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

[Torie]

Whether I take a pill is beside the point. More to the point is that I hope that Bush doesn't take a pill, and I certainly hope that it is reasonably possible to do Iraq in without undue complications sans Turkish participation. That is what I think. I also think Turkey is making a big mistake here, one that in time and upon reflection, it will regret. We shall see.

[Beck_isright]

I'm going to throw one monkey wrench into your scenario. According to some posts here about a month ago, some of the oil experts estimated (based on their knowledge of the situation) that it will take almost 5 years to bring Iraq back on line to full production due to damage and neglect to their oil fields. I tend to take a more historic and geopolitical view. Iraq is the perfect staging area for us. That gives us forces on both sides of Iran's border and finally a point to jump into Syria if need be. Reality is dictating we will fight both of these terrorist infested nations in the next 4-6 years probably. If we have Turkey as a strong stable ally in the north, Syria and Iran will be stretched too thin to defend against an assault led by the U.S. We must act quickly as Iran will get the nukes soon, and they will be 1000 times more dangerous than North Korea.

[a_Turk]

>> Hey, you and I are friends.

That we are :)

>> earthquakes, for which I sent relief donations..

Hey, I didn't know you did that? That is so sweet of you. You Americans are very giving people.

>> The news media is just about stirring things up just to create viewership and ratings.

I still have to read one article where these bums have one decent thing to say about us. They call terrorists rebels for Pete's sake..

>> Now there is a report that the Turks want the U.S. to guarantee their access to Iraqi oil as part of the deal.

Hmm. Aren't they going to sell the stuff? From what I understaood the Turks want to see that the Kirkuk pipeline will be brought to full capacity before any other pipeline. Why not? Is there going to be a referandum for the Iraki people to decide which pipeline they should use? I don't get the problem.. We're not asking for free oil?

[Thud]

ping

[ChemistCat]

We can't keep our friends if we don't share the "pie." In this case, the "pie" is going to be a whole lot of sweat, blood, and tears cleaning up Saddam's messes. We're not doing this for altruistic purposes--why should the Turks?

We're asking them to risk weapons of mass destruction being used against their people, their cities. If they stay out of it and don't help us, that is unlikely to happen to them and they know it.

[tomahawk]

Yakis: We Stand Firm Against U.S.

[Tomahawk: I sure hope Yakis is not calling the shots, because if he is, Turkey is in for some very hard times. I still expect the Turkish military will realize the implications of saying "No" to the U.S. in this war, and the answer will become "Yes". But it better happen soon.]

Anadolu Agency: 2/20/2003

ANKARA - Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis said on Thursday regarding the negotiations carried out between Turkey and the U.S. that ''we stand firm against the U.S.''

Noting that the negotiations continued in military, economic and political issues, Yakis said that ''the issue of money is only one of the thousand issues that are being discussed. Turkey does not bargain for money. We voice the loss Turkey will suffer in political, military and economic fields,'' Yakis stressed.

When reporters reminded Yakis the news telling that the submission of the prime ministry motion on deployment of foreign soldiers in Turkey and sending soldiers abroad was postponed to Feb. 25 Tuesday, Yakis said that ''there was not a date which was earlier announced, so postponement is not in question.''

Yakis said that there was no bottleneck in negotiations with the U.S. and that the government told the U.S. that it was difficult to submit the motion to the parliament on Feb. 18.

''Does the U.S. put pressure during the negotiations?'' asked journalists to Yakis who said that both sides put pressure during the negotiations and this was a normal approach in all negotiations.

''We also try to stand firm against the U.S.,'' he said adding that ''it is legitimate for everybody to stand firm regarding its own position on a certain issue.''

When asked if Turkey asked for the approval of the U.S. Congress as a condition, Yakis said ''firstly the issues on which compromise is reached have to be put forward. After that we will see if it is necessary for the U.S. Congress to adopt the provisions in that agreement.''

When reminded about certain news stories claiming that a period of 48 hours was given to Turkey to give a decision, Yakis asked ''when did the 48 hours start?'' When reporters said there was news claiming that this period was given during the talk between Prime Minister Abdullah Gul and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Yakis said that ''then the period ends on Friday afternoon... If the issue is the motion, then we need an agreement which will constitute a basis for the agreement. If there is no such agreement, how will we submit the motion?''

