Turkey wants northern Iraq

Daily Times ^

[George W. Bush]

I think we're prepared to control the entire situation, including Iran and Turkey. Or else we wouldn't be in there. We have weapons and capabilities that have never been seen before. A Turkish invasion of northern Iraq as a land/oil grab will not be accepted. It would bring even the U.N. and the EU in on our side overwhelmingly.

At this point, I don't want to pay Turkey off any more. It sets a very bad example of shaking down America. If we pay, it will only encourage other "allies" to do the same in the future. It is contrary to our interest to demostrate that this is a successful tactic.

Let the Turks sit it out and stew in their own juices. It was their choice to do it at every step of the way. Our aid offer was more than generous, given the risk and the short time frame for use of airbases and border grouping areas.

[u-89]

Good choice on the globe!

In high school I had a teacher who thought every house should have a globe in it.(Capital suggestion as long as it is voluntary and not provided by the state).

Your library sounds appealing. Maybe you need some select historically significant antiques in a glass case or two. Or perhaps some antiquities or objects d'art.

personally I have several large wall maps in my office.

[ApesForEvolution]

Kurds and oil. I'm not impressed with the direction the new islamonuts in power are taking Turkey...

[Beck_isright]

"Well, just how many have they slaughtered so far?"

We either know and will not reveal that information until we're ready to move against Iran OR the Kurds are hiding this information to lure us into helping them build a nation.

"What will they gain from slaughtering Iraqi Turks unprovoked?"

The animosity between the Turks and Persians (Iranians) goes back centuries. Even though it was Turkey who ultimately helped create the largest Islamic empire, the two peoples have never liked each other. They will gain a foothold and the undying loyalty of the Kurds. They need the Kurds to be a delaying action against us to slow down our plans for Iran. If Iran can complete their nuke OR buy one from Pakistan, they will hold us off for quite some time.

[Beck_isright]

"Some of our people are terribly incompetent"

From Websters New World Dictionary, p. 463...

State Department - A group of overpaid people who are terribly incompetent

FYI...

[Beck_isright]

Your post #221 is an example of the uneducated masses that infest America. We, thanks to Klintoon, do not have enough troops to control Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Syria. Without our northern flank being covered by the Turks, we will experience years of terrorist attacks against our troops and numerous casualities. Get pragmatic. We need them, they need us. They will fight and kill our enemies as they are not cowards like the frogs. These are the kind of allies you want, like Britain. After all, our history has always been to buy allies. Hell, we saved the USSR in WWII, they would have sunk without us. So lighten up. If you think that 230,000 troops can fight and control 4 nations, you're smoking large quantities of Afghan opium product.

[George W. Bush]

Without our northern flank being covered by the Turks, we will experience years of terrorist attacks against our troops and numerous casualities.

We aren't going to be there for years, one way or the other. That's one of the things the Turks are considering. I don't blame them for it. But it's shortsighted. Longterm U.S. presence in the region is not going to happen outside of Qatar and the tiny Gulf oil states. It's too provocative.

After all, our history has always been to buy allies.

No, we aid allies and we buy mercenaries. In WW II, Britain was an ally and Russia was a mercenary. There's a big difference. And don't underestimate our military forces. I'm prepared to believe it when our leadership says that we can control a regional breakup.

[ScholarWarrior]

I think you are optimistic about our ability to control the entire situation without help.

I do agree that there is a point where we have to go in without Turkish support. That should not be our preference, either in the short term military circumstance, the medium term political one, or in contingency planning for actions by Iran or ultimately against them.

[ScholarWarrior]

You are absolutely right about our need for Turkish support. We just can't meet any demand or give them free reign to take what they please.

[Beck_isright]

" We aren't going to be there for years, one way or the other."

I thought I would address your points individually because this is much more serious than you think.

We will be there for at least 5 if not 10 years. Alot depends on the ability of the CIA to create insurrection in Iran. Until that government is changed, we will be dealing with terrorism here and against Israel. The Russians know this and will continue to discreetly fund Iran to keep us in check. It will take at least 600,000 troops to take Iran. We already have the bases in Western Afghanistan and now can use Eastern Iraq with Turkey on the left flank. Also while we engage Iran, Turkey can keep pressure on Syria via their border with Lebanon and Syria. So absolutely, it's a tag team show. We will need them for years and vice versa.

"That's one of the things the Turks are considering. I don't blame them for it. But it's shortsighted."

It's the primary consideration. The creation of a "Republic of Kurdistan" would be like giving Arizona back to Mexico. The Iranians would love it. The war on terror is now up for much higher stakes. This is for geo-political control of the region and most of Asia.

"Longterm U.S. presence in the region is not going to happen outside of Qatar and the tiny Gulf oil states. It's too provocative."

Sadly I wish that were true. Our military does not have the manpower to hold 4 nations AND be viable against North Korea (My answer to that is one Trident with one warning note to the Chicoms; if North Korea nukes anything, North Korea ceases to be a viable piece of land for 400 years). We will have to occupy Iraq until the nation is rebuilt along with the Turks. It is the bulwark against Syria and Iranian dominance in the region. And with the pending civil war in Saudi Arabia, we must have a reconstructed and stable Iraq to keep peace in the region.

" No, we aid allies and we buy mercenaries. In WW II, Britain was an ally and Russia was a mercenary."

In that case that would make the french whores. But seriously, as an ally, we screwed Turkey in GW1. This is their way of making sure it does not happen again. Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, etc. were also mercenaries in WWII. Paid to keep out of the war and just help us when they could, fyi.

" And don't underestimate our military forces."

