Turkey wants northern Iraq

Daily Times ^

[BlackJack]

‘Turkey demands control of Iraq from US’

By Owen Matthews, Sami Kohen and John Barry

ANKARA: Turkey is raising its price for allowing US forces to invade Iraq from its territory. In early negotiations with the United States, Ankara spoke of sending in Turkish troops to set up a “buffer zone” perhaps 15 miles deep along the Iraqi border. This would prevent a flood of Kurdish refugees from northern Iraq, the Turks said.

But now, Newsweek has learned, Turkey is demanding that it send 60,000 to 80,000 of its own troops into northern Iraq to establish “strategic positions” across a “security arc” as much as 140 to 170 miles deep in Iraq. That would take Turkish troops almost halfway to Baghdad. These troops would not be under US command, according to Turkish sources, who say Turkey has agreed only to “coordination” between US and Turkish forces.

Ankara fears the Iraqi Kurds might use Saddam’s fall to declare independence. Kurdish leaders have not yet been told of this new plan, according to Kurdish spokesmen in Washington, who say the Kurds rejected even the earlier notion of a narrow buffer zone. Farhad Barzani, the US representative of the main Kurdish party in Iraq, the KDP, says, “We have told them: American troops will come as liberators. But Turkish troops will be seen as invaders.”

The White House did not respond to requests for comment; officials elsewhere in the administration played down the Turkish demands as bargaining tactics: “We told them flat out, no.” But independent diplomatic sources in Ankara and Washington with knowledge of the US-Turkey talks say that while the precise depth of the “security zone” has still to be agreed, the concept is “pretty much a done deal,” as one observer put it.

These sources add that the main US concern has been that US, not Turkish, troops occupy the northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, and that Turkish troops merely surround but not enter the heavily Kurdish cities of Erbil and Sulemaniye. To get Turkey’s assent to this, these sources say, the United States had to “cave” on its demand that Turkish troops be under US control.

Two days of tough negotiations in Washington last week failed to settle the other part of Turkey’s price: a multibillion-dollar economic package. Turkish PM Abdullah Gul is now threatening to delay the all-important vote in the Turkish Parliament to allow US deployments in Turkey. Pentagon officials acknowledge frustration at the problems Turkey’s bargaining poses for the US military buildup.

Turkish sources say that when Turkey’s Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis met with President Bush on Friday, the president warned that the United States might open a northern front against Iraq without Turkish participation. But military sources say that would be close to impossible.

“Turkey is playing hardball,” said Michael Amitay of the Washington Kurdish Institute. “But if the US agrees to these Turkish deployments, there is a real risk that the Kurds will start a guerrilla war against the Turkish troops.” —Newsweek

[ChemistCat]

It was the validity of the polls you cite that I questioned. Ever take an intro to statistics course? You can get a poll to give you any result you want depending on how you go about constructing and administering it.

Representative governments are charged with protecting the interests of the people who elect them, and on occasion, that means exercising leadership, sometimes against the majority. That is what the government of Turkey is doing when it negotiates with us over what must be done about their rogue neighbor.

[George W. Bush]

The numbers do not add up.

They add up fine. We're after Iraq. Period. We'll toss out Saddam, leave a military governor and a few troops briefly, keep a naval presence just in case and we'll leave.

We are not going to invade Iran, Syria and Lebanon or get involved in a Saudi civil war. It won't happen. Since this is the premise of your argument, I dismiss your argument completely. Bad premise, specious argument. If I thought you were accurate, I would oppose the war.

We're after Saddam and his WMD. That is the only goal of our policy at present.

[George W. Bush]

It was the validity of the polls you cite that I questioned.

I was merely citing the only information being reported from Turkey. The new decidedly Islamic-tilting parliamentary majority is another strong indication. If you want to pretend that the Turkish people are wild about letting us in but that the Turkish government is lying to us about Joe Turk's opposition to war as a bargaining pretext, you go right ahead and believe it.

