Turkey wants northern Iraq

Daily Times ^

[a_Turk]

What do you want to bet that the Iranians are moving around now because the "Iraki opposition in exile" was not a shoe in?

[cavtrooper21]

I never for a minuite figured that they (Kurds)would win, but the Turks had better pack a lunch.....

[He Rides A White Horse]

I don't understand how there could be any question about that. Did you ever trust us?

Yet you say in post 12:

Judging from the quiet of the otherwise vocal Turkish military, I'd say our boys figured something out about you, and it must smell reeeealy bad to them..

That is hardly a reciprocation of trust.

[Marak]

 In this case, the "pie" is going to be a whole lot of sweat, blood, and tears cleaning up Saddam's messes. 

The 'pie' I am referring to is land, control of the natural resources, and the post-war political structure. There is a need to replace the Iraq of today with a better model. That will not be an easy task, and it only gets harder when there are conflicting occupying forces. That, in my opinion, would be the danger of going in under the UN umbrella. The same problem will erupt if Turkey decides that it has a 'section' of Iraq under their sole control.

We're asking them to risk weapons of mass destruction being used against their people, their cities. 

They are already at risk. The whole world is. The only way Turkey would avoid the risk is if they yield to the terrorists, and I don't think that is in their future plans.

[ganesha]

You can't recreate the Ottoman Empire. That empire was based on the idea that the entire Ummah (muslim population of the world) should be governed by a Caliph presiding over an Islamic State and ruling according to Islamic Shariah. Attaturk abolished that system of government in favor of secular nationalism. One of the demmands of fundamentalist muslims like Bin Laden is the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate (Khilafa). In order for Turkey as a secular state to claim a piece of territory, it has to say that, such territory is Turkish. Only an Islamic state can claim to rule over all muslims.

In any case, if you start partitioning Iraq, Syria would have a claim to western Iraq and Israel does not want a greater Syria.

[blam]

"What do you want to bet that the Iranians are moving around now because the "Iraki opposition in exile" was not a shoe in?"

Shoo, lol.

[Beck_isright]

"Iran isn't going to move."

They already have. 5,000 Revolutionary Guards into Northern Iraq per the media reports of the last few days.

"They have a revolution at home if they deploy more than 20,000 troops."

That is more wishful thinking than reality. It's what the VOA and CIA want us and the world to believe. The reality is that the Turks and U.S. are bitter enemies to many of the citizens of Iran. The fact that the U.S. might have 75,000 troops on their border in addition to the 10,000 or so on their eastern border has disrupted the nation somewhat. We have to watch them more for terrorist support of the Kurds and Shi'ites than an outright military movement. But if they put troops on the border, we have to. And do we really need another 38th Parallel to deal with? I'd much prefer to have 100,000 Turks on the left flank if we get in this situation with Iran. And Iran isn't that far from getting the almighty nuke also, remember that fact as we move on into this war.

[a_Turk]

>> I should not place the entire burden on the American side when I don't know the details of the exchanges.

LOL! The Turkish PM sent Bush a letter yesterday, stating that his diplomatic team sent to discuss military and political matters did not seem to be informed in detail of his (W's) plans.

Next thing you know, the team did not show up as planned today.

[Thud]

The Kurds are in such a rotten position because they're hopeless losers who much prefer betraying each other to foreign neighbors to working together for an independent Kurdistan. While it is a rough neighborhood, the Kurds are downtrodden by everyone else for a reason.

We might create and prop up a new Kurdistan to punish the Turks if the Turks play games and delay redeployment of our forces waiting offshhore, but shouldn't do so if they quickly say no go. But we will have to take over the unpleasant task of policing northern Iraq, or an independent Kurdistan there, regardless.

We don't need Turkish help to conquer Iraq, and it wouldn't mean much if we had it. We don't need Turkish help controlling the Kurdish areas of Iraq afterwards, but their help would sure be desirable. But IMO their political system is such that they can't make any deal with us.

[ScholarWarrior]

We will not fire on a member of NATO unless fired upon. PERIOD.

Dwight D. Eisenhower Supreme Allied Commander.

[Rebelbase]

I'm still laughing from you claiming hardly any Americans would have even pissed on you if you were on fire.

[Beck_isright]

"We don't need Turkish help controlling the Kurdish areas of Iraq"

That statement, I'm sorry to say is dead wrong. We will be dealing with a new ball game and not enough troops to do it if we have to take the entire nation on our own. You can be the trap is being laid already by the Iranian secret service. And that's what worries me more; not the war, the aftermath.

[DeweyCA]

We ought to agree to pay the Turks their higher montary price, grab the oil fields, and then pay off the Turks with proceeds from the oil.

[knak]

I saw something earlier that said the Turkish military called for return of emergency rule.

[Thud]

Note that Beck_isright shares my low opinion of the Kurds.

"The Kurds will turn on us just as quick as the pro-Iranian rebels in the South..."

[a_Turk]

>> they'll find just how decisive we can be

LOL! That'll be a sight. US bombing Turkey. Christians liberate Constantinopolis! And Smyrna!! Muuuslims sent to flee with only the warts on their asses!

LOLOLOLOL

Bwaahahahahahaaaa

gigggggle!

smirk.

Ok, I'm ok now..

[F.J. Mitchell]

This thing is turning into a spagetti western.

[tomahawk]

Ataturk was a great man. Too bad the same can't be said about Turkey's current leaders.

[SpookBrat]

"We're negotiating with a friend on how to divide up a painful, dirty job we both need to get done. If the negotiation gets a little sharp at times, that's just because the stakes are so high."

I agree with you.

[marron]

I don't understand how there could be any question about that. Did you ever trust us?

Does Turkey entirely trust us? Probably, in general terms, yes, but where key Turkish interests are involved, she obviously needs confirmation. Written, preferably, but in the absense of a written agreement, some kind of crystal clarity.

I would say we have the same situation.

But Turkey can look past our promises, to see the pressures we are under, and the other promises we have made, that may affect our ability to keep our word with Turkey. Its precisely because Turkey understands us, that she is mistrustful; not mistrustful of our honor, but mistrustful of our ability to keep every promise we have made. And wanting to make sure that if we have to back off on a promise, it isn't theirs.

We have the same situation. We know what kind of Iraq we want to build, and we know what kind we have promised to build. We need to know that Turkey is going to be a partner in this work, that her other concerns aren't going to undercut the work we have to do. Specifically, that they will not let their problems with the PKK interfere with building a Kurdish government in the territory. That while protecting the Turkic minority they will not go beyond fair. That they will not attempt to exert control over the oil.

If Turkish troops are under our command, then none of this is a question. If they are not, and are there separately, then we need clarity about what their intentions are. These are fair questions. Turkey needs to know the same about us, and I have no doubt we have had endless discussions.