Posted on 10/27/2009 8:59:45 PM PDT by Mount Athos
'There is no doubt he is our friend," Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, says of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, even as he accuses Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman of threatening to use nuclear weapons against Gaza. These outrageous assertions point to the profound change of orientation by Turkey's government - for six decades the West's closest Muslim ally - since Erdogan's AK party came to power in 2002.
Three events this past month reveal the extent of that change. The first came on October 11 with the news that the Turkish military - a long-time bastion of secularism and advocate of cooperation with Israel - abruptly asked Israeli forces not to participate in the annual "Anatolian Eagle" air force exercise.
Erdogan cited "diplomatic sensitivities" for the cancelation, and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu spoke of "sensitivity on Gaza, east Jerusalem and the al-Aksa Mosque." The Turks specifically rejected Israeli planes that may have attacked Hamas during last winter's Gaza Strip operation. While Damascus applauded the disinvitation, it prompted the US and Italian governments to withdraw their forces from Anatolian Eagle, which in turn meant canceling the international exercise.
As for the Israelis, this "sudden and unexpected" shift shook to the core their military alignment with Turkey, in place since 1996. Former air force chief Eitan Ben-Eliahu, for example, called the cancelation "a seriously worrying development." Jerusalem immediately responded by reviewing Israel's practice of supplying Turkey with advanced weapons, such as the recent $140 million sale to the Turkish air force of targeting pods. The idea also arose to stop helping the Turks defeat the Armenian genocide resolutions that regularly appear before the US Congress.
BARRY RUBIN of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya not only argues that "the Israel-Turkey alliance is over," but concludes that Turkey's armed forces no longer guard the secular republic and can no longer intervene if the government becomes too Islamist.
The second event took place two days later, on October 13, when Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Muallem announced that Turkish and Syrian forces had just "carried out maneuvers near Ankara." Muallem rightly called this an important development "because it refutes reports of poor relations between the military and political institutions in Turkey over strategic relations with Syria." Translation: Turkey's armed forces lost out to its politicians.
Thirdly, 10 Turkish ministers, led by Davutoglu, joined their Syrian counterparts on October 13 for talks under the auspices of the just-established "Turkey-Syria High Level Strategic Cooperation Council." The ministers announced having signed almost 40 agreements to be implemented within 10 days; that "a more comprehensive, a bigger" joint land military exercise would be held than the first one in April; and that the two countries' leaders would sign a strategic agreement in November.
The council's concluding joint statement announced the formation of "a long-term strategic partnership" between the two sides "to bolster and expand their cooperation in a wide spectrum of issues of mutual benefit and interest, and strengthen the cultural bonds and solidarity among their peoples." The council's spirit, Davutoglu explained, "is common destiny, history and future; we will build the future together," while Muallem called the get-together a "festival to celebrate" the two peoples.
Bilateral relations have indeed been dramatically reversed from a decade earlier, when Ankara came perilously close to war with Syria. But improved ties with Damascus are only one part of a much larger effort by Ankara to enhance relations with regional and Muslim states - a strategy enunciated by Davutoglu in his influential 2000 book, Strategic Depth: Turkey's International Position.
In brief, Davutoglu envisions reduced conflict with neighbors and Turkey emerging as a regional power, a sort of modernized Ottoman Empire. Implicit in this strategy is a distancing of Turkey from the West in general and from Israel in particular. Although not presented in Islamist terms, "strategic depth" closely fits the AK party's Islamist world view.
As Barry Rubin notes, "The Turkish government is closer politically to Iran and Syria than to the United States and Israel." Caroline Glick, a Jerusalem Post columnist, goes further: Ankara has already "left the Western alliance and became a full member of the Iranian axis."
But officials in the West seem nearly oblivious to this momentous change in Turkey's allegiance, and its implications. The cost of this error will soon become evident.
we know Bush screwed up the world.... the entire galaxy. I’m waiting for Obama to realign the stars.
We are going to lose Turkey from NATO, Ukraine is going to slip back into the neo-Soviet Union, and we are going to abandon Iraq and Afghanistan for the second time, while disarming and bending backwards for Russia and China. Now if that isn’t stupidity, what is?
Hillary lept into action almost immediately ... firing up BabelFish to get the Turkish translation for "reset". And Barry will be issuing the appropriate apologies forthwith.
Oh, Gee. I forgot that Obama already issued apologies to Turkey -- debased himself / correction / debased America to magnify himself -- in person.
So, that worked to plan, didn't it? At least if the plan is: Make allies think America is so weak they ought to join with her enemies. Which, you know, I'm beginning to think is the plan.
Yes.
Parallels to 1970, when a young Mohammar Gaddhafi kicked us out of Libya, forcing the closure of Wheelus AFB.