I think the reporting is credible enough. I don't think the average Turk wants us to use their bases and attack Iraq from their territory. But you believe what you want.

[George W. Bush]

I don't grasp how you're trying to apply entirely different circumstances and alliances to the present situation. I'm not going to bother to point out the fallacies.

[ScholarWarrior]

You were the one who was trying to explain how our alliances with other countries always caused problems. I was referring to the only example I could think of of the converse. Namely, what country in human history has been effective in power management and projection without using allies?

France came to mind. And it didn't work for them. Ancient China might also be an example.

It is silly for the United States to only act when we are able to go it alone. There are others with similar interests who will be willing to work with us.

You were also the one who said we should invade Iran and Turkey by the way. Brilliant thinking.

[George W. Bush]

You were also the one who said we should invade Iran and Turkey by the way. Brilliant thinking.

No, you have a reading problem. I said we need to be prepared to fend off any attempt by Iran or Turkey to make a land/oil grab in the midst of driving Saddam out. I believe we are prepared for both if it's needed. I suspect both will just wait until our main force leaves Iraq if they're planning anything.

[Beck_isright]

It's your type of short-sightedness that created this mess within our wonderful State Department. Until you've pounded that sand with your boots like I have, I'd suggest you read extensively and not Time or Newsweek. This war will be brief and bloody in Iraq. It's what will happen in the House of Saud at the end of this year AND what support Russia gives Iran beyond the reactors that determines the next battle. But that's ok, live in your shell. The real W is not looking at the "immediate" and is looking and thinking long term, and that's why I sleep better at night. You should learn to live up to a nick like that if you're going to use it.

[Beck_isright]

Give it up. This guy using this nick is a Time magazine reader at best. There are other news sources (believe it or not "George W. Bush" there is a Voice of Turkey and they do broadcast in English and via the internet) which would give him the full picture. I've thrown my hands up with this guy. But I'll continue with you and a_Turk to continue trying to educated the unwashed masses.

[ScholarWarrior]

Aye aye.

Time to go out with the missus for the night.

Ping me when you trip over something interesting.

Cheers

[rmlew]

Persians and Turks have fought over central Asia and later the middle east for at least 1500 years.

[George W. Bush]

It's what will happen in the House of Saud at the end of this year AND what support Russia gives Iran beyond the reactors that determines the next battle.

So you're still saying the terrorism thing is just a pretext for Bush to get into position for invasion and longterm occupation of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon?

These ideas are sheer daffiness. You just make them up for yourself?

I'll stick to regular news sources and the statements of our elected and appointed leaders and you can keep reading DEBKA File.

[ChemistCat]

Remember what Heinlein said about trying to teach a pig to sing. :-)

[Beck_isright]

"So you're still saying the terrorism thing is just a pretext for Bush to get into position for invasion and longterm occupation of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon?"

Do you recall the "Axis of Evil" speech and "you're either with us or against us" statement??? Refer to the list of nations above and what do they have in common? Hmmm, they are all host nations for every terrorist group out to attack Israel and the U.S. But don't mind that, I'll just keep making that up for myself. While you're at it, does Time have a centerfold yet? Their readership has to be declining with the growth of the internet and the fact that they have no clue about reporting anything interesting. Maybe Time should quote DEBKA; it would at least make that rag entertaining.

[FreeCanuckistan]

"Maybe Time should quote Debka; it would at least make that rag entertaining"

Well I suppose that's right if you like your news delivered in an "entertaining" National Enquirer sort of way.

FYI....Debka has few staunch supporters in here, based on a 'hit and miss and miss and miss' kinda legacy.

