Snubbing Turkey--State Department missteps played a part in Saturday’s embarrassing vote.

National Review ^ | 3-3-03 | Joel Mowbray

[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.

[xJones]

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?"

Interesting.

[Wphile]

Interesting article. Frankly, I don't trust State a whole lot more than I trust the UN. That's a pretty low bar to reach.

It seemed to me that Turkey had a pretty good relationship with DOD. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz seemed pretty confident in the relationship. Can't say I recall seeing that sort of confidence out of State.

[MizSterious]

Does make ya go "hmmm..."

I wonder how many Clinton holdovers still work there?

[PhiKapMom]

Personally I think the best Secretary of State we had in my memory was George Schultz. No one got the best of him. He might not have been the best "diplomat" but he sure stood for the United States and what was best for us and anyone else better get out of the way!

When he was in Charge at State, I always had the opinion he was on the same page as Defense. A strong Military made his job a lot easier.

[Uncle George]

WRONG; The only factor that brought this vote count against the USA was the members putting Muslim politics ahead of Turkey's well being, (Church before State).

[Wphile]

I agree. George Schultz was great. I'm not sure if the problem at State starts at the top and reaches down or the other way around. My guess is that after 8 years of clinton, the State department is plum full of clintonistas and therein lies the problem. I can't imagine Powell trying to undermine the President.

[hgro]

"I wonder how many Clinton holdovers still work there?"

Too many.

[paul51]

Muslim politics

We have to stop thinking our enemies will ever be our allies

[UncleSamUSA]

I have always been very suspicious of State. These career diplomats have traditionally been more than willing to cozy up to the worst dregs of the Muslim world -- and most especially the anti-Western Saudis-- and have been more than willing to sell out our only true ally in the region --Israel.

State has been most vociferous at Israel for retaliating against Hamas and Hezbollah, but they have always bent over backwards for Saudi support of worldwide madrasas which preach virulent hatred of the US, the West, and all non-Muslim peoples.

Now that very same State Department has caused us all this grief by insisting on the "UN option" and thoroughly bungling it, and now we see that their stupidity may have helped push key votes against us in Turkey.

Time to mount an independent, comprehensive investigation of the entire State Dept apparatus and time to clean house once and for all. I nominate Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to co-chair the the Commission.

Heh heh.

[el_texicano]

"the State department is plum full of clintonistas and therein lies the problem"

Some heads need to roll over this. I am personally wondering if Powell has the cahones to deal with these internal "problems". They had better do some serious house cleaning SOON, or somebody is gonna screw this whole thing up. You can't afford to have "insurgents" in your midst.

CLEAN HOUSE of these scum

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[Ben Ficklin]

In paragraph 6 of the article there is mention of "ametuer hour".

A USAF retired general mentioned the same thing on ABC news. I don't recall the actual number but there is a large percentage of new/young reps in the Turkish Parliment.

[Semper Paratus]

If the State Department if 'handling' the Korean affair the whole peninsula will soon be 'kimchee'.

[Just mythoughts]

Turkist ambassador don't remember his name said there were two reasons the vote went the way it did.

1. Promises made at the first Gulf War were not kept --
(Clinton administration - my words, not his)


2. Population were ticked at how CNN was making it sound that Turkey was blackmailing US for more money, when it fact that actual amount of aide was $4 billion and the rest was loan guarantees.

So in light of this being a political vote from the population who see us as not being trustworthy (wonder why), and then American press picturing them as blackmailers let their politicians know we want no part of this.

Maybe the truth is somewhere between the State Department and what the population believes.

[dixiechick2000]

"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?"

This is the best piece that I've seen regarding Turkey.

IMO, State should not be in charge of anything until the Clintonistas are cleaned out.

[a_Turk]

Thank you for posting this. Even though Powell was very cordial, our FM's delegation complained that their treatment by State was humiliating.

Asinine, this whole thing. Someone is trying to screw both of us...

[guitfiddlist]

I wonder how many Clinton holdovers still work there?

Too many. And there were too many of these salad-day pin-striped pinheads BEFORE the Sinkmeister polluted it further.

Bush needs to do to State - what he just did to INS - remake it - but also fire a boatload of these slithering Chamberlains.

[Dog Gone]

It doesn't make sense that the State Department would undermine the vote out of opposition to the war, because it won't stop it.

They may have blown it, and I think that's pretty obvious, but it wasn't for the reason suggested.

[a_Turk]

bump