The Menu (Turkish Editorial)

Milliyet ^ | 2/24/2003 | Guneri Civaoghlu

[a_Turk]

During Gulf War 1 I visited the residence of our current Foreign Minister Yashar Yakish, who was the Turkish ambassador in Riyadh at the time.

Yakish had called the US ambassador.

He had secured meetings with some of the US commanders of the operation. The first signs of the challenges Yakish has met nowadays were visible during those meetings..

Two US officers with excellent Turkish skills made some very interesting statements in a suite on the upper floors of a hotel where the US command was at work. Even though I had written about these conversations in previous essays, I think it makes sense to repeat some of them..


The Hand on the Map

The American colonel had worked as part of an aid team in Ankara and knew perfect Turkish.

While providing his information he had moved toward the map on the wall, had placed his palm over northern Irak andwhile moving it around had said:

"We will move up to Baghdad.

Saddam will fall.

Irak will go through a transition.

But... even if Saddam were to stay, Turkey will enter a difficult time..

Because the Kurds in northern Irak had already militarized. They will confiscate the heavy weaponry left over fdreom Saddam's forces. They will be stronger.

They will put together their own regime in the area.

They may demand land from Turkey.

You're either going to give it to them or you're going to have to fight..."

Not deep but Cool

I couldn't believe my ears..

Was there some mistake?

Or perhaps it was a joke.

No, it was not... Because the other office who spoke next repeated what the first one had shared..

I asked:

"And you?

Will America be a spectator?"

Their answer... "Once we're done with our work we are going to leave here. We'll return home. Turkey will remain with the Kurds of northern Irak."

I didn' want to drag this out. They were after all gears of a plan hatched by others far higher up..

Yet, I had said a few things, none the less:

"You performed this operation with Turkish help.. You used our bases.. The northern Iraki Kurds you said would 'demand land from Turkey, may opt to fight' ran to us from Saddam's butchery.

We took them under our wing.

So now you're telling me that, as though this weren't the result of US policy: 'We will leave and northern Irak will be your problem to deal with.'

What kind of friendship is this, what kind of partnership?"

Their answer was not deep, but cool.

"The US partnered with Turkey for the liberation of Kuwait. Once our goal is reached we will leave..."

Vietnam reminder

I thought..

This seems to be how America operates. It leaves without even looking back.

The waste it lays is no longer her problem. This was how she left Vietnam after years of fighting there.

After years of shoulder to shoulder fighting, their friends were left to the Communists in a heartbeat.

Let's return to our own (Turkish) geography.

Plainly Turkey had had her situations with the Kurdish challenge in northern Irak before Saddam had attacked Kuwait, and before the US pushed him back.

That's why the US officers were shrugging and suggesting that 'nothing had changed.'

Yet it was the US who had altered the scene by removing the central authority and by arming northern Irak.

After leaving a warehouse of bombs there, and lighting the fuse, she was claiming to have nothing to do personally there.

Cafe Politics

Yashar Yakish was the guest on the Sunday Morning show, Cafe Politics.. He was complaining that there was still no agreement with the USA on the military and political aspects of northern Irak.

"The forces of Barzani and Talabani are are arming themselves well in northern Irak, and they will arm themselves even better.

These arms must be collected after the war. This is where we're unable to agree." he was saing.

In other words... The scenario which was presented to Yashar Yakish 12 years ago while he was ambassador to Riyadh is being presented again.

Turkey will be spent (that means given the "oh well") one way or the other in the end, and she is right to fight as had hard as she is for her national security interests.

[DeuceTraveler]

"Neither can I see why the US should disarm the militias"

I don't see us disarming anyone of small arms. Liberals can't even disarm our citizens of small arms, nor should they. At the same time I do hope that a democratic republic of Iraq will give the Kurds a feeling that they have a voice and that will be enough for them. Iraq being a democracy will be key. Meanwhile, from my understanding you do have multiple Kurdish factions combating one another. Certainly there is at least one more pro-Turkish and pro-American than the others.