[ganesha]

I think you guys are missing the point. Either Iraq is a sovereign nation or it isn't. If Iraq is sovereign, then the Kurds are Iraqi citizens and have a right to be free of Turkish occupation. If Iraq is not sovereign, then the Kurds have a right to declare an independent state. The Kurds in northern Iraq do not have an obligation to accept permanent Turkish occupation. An aquisition or occupation of territory must have a sound legal basis. That is why I brought up the point about the political status of Turkey as a modern country being fundamentally different from the Ottoman Empire.

If you take the position that the current Iraqi government has compromised it's right to exercise sovereignty over Iraqi territory because of UN resolutions and the aftermath of the gulf war then that argument only remains valid for as long as Saddam is still in power.

You refer to the fragmented nature of the Kurds and the political alliances they have made. If you are a Kurd rebelling against a NATO country your allies are going to be Iran and the Russians. If you are rebelling against Iran you will have to accept aid from Saddam Hussein. If you are rebelling against Iraq then you must accept assistance from the U.S. and Iran. If you are engaged in any type of guerilla warfare insurrection against a larger state you take help from where you can get it. If Turkey takes over Northern Iraq then Kurds in Turkey and Kurds in Iraq have a common enemy and are no longer divided. In the long run that creates a problem.

In addition if Turkey launches a major invasion of Iraqi territory, Saddam will then be in a position to say to the Kurds that they should be loyal to him, because he is defending them against the Turks. This compromises the ability of the U.S. to enlist the Kurds as allies in removing Saddam.

[George W. Bush]

Do you recall the "Axis of Evil" speech and "you're either with us or against us" statement???

I recall what Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rumsfeld have told us about our objectives in Iraq and the timeframe for regime change. I take them at their word. You can believe anything you want to dream up.

[Beck_isright]

An interesting point, but at no time has Turkey indicated a desire to permanently occupy Northern Iraq. The major bone of contention is that the U.S. wanted to create an "independent" Kurdish militia outside the supervision of a new Iraqi government. This is the crux of what created the friction between Ankara and Washington the last 3 weeks. According to several of the threads yesterday, this issue has been resolved somewhat, and there will be only one government in the new Iraq for the existing borders with a unified force structure. The primary arguement for Turkey to occupy the Norther Iraqi territories is to save us money and time. We do not want to leave a major force structure in Iraq, yet we will want basing for future operations against Iran. Turkey and the U.S. have consistent interests in the removal of the Iranian regime and their weak sister in Syria. With Turkey maintaining a large presence in the North, we can work on mollifying the south of Iraq AND begin to establish the bases required to help the resistence in Iran. Sadamn will be in no position to help the Kurds or anyone else for that matter. He can not show his face or be heard for a while after the invasion begins. The key for the U.S. and Turkish forces in the north is to disarm the radical Kurdish groups (supplied by Iran) and secure the northern oil fields. That region is crucial to this operation to seal any eastern escape route the Iraqi leadership might have in mind. Odds are Sadamn will get through, but it's worth a try. Regardless, the Turks and our forces will be in Iraq for at least 5 years. I'm hoping that we use the Turkish model for establishing a government in Iraq, but only time will tell. Hopefully we will keep our so called "academic" experts out of there when we rebuild this government. It's those children and their ilk like Klintoon hired that made this mess much worse than it needed to be.

[a_Turk]

>> If Turkey takes over Northern Iraq then Kurds in Turkey and Kurds in Iraq have a common enemy and are no longer divided. In the long run that creates a problem.

What?

You're saying that the Kurds in Turkey are the enemy of Turkey? If so, you are a bit misinformed.

[Edmund Burke]

Perhaps the US is planning to have the Turks serve as the main occupation force in Iraq following the war. The Turkish Army has ordered 40,000 trucks from a General Motors plant in nearby Flint, Michigan. What is the Turkish Army planning on doing with 40,000 new trucks? The article says that they are for peace-keeping forces in Afganistan. I don't think so.

http://www.detnews.com/2002/autoinsider/0210/18/b01-615422.htm

[Edmund Burke]

Sorry. Link is:

http://detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/2010/18/b01-615422.htm