The BBC has a story on this now, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7059721.stm .
It describes quite a lot of activity "inside" Turkey and "on the border", and this:
So ... it's been officially denied. That still makes it 50/50 in my cynical mind.

Of course Turkey will invade. That has been obvious for over a week now. Turks have tens of soldiers kill and captured. What the various parties declare will be the usual public responses only loosely based in reality. What actually happens will be based upon facts.

In the 1990s, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran tacitly cooperated for a previous expunging of the PKK (and other Kurdish parties). Many PKK soldiers were killed. Most survived. Little was accomplished other than to diminish the attacks. It is an insurgency - a guerrilla war. It cannot be eliminated only by military actions. A solution (as usual) must be found in a meeting of the minds - sometimes called a peace treaty. That cannot (yet) exist, in part, because it is not entirely clear what the various parties want and who the various parties even represent.

War would break out even among the three largest Kurdish parties. Saddam profited by using this infighting to bargin with all Kurdish parties including an 'Oil for Food' program. Kurds would even do business routinely with Saddam just to get one up on other Kurdish groups. The fact that Saddam had gassed whole Kurd villages was even secondary. These are not parties negotiate a PKK problem.

Obvious is that neither Turkey, Iraq (the American puppet government), or Iran will surrender land for peace. None have any reason to. None have any reason to believe an independent Kurdistan will create a solution. Problem will remain.

Other Kurds (a majority) are more interested in making themselves an autonomous country inside a more fictitious entity called Iraq. Their attention is more concentrated on Kirkuk and on oil revenues that require open borders and control of Kirkuk. Most Kurds probably don't want distractions created by the PKK.

So where in this morass is the foundation of a negotiated settlement? It does not exist. Why is a Turk invasion of northern Kurdistan irrelevant from a world perspective? Many Kurds may even want the PKK taken down a step. Some regional powers label the PKK as terrorists. Turkey military operations in Iraq are not a serious problem, should be expected now and multiple times in the future, and are mostly condoned (tacitly) by most every significant regional power. A problem that will continue until some major party really defines an achievable objective that rallies Kurdish or regional powers to an agreement.

Turks invade Kurdish Iraq? Call me when something new or significant happens. Turkey has long been executing small scale military operations in northern Iraq anyway. Valley of the Wolves Iraq is based on one such Turk operations in Iraq. The only difference this month is 'scale'.

This is happening a looooong way from the green zone.

LOL! True, but still, there must be a few roving reporters out there, especially in Kirkuk and such.
Anyway the latest reports now confirm that Turkey is up to stuff (bombing) inside Iraq, with more almost certain to follow, and probably ground troops too.

TW, I think it is more significant than you allow, in two ways.
Firstly, it deals considerable damage to the prestige of the central Iraqi government, emphasizing that not only can they not control the Kurds within their borders, they cannot prevent foreign nations from encroaching over their borders.
Ok, I preemptively agree that the prestige of the central Iraqi government is already deathly low, when it comes to being able to control internal affairs. But when it comes to maintaining its borders, so far it has kept up appearances of being able to do that. This appearance is now being damaged.
This matters because it will affect international perceptions of Iraq as a viable country. I'm not arguing (here) whether Iraq is or isn't a viable country, just talking about the affect on international perceptions. For example, it makes it harder for the White House to insist that every thing is going well and troop reductions will soon be possible, when the north has become so disordered that Turkey had to invade to sort things out.
The second point is that it sets a precedent for an increased level of meddling in Iraq by regional powers - Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, as well as Turkey. This will destabilize the country and make the eventual US departure harder and further away (or else much quicker and more awkward).
While I agree that none of this is particularly surprising, I still think it is important development.

I have seen a funnier side to this: imagine a US diplomat trying to explain to Turkey why they shouldn't invade:
Turkey: That country is a safe haven for terrorists who are using it as a base to attack us! We must invade!
US: Ummmmmmmmmmmm .......
Kind of hard for the US to counter that argument. :D

"Do as I say, not as I do."

I do not disagree with those trends (and resulting stress). But the significance and 'status quo created reality' denials are only bad for Iraqis and the region in the long term. Those 'stresses' could only force Baghdad's 'powers that be' to acknowledge reality.

First, whereas a Turk invasion could be a stress on Iraq's government, the need to admit realities may just as easily be good.

Second, is this mythical idea that if we protect a puppet government, then it will get better. Reality is that the Iraqi people must come to a decision on their own - either negotiate or learn from overt civil war. America cannot impose or teach either. Hard realities (such as overt civil war) make solutions permanent (the people remember bad consequences). Any stress on Iraq's government created by a Turk invasion is stress that might force acknowledgement of both points. Denial in Baghdad is that massive. Missing is an honest and indisputable acknowledgement of reality created by the current American 'solution' - a sort of "don't worry; be happy" attitude.

Third, I don't believe any such stress will be significant. The current government is too busy playing political power games. Nothing that happens in Northern Iraq will have any relevance in Baghdad. Positioning for domestic power is the number one agenda. Turkey could do as Israel did in Lebanon; it would have near zero affect in Baghdad.

Other than Washington public statements, an invasion would have little consequences there either. Washington may even spin it into "Turkey has joined the coalition to liberate Iraq from the evil axis of evil empire".

When applying a weighted average to facts, a Turk invasion of PKK strongholds would be more of a deja vue event. Double redundant? Sorta the point due to so many facts either over emphasized or hyped into lies by political agendas.

Turkey should invade because no one wants to stop it, because the consequences are trivial, because smaller operations have always been ongoing, and because Turkey has been so significantly harmed. Even the few news reports are more due to insignificance of the event.

I like it... not that people are dying, just that it real life pressure so soon that is going to show what a joke the US plan really is.
People are going to see what idiots our leaders really are sooner... well the people who have not been able to see it yet... scary people.

Yes, they are going to also see that we can not control the world and shape it how we want, which will probably be a tough reality check for everyone.

Well stated. This should get interesting. Esp if Iran takes advantage of the chance to increase their stake in stirring the shit.

Don't forget, too, that most of Northern Iraq's plentiful oil production is sent via a pipe .. that runs through ... Turkey...
Inconvenient for those with cars.

From what I can tell there is one pipeline:

http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplemen...fields_map.gif

http://channelnone.com/content/iraqp...q_oil_2003.jpg

Good maps, Merc, what was the source?
also, what are the red lines on the second map? They look political.
And there are issues of capacity with these pipes. The presence of a pipe may or may not indicate capacity to send more oil that way.

I got one from here:

http://channelnone.com/content/iraqp...n/content.html

and one from here (I do not subscribe to anything in this websites content, only used it for a map source):

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.o...hp/t31019.html