''This week an agreement can be reached, but if you think about the schedule of the parliament, it won't be possible to present the motion,'' he said. When a reporter commented that the U.S. does not seem to wait for the schedule of the Turkish side, Yakis said that ''we have our own schedule just like the U.S. has its schedule, the parliament also has its calendar.''

Upon a question about negotiations, Yakis said that ''we are almost at the end of the negotiations.''

When reminded about some news stories in the U.S. press saying that if Turkey didn't not take the decision, the United States would act together with Kurdish formations in Northern Iraq, Yakis said, ''we have not received such an information. If such a thing happens, this means they will recognize the Kurds in Northern Iraq. In fact, they recognize Kurds as opposition of the Iraqi regime. But what will they do beyond that? No state has been set up...They told the opposite to date.''

When reminded about the new stories saying that U.S. soldiers were waiting in the Mediterranean Sea and if Turkey did not give permission, those troops would be sent to southern part of Iraq, Yakis said, ''everyone can see that giving up the option of Northern front will cost the United States much. U.S. officials told this to us many times. Even if they do not say it, everyone can see that opening of Northern front is very important for them. U.S. officials said that opening of Northern front was very important for them. We also know it.''

When recalled that there were U.S. soldiers in Iskenderun port although there was no motion which was adopted, Yakis stated that those troops came to Turkey for modernization of bases.

He stated that negotiations which were being continued in economic and political fields were taken up in three packages. When asked which package was the most problematic one, Yakis said that ''I think none of the packages is more problematic than the other one.''

When asked whether the United States demanded Turkish soldiers to be involved in hot clash, Yakis said, ''no. Turkey's entering Northern Iraq for clash was always out of question and I hope that it will be out of question.''

Responding to questions of journalists about the statement of Powell, Yakis said that ''I am not informed about it, I am not informed about such an end of the period of time.'' When reminded about the earlier news telling that the U.S. gave a period of 48-hours to Turkey, Yakis said that ''we received a message from the U.S., but it does not say that they expect an answer from us within 48 hours.''

Yakis said that it was not possible to send a reply from Turkey to the U.S. about a possible Iraqi operation the same day. ''We are not enemies with the U.S.,'' said Yakis, adding the consultation process on military, political and economic issues continued and the mechanisms worked.

When asked when Turkey would convey its response to the U.S., Yakis said that ''sending such a response today is not in question.''

Yakis stressed that the government was not delaying the submission of the motion on deployment of foreign soldiers in Turkey, adding ''when consultations in all fields end, then the issues which will constitute the basis of the motion will come out.'' Yakis stressed that a period of 48 hours was not in question. When asked why today's military meetings with the U.S. were cancelled, Yakis recalled that the technical dimensions of military issues were discussed in those meetings. Yakis said the meeting was cancelled as the U.S. delegation could not get an instruction regarding the technical issues. ''There is no problem, I don't think there is a bottleneck,'' he added.

[Beck_isright]

Yes, but the Turkish military will have the dirty work of dealing with the the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. If we can avoid lighting that fuse in the short term, it will benefit us until we can get more manpower into the region.

[Beck_isright]

I agree with your post about the Shi'ite south. I'm sure the Iranian secret service is planning nasty suprises for our troops in Basra after the war is over and the occupation begins.

[jwalsh07]

I wish to associate myself with Tories remarks. Turkey bit off more than they can chew.

[George W. Bush]

If Turkey takes the north without US support, they will be the aggressor adn will have to deal with the UN / EU. Iran will move in anyway and won't care. This argument allows us to wash our hands of it. We'll definitely have to shut down the base in Incirlik.

If there is any credible evidence that Turkey is planning a huge land and oil grab in Mosul/Kirkut, they must be added to the list of hostile regional forces. Our weapons have to be retargeted and the number of cruise missiles and tactical nuclear weapons in the region must be increased. In the midst of ousting Saddam, we can't let Turkey pull a Kuwait behind our backs. Extraordinary means will be justified if they turn bandit.

There will be no Turkish fait accompli in northern Iraq. If they hope to take advantage of our action in Iraq, they'll find just how decisive we can be. I don't think we'll wait for any permission from the EU or the U.N. Our garrisons in Kurdistan will provide the tripwire. We need more one or two more carriers in the area to deal with the Turkish threat.

[Porterville]

So I'm lost, where are we with Turkey??? I for one think we should tell them to blank off and give the kurds a homeland.

[a_Turk]

>> But it does put us in the position of having to trust Turkish intentions.

