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

[a_Turk]

>> I am confused by some of his insinuations where he is saying that we are bad guys, when he used to think we are good guys.

Rob, there's good and bad in everyone. When friends like you and me can eye each other with suspicion, that's bad. That has to be addressed before it is too late.

[ChemistCat]

I'd read it as bait and switch, too.

WHY ought Iraq maintain its territorial integrity? Who benefits if that is done? I don't see the current borders as stable, obviously. If you cut it in half and gave half to Iran and half to Turkey, things couldn't be worse than they are now.

[a_Turk]

>> the 'new' Turkey possibly moving in the dire direction of an Islamic state.

No chance.

[AntiGuv]

A couple quick revisions:

I think the Turkish military establishment will take matters into its own hands if its hand is force.

this part should read - if its hand is forced (not "force")

It appears that such agreement has not been forthcoming from the American side.

Such negotiations are a two-way street, of course. I should not place the entire burden on the American side when I don't know the details of the exchanges. It takes two to tango.

[tomahawk]

The Turks barely joined us in '91. If they don't join us this time, Turkish national interests will suffer greatly.

[Marak]

If Iran and Turkey each want half for themselves, then let their soldiers up and go get it. We can watch from the sidelines. We don't need to be sending our boys over there to die to give Iraq away to someone else.

What we are after is to convert Iraq into a model for the mideast so that the breeding grounds for the terrorists ceases to exist. We can't do that with everyone fighting over a piece of the pie.

[a_Turk]

>> My decoder ring settings from before no longer work trying to figure out your posts.

LOL! That's funny.

I don't really have all the facts. Here is what I know.

Turkey considers stability in the northern Irak region important to its national security. Therefore it has been saying for YEARS now that an independent Kurdish state there would be a casus belli. Turkey, fancies itself a partner to the US, and tries to build a partnership with the US to work on the future of a democratic Irak.

Now it turns out that the Turkish teams working with the US teams on this have been led around by their nose, while the US administration has been trying to pay the Turks off and get them out of the way. This makes the Turks very suspicious and they hunker down.

[thinktwice]

The plot thickens.

With Iran in the equation, you bet it does.

[Beck_isright]

The U.S. should allow Turkey to make this land grab. We do not need to overextend our forces. The Kurds will turn on us just as quick as the pro-Iranian rebels in the South will once we occupy Baghdad. Turkey needs to be our counterbalance to Syria and Iran. Plus we need a stable Turkey for the oil pipelines from Russia and Northern Iraq to bypass the Saudi mess which is about to happen. I say give it to them to keep 10 Iranian divisions tied down. Then as we rebuild "Iraq" or whatever it's called, we can negotiate with the Turks about the next step of this war: Iran.

[Centurion2000]

Well now that Turkey just crapped all over our plan to use them as a staging ground ... F%^& them.

[RobFromGa]

I meant that I have wasted enough time trying to figure out a-Turk's thinking on the subject if he doesn't want to explain his post except to tell me he's Turkish (which is kind of obvious).

I want to know if he thinks that the USA is the bad guy in this at the moment and why. I tend to think Turkey's having second thoughts about being our friend for some reason.

They seem to want a divorce. I am trying to understand if this is because A- they've changed, B- we've changed, or because C- we are currently in a challenging period of our relationship and they want more time and space to find themselves.

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier, and the sunshine patriot, will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." Thomas Paine.

[ScholarWarrior]

I don't care what it looks like in 10 years.

But this war is not about the spoils going to the Turks.

If the Turks do that, they are not our partners.

[Thud]

I thought it was only money at first, which would be our problem, but realized a bit later that it was Turkish domestic politics. That's your problem. We've seen that before. Ask Russia about the compensation it got for our terminating the ABM treaty (we offered some) and Columbia about the compensation it got for the Panama Canal (we offered a lot for the early 1900's). We know what it means when demands are increased after an agreeement is reached.

Don't promise what you can't deliver. Not this time.