[a_Turk]

>> Certainly there is at least one more pro-Turkish and pro-American than the others.

Simple probability?

Three parties are listed as legitemate on their web.. KDP, PUK, and PKK.

[DeuceTraveler]

"Three parties are listed as legitemate on their web.. KDP, PUK, and PKK"

Yep. From my understanding there have been factions fighting one another for years, a natural consequence in a lawless country whether it is Afghanistan, the region of ethnic Kurds, the jungles of Columbia, or China after many of its frequent revolts throughout history.

[ScholarWarrior]

The fear the Turks have is that an independent armed Kurdistan will cause domestic Turkish Kurd unrest and the possibility of a wholesale relocation of the southern Turkish border north a few hundred clicks, combined with mass migration of Iraqi Kurds northward.

I don't blame them for being jittery about it, but I think it's being overplayed. The Turks are on the verge of becoming again the Anatolian crossroads.

[WOSG]

"All I did was translate one of the editorials. They all sound similar. The paper is a nationalist paper."

I understand that its Mr Civaoglu's views. But I again ask the question: In 1991 were these guys (ie Turk elites) demanding the end to Saddam or encouraging his contiuation in power? I recall the latter, because their fetish over kurdish autonomy made them prefer a brutal Saddam to a free iraqi kurdistan. The Turks cant complain if they got what they asked for.


The President "deserve" it? He bears the burden of mistakes made earlier - Carter's incompetence and bungling in Iran that started the era of anti-US terrorism for real, Reagan and Clinton cut-n-run in Lebanon and Somalia made us look feckless (we were in a way), our "UN=valid" view of military action that boxed us in Gulf War I and gave us Saddam defiant and these failed inspections/sanction for 12 years. And we've been harldy helped by European allies that care more for their saddamite oil deals and power-plays than stopping terror ... all that stirred a stew that led to 9/11.

Bush has the burden of history, but IMHO is not hostage to it. Just watch.

[a_Turk]

>> But I again ask the question: In 1991 were these guys (ie Turk elites) demanding the end to Saddam or encouraging his contiuation in power?

They were demanding the end to Saddam. The whole region was left high and dry.

>> The President "deserve" it (PAYING A PRICE FOR THE ERRORS OF THOSE WHO WENT BEFORE HIM)?

I never said he did.

>> made us look feckless (we were in a way),

That's why I urge you to ask yourself whether you collectively deserve it. Who elected those who cut and ran?

[He Rides A White Horse]

But... even if Saddam were to stay, Turkey will enter a difficult time..

Because the Kurds in northern Irak had already militarized. They will confiscate the heavy weaponry left over fdreom Saddam's forces. They will be stronger.

They will put together their own regime in the area.

They may demand land from Turkey.

You're either going to give it to them or you're going to have to fight..."

You'll have to forgive me if I don't believe this story one bit.

[marron]

.. Who can swear that dems won't be in the Whitehouse in 2 years?

I wish you would stop saying that. You are giving me the hives.

[a_Turk]

btw, there are reports that the US is giving the Kurds anti-aircraft weapons.. Reportedly, our military is not amused.

[okie01]

It isn't difficult to understand -- and respect -- the Turkish position. They are looking out for their own national interests -- which is precisely what their leadership is expected to do.

Similarly, the Bush administration is looking after the USA's national interests. Which, in this case, probably means a strong military presence in Iraq -- over an extended period.

Iraq is due to serve as our Middle East hunting lodge -- from which we sally forth to bag al-Qaeda and other terrorists -- while threatening those who harbor them.

Taking on this task requires that the internal politics of Iraq not be overly fractious. That the Kurds, as well as the Shiites, don't make themselves into an unnecessary distraction.

In this sense, the interests of Turkey and USA are neatly conjoined. Accordingly, I would expect an agreeable arrangement to be concluded.