A Look at Iran
http://www.truthusa.com/IRAN.html
http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/21405.htm
(”Source: Turkiye (Turkey), October 28, 2009”)
“Turkey, Iran to sign major energy deal today”
Posted at: 2009-10-28
###
http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/21404.htm
(”Source: Turkiye (Turkey), October 28, 2009”)
“Erdogan attends Turkish-Iranian business forum”
Posted at: 2009-10-28
###
http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/21402.htm
(”Source: Today’s Zaman (Turkey), October 28, 2009”)
“PM Erdogan meets with Ahmadinejad in Tehran”
SNIPPET: “Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan yesterday said he believes that the motive behind Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and humanitarian.
Erdogan’s remarks to reporters during an official visit to Iran followed talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi.
Iran denies it is trying to develop nuclear weapons, saying its nuclear program is for peaceful energy needs. Erdogan said he had discussed the nuclear controversy during his talks with Iranian officials, adding that Iran showed its sincerity during talks in Geneva with Western powers, in an apparent reference to Iran’s promise to give International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors access to a newly disclosed nuclear enrichment plant near the city of Qom. Erdogan said Iran had already voiced willingness to cooperate with both Russia and the US on nuclear enrichment.
“Consequently, a positive response to this positive approach by Iran will improve the process towards a much more positive direction,” he said. “Let’s work on establishing a joint consensus and approach the process within its framework. This is an exercise on nuclear energy; it is an exercise with peaceful and humanitarian goals.”
Earlier this week Erdogan criticized what he called unfair treatment of Iran’s nuclear program, calling for an impartial and consistent international approach on nuclear weapons and countries with nuclear arsenals.”
Posted at: 2009-10-28
Here’s what I wrote on the subject of Iran, Iraq & Afghanistan a while back. Note that I suggested Turkey needs to act like an ally — time for them to put up or shut up.
To: NormsRevenge
We SHOULD withdraw from Iraq — via 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/1...osts?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; 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.
38 posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:55:19 PM by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
___________________________________________________________________
It would be hard to objectively falt the Turks for that. The 'US allied Kurds' did not just want freedom from Saddam's fist, but even after liberation wanted to have a sovereign state of the Kurds that included Kurds from Turkey. No way Turkey, as a sovereign state, would have allowed that ...ally or no ally. It would be like us just sitting back and letting Mexicans take over portions of the SW USA (....hmmm, let's ignore the rather obvious illegal immigration aspect to that LOL) just because our British allies liberated them from some crazy despot. As close as we are to the Brits, we would shoot the Mexicans all the way back.
So, while the US was rebuilding the country, the Kurds wanted more than just a rebuilt Iraq, and their dreams for a Kurdish state extended to parts of Turkey and the Turkish Kurd population. No sane sovereign state would allow that.
The Kurds were split 4 ways during the partition of the Midddle East, and their dreams of a Kurdish state have been set in their minds since. Kurds I met in the 70s informed me that their one goal, one dream was to re-unite their people under one flag in their (Kurdish) land.
I can't blame them either.
The Kurds have been a thorn in many sides, and may yet have that Kurdish State, but in the meantime the pursuit of that long-term goal can cause short-term complications on other fronts.
You are right, in that the Turks could not tolerate the incursions of Kurds who have a different nationality, especially when hostile to Turkish soverignty, but the Kurds see themselves not as Turks nor Iraqis, etc. so much as Kurds, and there's the quandry.
Someone raised the possibility of war between Turkey and a pro-Kurdish force (let's say the US in support of the Kurds to establish a state that includes part of Turkey). Well, you betcha the Turks would go to war for that! As would (and AS SHOULD) any Sovereign nation that found itself in such a position, whether they lost or not (again, imagine the Mexicans claiming the SW part of the US, or the Russians claiming they made a mistake in respect to Alaska). Would the Turks win? If the US was fully (think Gulf War 1) involved, then no (and also assuming no other nations would come to Turkey's aid, and note World Wars have been started over much less). However, even if Turkey knew for certain it would lose, it SHOULD still go to war. Its sovereignty would be at stake.
However, in the same vein, should the Kurds aim for sovereignty? Well, yes! Should they fight for it? Hell year!
Now you see ...the problem is that both sides have 100% backing. If this situation is not managed well, war will arise from this. Throw in American involvement, throw in an alliance supporting the American pro-Kurdish situation, throw in another alliance (say China/Russia/Iran) stepping in on the side of Turkey, throw in Pakistan (which would support China, and which has ok relations with Turkey) into it, which would obviously put India in the opposing side, let's assume Israel stays neutral (since it has good relations with Turkey, and has great relations with the US), but let's say Greece decides to poke its nose into the whole thing ....that's called a powder keg.
As I said, world wars have been started over less. Fin!
Too many Turks are doing too well to want to turn over power to corrupt old men preaching false Koranic messages.
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.