12 Turkish troops killed in rebel attack (PKK)

Kurdish rebels ambushed a military unit near Turkey's border with Iraq early Sunday, killing 12 soldiers and increasing pressure on the Turkish government to stage attacks against guerrilla camps in Iraq.

Iraq's president, a Kurd, ordered Kurdish guerrillas to lay down their weapons or leave, but Turkey's deputy prime minister said words were no longer enough: "We are expecting concrete steps from them."

The soldiers died when rebels blew up a bridge as a 12-vehicle military convoy was crossing it, less than three miles from the Iraq border, CNN-Turk television said. Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek said the military had circled a group of rebels, killed 23 of them and were shelling their positions.

"Our anger, our hatred is great," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on national television. He said the government would take "an approach that is calm, far from agitation and based on common sense."

A Kurdish rebel group also claimed its guerillas had captured a number of Turkish soldiers hostage. Cicek declined to comment on the claim, saying "the clashes are still underway."

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani urged the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, to stop their attacks amid fears an incursion would destabilize the relatively peaceful autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq.

"But if they insist on the continuation of fighting, they should leave Kurdistan, Iraq and not create problems here. And they should return to their countries and do there whatever they want," Talabani said at a joint news conference with Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani.

Turkey has been pressing the U.S. and the Iraqi government to crack down on rebels who have found haven in the remote, mountainous areas of northern Iraq. The United States opposes any unilateral action by Turkey, fearing it could destabilize the most stable part of Iraq.

"Statements do not satisfy us, there has been nothing left to say, we are expecting concrete steps from them," Cicek said.

Talabani tempered his strong words, however, acknowledging the difficulties in controlling the rebels who operate from bases in northern Iraq.

"The leaders of PKK are not within our reach. They are based in Kurdistan's rugged mountains and the Turkish army, with all its might, was unable to dislodge or capture them," Talabani said.

Separately, 17 people were injured when a bomb exploded as a minibus — part of a wedding convoy — passed near the area where the soldiers were killed, the local governor's office said.

Turkey's Parliament earlier this week overwhelmingly passed a motion authorizing its military to launch an offensive into northern Iraq against hideouts of the rebel Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK. Sunday's death toll raises the number of soldiers killed in PKK attacks in the past two weeks to around 30.

Turkish leaders have said that the parliament motion did not mean that Turkey would immediately order a cross-border offensive, but the latest attack was likely to increase calls by a frustrated public for the military to stage an incursion. Previous offensives by Turkey in Iraq have blunted rebel strength, but failed to eradicate the group.

"Everything will be done within the legal framework of this authorization. We have no concerns about who would say what," Erdogan said, indicating that Turkey was prepared to ignore calls of restraint from Washington and Baghdad in the face of escalating PKK attacks.

The attack occurred just after midnight, during a military offensive against rebels near the Turkish village of Daglica, in Hakkari province, where the borders of Turkey, Iraq and Iran meet. Hakkari is east of neighboring Sirnak province, another area of conflict between the PKK and the Turkish military.

"A large PKK group that infiltrated across our borders launched a three-pronged attack on an infantry company near the town of Daglica, and in the ensuing clash 12 soldiers were martyred and 16 soldiers were wounded," the military said in a statement. Clashes were under way south of the area where the soldiers were ambushed, the military said. There were no reports that troops had crossed into Iraq.

Abdul-Rahman al-Chadrchi, a PKK spokesman in northern Iraq, denied there were any rebel casualties.

Journalists heading to the area by road were turned away at a military checkpoint. Much of the rural area along the border has already been declared off-limits by the Turkish military.

Some 15 Turkish shells hit Iraqi territory starting at about 7 a.m. Sunday, said Col. Hussein Rashid of the Iraqi border guard forces. The bombardment was concentrated in the Mateen mountain range in the Amadiyah area, 20 miles from the border.

The Iraqi region of Amadiyah is roughly opposite the Turkish town of Cukurca, in Hakkari province. Rebels are active near Cukurca, about 30 miles from the location where the soldiers died Sunday.

On Saturday, Erdogan said Turkey expected the United States to take action against the PKK but would take its own measures if it saw no results in the fight.

The U.S. lists the PKK as a terrorist organization and has condemned its attacks in Turkey. However, Washington has called on the Turkish government to work with the Iraqis.

Rebels periodically cross the border to stage attacks in their war for autonomy for Turkey's predominantly Kurdish southeast. More than 30,000 people have died in the conflict that began in 1984.

We should take this as an opportunity to help the Kurds establish autonomy & nationhood in the region.

Here’s my usual post regarding this area.

Maybe my tagline will come true.

We should withdraw from Iraq — through Tehran. Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.

How to Stand Up to Iran

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36

Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.

15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts

Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.

Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.

Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.

.
.

I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.

I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.

The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).

It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend” when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldn’t be a wise move for them, they’d get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.

If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. It’s time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.

Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, it’s a messy situation. If Turkey goes “into the war on Iran’s side” then they ain’t really our allies and that’s the end of that.

I agree that it’s hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”

This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that don’t agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.

What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts

Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105

My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant “allies” like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that we’d need as many folks in police and nurse’s uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didn’t follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just haven’t won the peace.

I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, they’ve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when they’re done with that, we can help “negotiate” with our other “allies”, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.

That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up what’s left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.

That leaves Damascus for round II. The whole deal could be circumvented by Syria if they simply allow real inspections of the WOMD sites. And when I say “real”, I mean real — the inspectors would have a small armor division that they could call on whenever they get held up by some local yocal who didn’t get this month’s bribe. Hussein was an idiot to dismantle all of his WOMDs and then not let the inspectors in. If he had done so, he’d still be in power, pulling Bush’s chain.

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.