[WOSG]

"Who elected those who cut and ran?"

uh, who elects the Democrats Clinton and Carter??? Not freepers!!


Why the same morons who are marching against war today ... hmm, come to think of it, if they do get their way, the region will AGAIN be left high and dry.

[WOSG]

Me neither...

[He Rides A White Horse]

Iraq is due to serve as our Middle East hunting lodge -- from which we sally forth to bag al-Qaeda and other terrorists -- while threatening those who harbor them.

....and since we are also reevaluating who our allies are, I would hope that certain countries who think of themselves as 'untouchable' realize that they aren't immune to regime change. I hope Saudi is listening.

Call it a domino theory of sorts, and it starts with Iraq.

Harbor those who have malevolent designs on America, fail to reign them in, and we'll do it for you.

[okie01]

"I hope Saudi is listening."

Wonder how they'll like the new neighbors...

[marron]

But... even if Saddam were to stay, Turkey will enter a difficult time.. Because the Kurds in northern Irak had already militarized. They will confiscate the heavy weaponry left over fdreom Saddam's forces. They will be stronger. They will put together their own regime in the area. They may demand land from Turkey. You're either going to give it to them or you're going to have to fight..."

That doesn't sound like US policy, that sounds like a prediction that any of us could have made. It sounds like a reasonable warning from one friend to another. It didn't exactly turn out that way, but that is still your fear, that a militarized Kurdistan might threaten eastern Turkey.

And it was a reasonable prediction, in 1991, that the US wasn't going to occupy Iraq. I could have told you that then. We were still wrapped up in our VietNam phobia, and even though we pulled it off with only 100 dead (out of a million total troops in the theater, between theirs and ours) we still feared to enter Iraq's heartland.

This Bush is not his father. His father did not believe in anything, nor did anyone in his cabinet. This one does. And I will predict that we are not leaving Iraq after the war, because we have other strategic fish to fry. Nothing to do with oil. Everything to do with 9/11.

But you are right when you point out that all bets are off if Bush is not re-elected. Put people in power that don't believe in anything, and you will get what you get, a declining power, feckless, self-absorbed, cynical, fearful, weak. If such a government reflects the kind of people that elect it, its not a pretty picture. Its obviously not the America I believe in. We live in momentous times. A lot turns on the next couple of years. We have to act, and we have to act from courage. We haven't had anyone demand courage from us in a long time. We haven't had many leaders who themselves had courage either, such men being rare in high office.

But at this moment, as we are poised overlooking the road to Baghdad, we do.

[marron]

Call it a domino theory of sorts,

Thankyou. Whose idea was it that dominos only fall in one direction?

[He Rides A White Horse]

Wonder how they'll like the new neighbors...

The 'Joneses' just might be too much to keep up with.

[a_Turk]

>> If signatures meant anything, Hitler couldn't have attacked Stalin.

Some comparison.. I'd hope that neither the Turks nor the Americans resemble WW2 Germany nor Russia..

The Turkish military explained yesterday that it wouldn't be possible to enable the US to stage operations in northern Irak so long as there is no agreement on the point of collecting heavy arms distributed and to be distributed by the US to the militias in northern Irak. The US does not want to commit to collecting these. The military also questions what need those militias have for anti-aircraft weaponry the US is distributing there.

Meanwhile you will be led to believe that the Turks are still bargaining for more money..

[TomSmedley]

All I did was translate one of the editorials. They all sound similar.

Thanks.

[Dog Gone]

I'm not sure how credible those reports of AA batteries delivered to the Kurds are. It would serve no military purpose. Air superiority over northern Iraq has already been established.

Turkey is requiring the US to sell out the Kurds in advance of any military action. While the Kurds have done nothing to get on my good side, the fact remains that they are part of any final political settlement on the future government of Iraq. Weakening their political power and putting them under Turkish control, initially at least, may make it more difficult to please everyone in the structure of the post-Saddam Iraq.