Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Snubbing Turkey--State Department missteps played a part in Saturday’s embarrassing vote.
National Review ^ | 3-3-03 | Joel Mowbray

Posted on 03/03/2003 8:04:12 AM PST by SJackson

The Turkish parliament's failure this weekend to approve the basing of U.S. troops made headlines around the world, but the unreported backstory is how officials at the U.S. State Department have their fingerprints all over the mess in Ankara. With the margin of defeat so narrow — a mere four votes shy of a simple majority — State's unfortunate diplomacy in the past few months likely made the difference.

Winning the support of Turkey for any Iraq invasion was the State Department's job and now many in the White House are wondering what went wrong. Turkey has been a reluctant, but willing, partner during four months of negotiations. Media reports, however, pegged Turkey as attempting to be bought off by the U.S. for supporting an Iraqi invasion. That was one of the key problems.

News accounts airing details of the supposedly secret negotiations made Turkey's leadership look driven almost solely by money. "The leaks made Turkey look like a prostitute," complains one Turkish official. Part of this anger stems from the fact that the leaks claiming Turkey was still shaking down the U.S. for more money continued even after the economic issues had been agreed upon and taken off the table.

While the source of leaks can never be known for certain, but officials at both State and the Pentagon insist that the leaks were part of a coordinated campaign by State to strong-arm Turkey. If so, the tactic backfired.

But the leaks were only part of the problem. People familiar with the political scene in Turkey — as much as 90 percent of the public opposes war with Iraq — knew for months before Saturday that the vote in the parliament would be tight. In an effort to build more support among the Turkish military, the Pentagon wanted to send a delegation to Turkey in November. State refused. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was adamant that the Pentagon not encroach on State's turf, and the military meeting was scuttled.

In fairness to the State Department, dealing with the Turkish leadership is not an easy task. Most of the members of the ruling Justice and Development Party lack the sophistication found in more seasoned governments. One Defense Department official who is an avid supporter of Turkey comments that Saturday's vote is a sign that it is "amateur hour" in the Turkish government. Further complicating matters, the top spot in the Turkish government is likely changing hands in a week, when the head of the Justice and Development Party, Tayyip Erdogan, becomes eligible for the prime-minister slot (which he will likely move into).

Erdogan supported the failed resolution, but changing leadership is a process that can take up to two weeks. Although some wire stories Sunday indicated that the Turkish parliament would not take up the resolution when it reconvenes Tuesday, Turkish officials insist that it could be voted on again this week. If that doesn't happen, though, the timetable could stretch out for an extra week or two as the new leadership is installed.

Discussions about a follow-up vote in parliament might have been moot if State had handled itself differently — in Iraq. According to a Turkish official, one of the items that members of the parliament were angriest about was the exclusion of Turkish-backed individuals from the leadership of the Iraqi opposition.

In a meeting Friday in Northern Iraq, six leaders were selected — including one backed by Iran and another who is popular with Saudi Arabia — but the leader of the group representing Iraq's sizeable Turkoman population was merely promised a position on some unspecified committee. The move puzzled many in the Bush administration. "State warmly embraced the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution (backed by Tehran) and went out of its way to keep Saudi Arabia happy, but then they decided to screw our ally," complains a Defense Department official.

It is unclear exactly how many votes were swayed by the previous day's snub in northern Iraq, but considering the resolution only failed by four votes out of 534 members present, State's actions there could have been the difference. Either way, it is a sore spot for many in the Bush administration — some of whom think the State Department angering Turkey was no accident. Notes a Defense Department official familiar with the Iraqi opposition groups: "Many top officials at State don't want to go to war in Iraq. State knew the politics of the situation, yet they excluded the group backed by Turkey right as the Turkish parliament was voting on the resolution. It makes you wonder: Is State trying to undermine the president?"

— Joel Mowbray is an NRO contributor and a Townhall.com columnist.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: powellwatch; turkey; usa; warlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-180 next last
To: Welsh Rabbit
No, they'll be broke even WORSE. And since they didn't play along, no aid, no loan guarantees. . . and if they REALLY piss us off. . . support for an Independent Kurdistan. . .
101 posted on 03/03/2003 12:44:01 PM PST by Salgak (don't mind me: the orbital mind control lasers are making me write this. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
Too late. Once Turkey proved itself to be an unreliable ally, it doesn't matter whose fault the final screwup was. Things shouldn't have gotten that far.

