with the refugees, igniting a bloody insurgency that the Turkish military has been battling ever since.

But some Kurds are making it clear that they do not want the Turks crossing Iraq's northern border.

"We have told the Americans and the Turks that any outside intervention would not be welcomed," said Safeen M. Dizayee, an official with the Iraq-based Kurdish Democratic Party, who took part in the talks. "I hope it would not get out of control. But it could be suicidal to get into something like this if it undermines political stability."

A United States official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the Turks were proposing to send troops into northern Iraq but said that their role would be sharply limited. The official said that the Turkish troops would be limited to a portion of Iraqi territory near the Turkish border, and that the forces would focus primarily on humanitarian problems and on discouraging people from fleeing to Turkey. Moreover, he said, the Turkish forces would be under American command and would not be mixing with the Kurdish troops.

One of the aims of the current negotiations, the official continued, was to bring the Kurds and the Turks to an understanding about a possible Turkish intervention.

Indeed, there were signs that Iraq's Kurdish leaders were showing a willingness to work with Turkey's new government, which has deep Islamic roots and won a majority of seats in the Turkish Parliament last November. Massoud Barzani, the leader of one of the two major Kurdish groups, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, was said to have felt comfortable with Turkey's leaders during a recent visit there.

"He was very impressed with the Turkish government," Fawzi Hariri, a party spokesman, said of Mr. Barzani. "He thought they were genuine and that he could trust them."

But statements by Turkish officials suggested that their plans might be more ambitious. A Turkish official confirmed today that his government was planning to send troops into northern Iraq in numbers that would exceed those dispatched by the Americans.

The Turkish officials echoed comments made Wednesday by the Turkish prime minister, Abdullah Gul. He suggested that the Turkish Army's role would go beyond humanitarian concerns to protecting Turkish interests in the region.

"Turkey is going to position herself in that region in order to prevent any possible massacres, or the establishment of a new state," Mr. Gul told Turkish reporters.

The Turkish official, like Mr. Gul, said the Turkish troops would not take part in combat with the Iraqis but would instead seek to prevent the emergence of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. The official said the Turks could also check any re-emergence of the Kurdish insurgency that operated in southeastern Turkey during the 1990's.

The official made it clear that the Turkish troops would protect themselves if they came under attack.

In recent weeks the Turks have been building their forces on the border, and some 1,200 Turkish troops are already operating in parts of northern Iraq, mainly to hunt down pro-Kurdish guerrillas who might be trying to cross into Turkey.

Mr. Dizayee referred to the various Turkish rationales for intervention as "pretexts." Like many Kurdish leaders, Mr. Dizayee expressed pride in the democratic institutions the Kurds have built during their 12 years of autonomy. He expressed dismay at the prospect that those institutions might be swamped by an American-led military attack.

"We think these democratic institutions have set a precedent for the rest of Iraq," Mr. Dizayee said. "If they were undermined, it would reflect badly on the whole operation."

The American-led talks appear to be focused on choreographing the nearly simultaneous entry of American combat troops and Turkish soldiers into northern Iraq. One official with the other major Kurdish group, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said Mr. Khalilzad had called the meeting to give each group its final marching orders for what appears to be an imminent war.

One element of the plan, the Kurdish official said, was to ensure that both Turkish and Kurdish forces left the northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk to the American forces. Those cities are the centers of oil production in the region, and Washington plans to grab the oil fields before either Iraq destroys them or the Kurds seize them.

The senior official with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan said the Kurds were eagerly anticipating the arrival of American soldiers, but not that of the Turks.

"We regard America as liberators," the official said. "And our neighbors as looters."

We just gave the Turks $15 Billion dollars in loan guarantees (which they will never be able to pay back of course) in what amounts to a very expensive road toll fee. Turkish troops will not help us fight Iraqi soldiers but to kill Kurds if they try and set up a state? What will American soldiers in Northern Iraq be doing in the midst of this scenario?

"We regard America as liberators," the official said. "And our neighbors as looters."

I don't see the kurds as a political entity.
They are going to have to be part of the new state of Iraq, or under the substantial rule of Turkey... we cannot have more afghanistanic regions on the borders of legitimate nations...

I, for one, would welcome a Turkish administration of the kurdish region... OR a non autonomous territory within a greater and democratized Iraq...

Most islamic majority states cannot yet reconcile the concept of individual liberty under a constitutional republic, or a parliamentary monarchy... with their seventh century, "allah or else" religion. Turkey is one of those states that has proven it can. I think Malaysia may be another.

Breifly put, any "allah or else" state, will have to be dealt with harshly in this millenia. If Islam can be pacified, it will survive. It it continues to move to the extreme fringe, it will be wiped out.

allah or else, just won't get it in this day and age. KURDS are islamics... and are entitled to their religion... but they may NOT be entitlted to autonomy, at least not yet.

It's a tough region of the world with lots of petty cultural enclaves. THAT is going to have to be rectified. By force if necessary.