I'm not. We just do not have the numbers needed. It will take 100,000 troops to actively occupy Iraq. If you do not think that the radical Kurdish and Shi'ite movements controlled and funded by Iran and Syria will not attack us during the occupation, I think you are dead wrong. Once we win, the war will change again. And Iran has to keep us distracted so we do not focus everything aganist them, even though we will no matter what.

"I'm prepared to believe it when our leadership says that we can control a regional breakup."

I'm not. I believe they can control individual nations like Iraq or Kuwait. But this major change in the region has not occurred since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. It will be violent, destabalizing and very expensive financially and in manpower for our nation. I do forsee a re-mobilization and re-activation of units in the DoD force structure. This war expands far beyond the Iraqi campaign within the next 5 years. At what cost is what I am concerned about.

[Beck_isright]

I think that Great Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Italy and the new Arab alliances with us will soon replace "NATO". The colonialist mindset of the frogs will soon be displayed in Africa and will isolate them more than ever. This alliance will be all that holds the line against Russia and China shold they continue to improve relations...

[George W. Bush]

I do agree that there is a point where we have to go in without Turkish support.

Maybe you'd like to pause for a moment and reflect on just how many of our "allies" over the decades have turned on us over the years since we've been a superpower? Saddam was one. Iran. Noriega. Too many others to list. And we're talking about a lot of oil and tribal hatreds here.

If I didn't think that we could control the situation fully, I would oppose going in to Iraq. We can't afford to depend on fair-weather allies. They make it easier but you're certain to be defeated if you make a habit of relying on allies to win, especially if you are considered hegemonic and therefore have those who wish to claim some portion of your influence or trade empire. How many times must history demonstrate it?

We'd better be able to handle it alone or we shouldn't be there.

[George W. Bush]

We will be there for at least 5 if not 10 years.

Not a chance. The Middle East would erupt entirely. I don't know of anyone in foreign policy or defense circles who is advocating such policies.

The creation of a "Republic of Kurdistan" would be like giving Arizona back to Mexico.

No one favors the creation of a Kurdistan. I'm sure you must have read my remarks to that effect at least a dozen times. This is actually just a strange bargaining chip the Turks are trying to use against us, no more.

Sadly I wish that were true. Our military does not have the manpower to hold 4 nations AND be viable against North Korea...

Well, that would all be true if your insane idea about us invading and taking over 4 Middle Eastern countries at once over the course of 5-10 years was actually true. Since it's not, then the rest of your argument is moot.

Outside your own imagination, where do you derive the notion that we're going to attack and hold 4 Middle Eastern nations at once? Cite a source in the defense or foreign policy establishment.

In that case that would make the french whores.

But the French are whores. Haven't you been paying attention?

It will take 100,000 troops to actively occupy Iraq.

No, it won't. The bigger problem is to feed them. A hungry population isn't going to start shooting at those handing out the food. Not for a while. And we won't be there that long in any numbers. You really need to pay more attention to our plans to capture their military intact.

[a_Turk]

>> Some of our people are terribly incompetent

What makes putting all our eggs into one basket called the US a bad risk for us is the demonstrated lack of political will which is required to carry on. Believe me, we do have that political will.

[sandydipper]

Bad Idea! We need to free the Kurds not give their home land to the Turks.

IMHO the Kurds are much more aligned with demorcracy than the Turks. Give Northern Iraq to the Kurds - Southern Iraq to the Sunnis and make middle Iraq the next US state.

[ScholarWarrior]

I agree. We will base troops in Poland and Iraq.

I would add Australia, Japan, Spain and Portugal to the list.

[ScholarWarrior]

Happens all the time, but it is still easier to work with others than go it alone. Lone wolves don't eat. France is the best example of that. The Brits and Prussians ate them alive, albeit with the able help of Wellington.

You would rather we have waited for Britain to fall and then maybe attack Germany alone? That's silly.

[Beck_isright]

I just can't seem to get through to you. The numbers do not add up. Your moniker, George W. Bush delcared Iran part of the "Axis of Evil". Syria is their weak sister and Lebanon part of the Syrian empire. Unless we want to involve the Israelis, it will take massive U.S. military power and help from the Turks. But live in your la-la land. Unless you've been over there and gotten nasty with the natives, you would never understand. Since I have some good idea what the people of Iran and Southern Iraq will do after the occupation begins (been there, done that) I will just warn you now: Beware a summertime occupation of an unfriendly desert nation.

[Beck_isright]

We already have nice bases in Australia, Japan, and Portugal. But I do think that buffering the Ruskies is a wise move. They are not to be trusted.

[Beck_isright]

"Bad Idea! We need to free the Kurds not give their home land to the Turks.

IMHO the Kurds are much more aligned with demorcracy than the Turks. Give Northern Iraq to the Kurds - Southern Iraq to the Sunnis and make middle Iraq the next US state."

You are in deep trouble about your understanding of Kurdish history. Initially during the 60's and 70's they were Soviet clients creating problems for our allies of that time, Iran and Turkey. Throughout the 80's via the mullahs in Iran, the Soviets supplied weapons to the Kurds to continue attacking Turkey. The hope was to use Iraq and Iran as surrogates to tie down Turkey in the event that the Soviet Bloc invaded Europe so the Turks could and would not intervene in the Caspian region. Now enter the 90's. The Iranians continued this insurrection in the hope of destabalizing Iraq and Turkey. This continues to this day with 5,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the Kurdish region allegedly to "protect" them from the Iraqis and Turks. One thing about everyone but the Turks in this region you must know and remember; trust no one. The Sunnis are not a factor in Southern Iraq, it's the Shi'ites who are being supplied by the Iranian mullahs. If you have the time and money subscribe to Stratfor.com and check out the archives. We have a mess on our hands thanks to the former colonial powers from over 50 years ago AND the old USSR. Now we have to clean it up.