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

[Thud]

AntiGuv: I disagree with your opinion here:

"The Turks don't want just $32 billion out of this, in essence; the Turks want Irbil, Mosul, and Kirkuk..."

IMO what the Turkish government really wants is not to have to make a decision here. They're kicking the can down the road to avoid having to pick it up. The Turks are increasing demands to avoid having to make any agreement, not to obtain the benefits of an agreement.

[tomahawk]

advertisement


A Military Consensus

BYEGM: 2/20/2003

STAR- Columnist Murat Celik comments on a military consensus reportedly reached by Turkey and the US. A summary of his column is as follows:

Turkey and the US have reached a consensus on military matters concerning Iraq because Ankara got what it wanted from the US in this area. Now a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is ready for their signatures concerning the war that is likely to come. While hard bargaining is continuing on the political and economic fronts, let me tell you how the MoU was shaped, some of its details and how the consensus was reached.

Contrary to what many in the public thought, there was never any ‘crisis of command’ between Turkey and the US. No proposal for ‘bringing Turkish soldiers under US officers’ command’ was ever made at any of the tables sat at by the two countries’ military officials. Actually, the US leaked such news to the press in order to see how Ankara would react. When Turkey basically said ‘don’t even consider such a thing,’ the issue never came to the table. Thus, the MoU contains the sentence, ‘The forces of the two countries will carry out their duties under their respective national commands.’ Turkish and US units will work only in ‘coordination.’

What is the content of the MoU? In brief, everything but the number of soldiers and the period of their deployment. As these two issues depend on proposals yet to be passed by the Parliament, they aren’t covered by the MoU. The MoU does cover principles of military activities in detail. One of the most important issues is the status of US soldiers coming Turkey. The consensus that was reached is as follows: ‘US soldiers will be subject to Turkish law within Turkey’s borders and in terms of their relations with citizens of the Turkish Republic, and they will be subject to US law within themselves.’ The highlights of the principles in the MoU can be listed as follows: points that soldiers will land on, routes they will pass through, conditions to be obeyed in the process of passage and dispatch, legal conditions, and methods for mutual briefing.

Certain important signs concerning the timetable appear in US military planning. If Parliament authorizes and the government accepts the US soldiers, a settling period of 15 days will start after US ships anchor at the Port of Mersin. The US units need two weeks to be ready to cross over the border. This is the period envisaged so the soldiers and equipment can reach their places through highways, railways and by air. The timetable of US military planning implies the first week of March for a political and economic consensus. Of course the US has to meet the Turkish government’s expectations on the minimum level, and the US’ proposals on the economy as of yesterday were very far from what Ankara could accept.

[Beck_isright]

I read this as the Turks do not want to be the last one standing when the dust clears. They do not want to clean up our mess. If we leave the Turkmen and Shi'ite minorities out of the reconstruction of Iraq, then Iran and Syria will exploit this and create even larger headaches. The history of the region is strewn with examples of colonial powers making the same mistake. We do not need to follow the examples of the Brits (sorry guys) and the french.

[ScholarWarrior]

The Turks want in writing what we cannot give in writing.

And some things we cannot give.

Times up, bell is wringing, green light at the jump door. Chain the Turk to the seat, he's a not going in with us.

[ChemistCat]

We need more one or two more carriers in the area to deal with the Turkish threat.

That is the stupidest and most irresponsible thing I've read since Clinton left office. I wish to go on record here saying that anyone who thinks that Turkey is NOT our friend needs to go back to school. I mean all the way back to kindergarten. Pick a private school, one that buys real history books.

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.

AGAIN. We are asking the Turks to risk the kind of thing Israel suffers--constant threat of attack internally and externally. If they support us we have to be prepared to make it worth their risk.

[ScholarWarrior]

Iran isn't going to move. They have a revolution at home if they deploy more than 20,000 troops.

[Beck_isright]

The Turks have no desire to be long term administrators of the Kurdish region. They want Iraq to have a stable northern region without and independent Kurdish military unit. They would prefer this so the Kurdish minority in Southeastern Turkey will withdraw and move back into Northern Iraq. You have to look beyond the gloss; alot of this is about oil for the latter part of this decade. The House of Saud is about to collapse. We'd best get a stable supplier and quick.

[tomahawk]

If the timetable for the U.S. is early March, time is up for the Turks. If it's mid-March, time is running out. I can't believe it will be after mid-March, so this better get done fast.