Once we are in, we are in. I don't have a crystal ball, I'm just winging it here... but we will be orchestrating a "federal" Iraq, which is going to have a semi-autonomous North; just semi enough to mollify the Turks, but hopefully autonomous enough to satisfy the Kurds.

We are going to supervise the setting up of the system for contracting out the oil field work. I don't believe we will make any obvious grab for the oil ourselves, but we will limit the Turks' temptation to seize it themselves.

The best we can do is to include the Turks in some of the contracts, help to reactivate the pipeline from Kirkuk to Ceyhan, which will make Turkey a partner in the Kurdish oil business, in a way. If we are wise, we can protect the Kurds from any direct conflict with Turkey, and maybe begin to set the stage for a partnership between them. It will be ticklish, there is no love lost between them. But they are going too be neighbors for a very long time.

If we are smart, we would establish a Kurdish Oil Company to operate the northern oil fields. The Turks would have to do business with them, and vice versa, as Kurdish oil would be refined in Turkish refineries. This would change the dynamic between them.

I keep thinking we will establish a base near Baghdad, and another in the north, which would give us some moderating influence on the situation. And I think we may be there a while.

What do you think? I think these are short term predictions, maybe only a couple weeks away. I think the diplomatic charades are pretty much done. The UN may continue to turn the crank, will they, won't they, but I suspect we have already lost interest. I know I have.

"The UN may continue to turn the crank, will they, won't they, but I suspect we have already lost interest. I know I have."

There is an argument for hoping that the French torpedo any UN participation.

After all, once Saddam's forces are defeated and he out of the way, we're in Iraq to accomplish two things:

1. Prosecute the War on Terror, from a conveniently located base.

2. Engage in establishment of a democratic state, complete with constitutional freedoms. Such an Iraq itself serves as a weapon in the War on Terror. And a destabilizing influence on every theocratic dictatorship in the area...

Both of these things are best accomplished with a "coalition of the willing", ourselves at the head. And without the assistance of any UN bureaucrats...

"The UN may continue to turn the crank, will they, won't they, but I suspect we have already lost interest. I know I have."

There is an argument for hoping that the French torpedo any UN participation.

After all, once Saddam's forces are defeated and he out of the way, we're in Iraq to accomplish two things:

1. Prosecute the War on Terror, from a conveniently located base.

Both of these things are best accomplished with a "coalition of the willing", ourselves at the head. And without the assistance of any UN bureaucrats...

I understand that is the goal. We all watch sports don't we? We handicap based on the record of past performance. If Kosovo, the largest recent deployment of American occupation forces since is an example to follow then Iraq, an occupation 100 times the complexity, will be a horror.

Will we hunt down Shia if they start killing Sunni? Will we hunt down Kurds if they start killing Turks?

Destro, I am really well disposed to believe this. But as much as I would like to, I am having a very hard time believing that sentence with "Kurds," and "democracy," in it.

These boys are plenty rough, and like the Afghans, when no one is fighting them, they fight each other. I would like to see an independent Kurdistan set up, carved out of Iraq and Iran, but if these boys set up a real country, and settle down to peaceful farming, I am going to be the first to buy the drinks.

BTW, they have harbored many al-quaeda ... might even be a few hanging around now.

The al-Qaeda are there as they are in Turkey and the Balkans somewhat overt and covertly. I will clarify since unlike Senator Leiberman I wont say the Kurds, like the KLA fight for American values. I meant the attempt at creating a "modern" state in Kurdistan is impressive for the middle east.

Iraq of today to me resembles the Phillipines of the post Spanish-American war. We fought a long time against some of those native tribes in those jungles while other tribes became trusted colonists. Still bloody, still worth doing but not worth cheering.

It will be simplified by the fact that it is not a UN occupation. We will (he says, as if he knew what he was saying) be using Iraqis to police Iraqis. Our focus is going to be on chasing the Baathist diehards, and the Islamists, and preparing for the next push. (And where is the next push, you ask?) And building bases and settling in for the long haul. I just have this feeling we are not leaving.

The oil industry is going to be rebuilding just like the rest of the country. There is going to be no shortage of jobs, in a country where jobs and actual salaries have been hard to come by. This is going to limit the temptation to kill each other, this and the "autonomous regions", north, central, and south.

Insurgency in Afghanistan is still a problem because the baddies have safe haven in Pakistan, and we are too weak in the region to do more than patrol, and because there is still no work. In Iraq, we will be there in force, and Iraq's neighbors are not going to want to sponsor this kind of trouble. And there will be work.

I will predict this. If the Kurds are given an equitable share in the oil in their region, they will be quiet. Normal banditry, normal mayhem, normal. If they are not given a share, you will have a bloodbath. Kurds versus Kurds versus Turks versus Sunnis versus Americans. We will eventually be driven out. Its very important that the autonomous regions be given a stake in the oil in their own region.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.