I have heard similar comments with respect to the German Military (which supports the US and -i believe- deployed support troops), and the vociferously anti-war government position.
Posted on 03/08/2003 3:04:45 PM PST by Lando Lincoln
Bush issues veiled warning to Turkey
'We've got contingencies in place that should our troops not be allowed to come through Turkey. And no, that won't cause any more hardship for our troops. I'm confident of that'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President George W. Bush said the United States had contingency plans in place if Turkish Parliament insists on not allowing in U.S. combat troops to open a northern front against Iraq, in a veiled warning to Turkey that it might end up with missing its chance to have a say in the future of Iraq and lose a multi-billion dollar aid package to protect its economy from negative impacts of a war.
But he brushed aside any suggestion the United States would withdraw its support for Turkey's bid to join the European Union unless it reverses course, saying: "I support Turkey going into the EU."
"Turkey's a friend. They're a NATO ally. We'll continue to work with Turkey," Bush told a White House news conference. "We've got contingencies in place that should our troops not come through Turkey -- not be allowed to come through Turkey. And no, that won't cause any more hardship for our troops. I'm confident of that."
In a major setback to U.S. war plans for Iraq, Parliament refused in a close vote last weekend to approve the deployment of 62,000 American soldiers on the Turkish soil.
High-level officials of the U.S. administration have warned that Turkey would lose a multi-billion aid package pledged by the United States to compensate losses that the Turkish economy will suffer as a result of decreasing tourism revenues, rising oil prices and capital flight that would be entailed by a war in the neighboring Iraq.
The U.S. officials also said Turkey would not have a say in northern Iraq, a region where Turkey fears Kurdish groups could set up their own state benefiting from a war on Baghdad.
In weeks-long talks, Turkish and U.S. officials have agreed to act together in arming and disarming Kurdish groups that de facto control northern Iraq. Under the deal, Turkey was also allowed to send tens of thousands of troops to the region as a precaution against the establishment of a Kurdish state and to stop a possible refugee flow to its territory.
These deals came under question after the parliamentary rejection last Sunday.
The Pentagon has drawn up alternative plans for a "northern front," but administration officials still hold out hope for a new parliamentary vote as soon as next week after the head of the powerful military made a strong call on Wednesday to allow U.S. troops on its territory.
Ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Wednesday that a second vote on the motion may not be possible before a U.N. Security Council decision.
US offers Turkey short-term loans on Iraq
In a sign that Washington still has hopes for a northern front to be launched from Turkey, the United States was considering changes to its aid plan for Turkey.
Negotiators from both countries have also been discussing northern Iraq and a second government motion, if it ever comes, is expected to have a focus on Turkish troop deployment in northern Iraq, reports said.
"We cannot remain a bystander to developments... while there is a fire in our neighbor," said Prime Minister Abdullah Gul Friday and added the government will work to get out of the Iraqi crisis with minimum loss, in another sign that plans to assist the United States in a war in Iraq have not been abandoned.
Under the new economic aid plan, Turkey could get direct U.S. government loans rather than loan guarantees, including $8.5 billion for six months and up to $24 billion longer term if it reverses course and grants American troops access to its bases for an invasion of Iraq, U.S. sources familiar with the package told the Reuters.
Direct loans from the Bush administration would help ensure that Turkey does not run into trouble rolling over its short-term debt on its own, said the sources, who gave some new details of a package that has been hammered out over months.
Stepping up pressure on recession-hit Turkey to act, the Bush administration has warned that Parliament would forfeit the aid package if it balks at the deployment.
If Parliament reverses course and backs the U.S. deployment, the administration would ask the Republican-led Congress to provide $6 billion in direct aid, $4 billion of which would secure loans totaling as much as $24 billion.
As a down-payment on congressional action, the United States would provide Turkey with an $8.5 billion bridge loan from the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund, contingent on the Turkish Parliament approving a budget endorsed by the International Monetary Fund.
Sources said the bridge loan would be repaid in a relatively short time, possibly as little as six months, using the proceeds of the longer-term loans once approved by Congress.
The longer-term loans could also come directly from the U.S. government, though no final decisions have been taken, sources said.
The Bush administration had initially planned to provide Turkey with loan guarantees -- essentially U.S. government backing for loans that Turkey would secure from private banks. "But it's unclear whether Turkey can get the loans from the markets," one source said.
Sources say the administration initially balked at Turkey's request for a bridge loan drawing from the Exchange Stabilization Fund. Critics inside the administration and on Capitol Hill asserted that the country was not currently facing a major currency crisis.
But with U.S. naval ships waiting off Turkish shores and Pentagon war planners anxious for a decision, sources said the administration reconsidered.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said this week, "The particular package that we've been talking to them about was predicated on assistance and cooperation in any plan for the use of force against Iraq ... We'll continue to talk to them as we move forward."
But other U.S. officials said Turkey could still receive some financial aid.
Tapping into the $38 billion Exchange Stabilization Fund, set up in 1934 primarily for emergency use to defend the dollar, is bound to spark controversy on Capitol Hill.
Over objections from some Republicans, the fund was used in 1995 by former President Bill Clinton to bail out Mexico. Bush used it himself to help Uruguay last year.
U.S. congressmen were in Ankara Friday in an attempt to persuade Turkish leaders to allow American troops in.
"Our troops will be safer if they have access to Turkish bases during a possible war with Iraq," Whitfield, a Republican, said before leaving Wednesday. "Our military's first choice would be the threat of an attack from the north through Turkey and from the south through Kuwait."
Whitfield and Rep. Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, met Prime Minister Abdullah Gul, President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, Parliament officials and AK Party leaders.
Whitfield and Wexler plan to stay in Turkey through to Sunday, the day of by-elections that would pave the way for AK Party leader Erdogan to become prime minister.
The party officials have said that a new vote could take up to three weeks, and analysts says a vote is unlikely before the new government is formed.
Ankara - TDN with wire dispatches
He doesn't equivocate, and never hedges. What's more, he expects the same from everyone else.
How refreshing.
And a very good lesson for us!
Thanks!
I have heard similar comments with respect to the German Military (which supports the US and -i believe- deployed support troops), and the vociferously anti-war government position.
Turkey is a good ally, and they're doing what they believe they can, at this time.
And in the future, when I see your screen-name, I'll pick 'obnoxious creep'.
First, are you sure that the public thinks that this is part of your war on terror? Believe me, Turkey's war on terror has been going on for three or four decades while you were manicuring your hedges and lawn.
And the relevance of this would be ...what? Our war on terror isn't defined by the Turkish public's perceptions of it. And I feel safe in saying that the American public understands and supports the scope of the effort. If Turkey really has been waging a war on terror for years (even while I was manicuring my hedges and lawn, no less!!!) that's all the more reason they should support the war on terror now.
It appears now that there is probably going to be a significant amount of cooperation on the northern front -- maybe not as originally planned, but significant nonetheless. Why such a horrid headline?
I won't repeat all the muleteerisms, but Turkey is still a friend. They have to look out for their own interests, and the recent vote in Parliament won't have a longterm effect on the war effort. It might be noted that there is already a great deal of cooperation of many kinds between the US and Turkey, and that will continue.
LOL! I guess you can pick 'stupid bastard' too..
Is this really necessary? Can't you make a point without resorting to this kind of name-calling and insults?
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.