[Beck_isright]

If you honestly believe "Kurdistan" would be a long term ally, you've been smoking some of that Afghan agricultural product. They are for sale as much as the Russians and Saudis. Which makes them even less trustworthy than the Kuwaitis. Let Turkey administer the region. Our military is not large enough to control all of Iraq, Iran and Syria for 10 years unless we start the draft tommorrow.

[a_Turk]

>> they thought that meant they could go take the oil fields.

Not exactly. If the Kurds get the cities and the oil fields there will be an independent state there, and we will have to spank them. That's the difference between "take" and "secure".

[RobFromGa]

I do not have suspicion of you, friend, I am simply trying to understand a very strange issue. If I have said something that you think crossed some line, please address it with me either in public or private. Either way is fine.

The US and Turkey would both be better off to be working together. I think marital counseling is in order.

[blam]

"Why should we think that Iraq, a similar creation will continue to exist "as-is"? The US doesn't really give a damn about Kurdistan, nor does it give a damn about Iraq."

True. They can have a civil war between the Shi'ites, Sunni's, Kurds and Turks after we leave and do whatever they desire. We won't!

[tomahawk]

Here's what the Turks are thinking, according to the Turkish Press:

Points Of Contention With The U.S.

BYEGM: 2/20/2003

MILLIYET- Columnist Taha Akyol writes on Turkey’s stance on the Iraq issue and points of contention with the United States. A summary of his column is as follows:

The Turkish government is currently disappointed by the US stance on a number of critical points concerning the Iraq issue. Our government is also concerned about news recently appearing in the US media saying that Turkey was ‘driving a hard bargain’ in order to get the highest possible amount of financial compensation from the Bush administration.

The economy is, of course, very important for any country. The Americans themselves are in fact very canny at bargaining over financial issues. For instance, this provision:

‘The Turkish government should pay the cost of security passes issued to the US personnel authorizing them to enter Turkey’s airbases and ports!’

How much does the production of these cards cost? $10,000.

A superpower is bargaining with Turkey over a paltry $10,000!

There’s no point in criticizing Turkey for pursuing its own national economic interests! Such criticisms are ridiculous!

As a matter of fact, the real points of dispute with the US are not economic but political:

Reconstituting the Iraqi army. Turkey wants Iraq to be a nation with a single united army. However, the US opposes this idea. It’s clear that the US has promised the Iraqi Kurds that they will be able to retain their own armed forces in a postwar period.

Constituent elements in the post-Saddam period. Turkey wants Iraq’s ethnic Turkmen groups to take part in the reconstruction of the nation’s political fabric. However, the Bush administration again opposes this idea. As a matter of fact, it’s evident that Bush doesn’t want to disappoint Iraqi Kurdish leaders such as Barzani and Talabani, who oppose granting Iraq’s Turkmen more political rights in a postwar period.

The lack of a written agreement on political matters. The US accepts the need for a signed agreement with Turkey on economic matters, but on political issues considers a joint declaration to be sufficient, rather than a written agreement signed between the two countries laying out all the details as Turkey wishes.

For these three reasons, our government is balking at backing the US in a military operation against Iraq. The US and Turkey recently found themselves at a political impasse. Then the Turkish government presented another proposal to the Bush administration.

US Ambassador in Ankara Robert Pearson yesterday wanted to meet with Prime Minister Abdullah Gul. However, Gul refused his request. Pearson then met with Foreign Undersecretary Ugur Ziyal. According to diplomatic sources, their meeting was a productive and positive one.

I believe that our government is being skillful in addressing these points of dispute with the US. On the one hand, it’s conducting itself like an independent country in line with its own national interests, and on the other, it’s also trying to protect the US-Turkish strategic partnership without harming the our bilateral friendship. It seems to me that Turkey and the US will reach an agreement very soon now.

[I read this as showing the Turks have no idea what this war means to the U.S., and what it will mean to U.S.-Turkish relations if they aren't with us.]

[SpookBrat]

"it will deserve every terrorist bomb it gets"

That's not a very nice thing to say.

[ScholarWarrior]

We cannot be partners with an aggressor for oil and land. This would have serious repercussions elsewhere in the ME adn Eastern Europe. The cash was a payoff for the Turks to NOT take that approach.