The area has become an American vital interest and the power disparity is just too great. Sure we have our share of incompetent idiots - it is still foolish to just stand there when the blind giant is stomping around. Turkey had its chance at controlling northern Iraq and blew it.

American forces will move into northern Iraq from the south. Turkish forces in Iraq will then either make themselves useful on American terms without compensation or face the consequences. The goodwill necessary to minimize unfortunate incidents won't exist.

Yes it will be tragic, and should have been avoided. But it will happen on Turkey's doorstep and not ours.

102 posted on 03/03/2003 12:49:29 PM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

Comment #103 Removed by Moderator

To: a_Turk
I have been unable to keep up
with the confusing developments
in Turkey
but I noticed on another thread
reports that the US is planning
to provide Stinger missiles to the Kurds.

Is this really true??

Can you provide a link to this story?

If the story is true
then someone in the US has gone mad.
104 posted on 03/03/2003 12:54:44 PM PST by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Allan
It leaked out of the Turkish general staff last week. It would be a bonanza if I could find decent documentation.

I have seen articles where Kurds asked for heavy weapons, and that US officials were contemplating the proper timing.

According to Turkish news reports, the US delegation would not only not agree to not distribute these, but would not agree to collect them after the war, nor agree to even providing Turkey with an accounting of what had and would be distributed.

That's enough to vote no, IMO.
105 posted on 03/03/2003 12:58:43 PM PST by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Thud
Too late. Once Turkey the USA proved itself to be an unreliable ally, it doesn't matter whose fault the final screwup was. Things shouldn't have gotten that far.
106 posted on 03/03/2003 12:59:55 PM PST by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
According to Turkish news reports

Do you have a link?
A Turkish paper is OK
in fact
I would prefer it.

107 posted on 03/03/2003 1:02:18 PM PST by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Allan
Go to www.milliyet.com. The link will change to todays date. Then just go through older dates by changing the date in the link. Check through the editorials and headlines. Don't eat any popcorn. It's a barfer.
108 posted on 03/03/2003 1:06:02 PM PST by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
Well, you talk the talk, but can you walk the walk ???
109 posted on 03/03/2003 1:08:12 PM PST by Salgak (don't mind me: the orbital mind control lasers are making me write this. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Salgak
I liked that movie..
110 posted on 03/03/2003 1:27:17 PM PST by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

Comment #111 Removed by Moderator

To: a_Turk
Could you see Turkey instead granting air access for airborne forces to fly and land in N. Iraq so that they don't have to go from Kuwait across Iraq to get to N. Iraq?
112 posted on 03/03/2003 1:36:28 PM PST by Ranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Comment #113 Removed by Moderator

To: Ranger
Perhaps? Don't let the DoS know what you're thinking..
114 posted on 03/03/2003 1:40:10 PM PST by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: seamole
>> Not too late

You're right. I'm still being over-emotional over all the "bomb the Turks" sh!t.
115 posted on 03/03/2003 1:41:26 PM PST by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

Comment #116 Removed by Moderator

To: MizSterious
"I wonder how many Clinton holdovers still work there?"

There is a strong clique of Clintonistas at State and the CIA who do not want to see a successful regime change in Iraq. Part of this feeling stems from their own botched coup attempt against Hussein after the first Gulf War.

This same clique does not believe that democracy can work in Iraq. I have sensed a degree of passive resistance from State and the CIA ever since POTUS unvieled his Democratic vision for the Middle East.

I would love to see George Tenet's head on a pole after this is over (metaphorically speaking, that is).
117 posted on 03/03/2003 1:42:17 PM PST by ggekko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: seamole
They could call for a new vote right now, but the bill is seen as "the worst kind of dishonor" throughout the land because of the constant "blackmail" label, etc.

There is a crack in the ruling party. A second vote with an order to vote along party lines could split the ruling party and we'd have internal turmoil. I don't think a re-vote is being considered. I could be wrong..
118 posted on 03/03/2003 1:50:58 PM PST by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

Comment #119 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole
Hmmm, so you think Rummy did it on purpose to cut thelegs from under Powell?
120 posted on 03/03/2003 1:56:48 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-180 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson