Iraq and Turkey See Tensions Rise After Ambush
 

Iraq and Turkey See Tensions Rise After Ambush

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/wo..._r=1&th&emc=th

The longer we stay the deeper in the mire we get intrenched... it has been past time to leave since they voted for their own government.
It is not our fault they voted for Iranian backed warlords. That is who they wanted, let them have them.
It is not worth one more US life for one more day.

Turkey is our ally in the war on terror. So are the Kurds in Iraq. Turkey also maintains a large portion of our supply lines. We have an obligation to side with both of them in a conflict.

It appears Cheney was right 10 years ago when he thought the occupation in Iraq was a stupid idea. This is a pure clusterfuck and Bush's place in history has been secured. All hail the conquering idiot.

We also offended them recently by finally acknowledging the Armenian genocide.

We do not blame the Germans for the holocaust. We blame the Nazis. Do we blame the Turks for the Armenian genocide? Or do we blame it on a dying Ottoman Empire. Especially important here is that Ataturk had nothing to do with that Armenian genocide. But who gets blamed? Ottomans or Turks?

Turks also acknowledge the Armenian deaths. However it is not defined as genocide. It is defined as victims of war. Ottoman Empire citizens who sided with the French and Russians and who therefore got their just due.

I blame Turkey for not acknowledging that it happened at all. Not calling it an attempted genocide is not calling it what it was.
It is not about who's fault it is at this point, just about stating that it happened at all as it was.

I'm wondering what the hell the PKK are hoping to achieve. Suppose they provoke Turkey into invading Northern Iraq ... This would greatly weaken Kurdish military strength which will be sorely needed if Iraq does descend into all out civil war. It would alienate American support, which they also need. It would provide a pretext for continued occupation of Kurdistan by the four local nations.
Do they really think they can win a fight if a big one erupts? I favour independence for Kurdistan, but I don't see what their strategy is. Any guesses?

The PKK are generating chaos in the hope that the results would be a greater Kurdistan, encompassing parts of currently three countries.

US ain't going after the PKK hard, because, they would be the main troops vs Iran.

An interesting letter from a Turkish citizen about the Armenian "genocide".

What do you mean by 'sorely needed?' Do you think the Kurdish militias and political groups will do anything but withdraw into themselves and defend their own borders? They'll do what they've done since they got what autonomy they have: mind their business. If there is a civil war (which I really doubt, I don't think the US will be pulling out any time soon), the only stable area will be pseudo-Kurdistan, but they wont do anything for anyone else's stability.

On a different note, I don't think we should be dealing so favorably with Turkey. They're just as bad toward the Kurds as the Israelis are to the Palestinians (except the Kurds are better at fighting back and the Turks can't bring as much force to bear).

This 'allies in the war on terror' thing is crap for two reasons: One, the 'war on terror' is another name for 'excuse to do whatever we want.' Two: what have the Turks done to help us in this 'war on terror?' If you hold that Iraq was about terrorism (which I don't), why didn't they let us fly from their soil like in the 90s? Where was the Turkish troop aid? They certainly chipped in a lot of money, I know.

Newsflash: PUK and PKK are not terrorist organizations, they're militias. How does Turkey rattling a sabre at Northern Iraq compare to 'fighting terrorism?' It don't neither.

Being butthurt.

That is what I meant: sorely needed to defend their borders. They have plenty of oil, and the other groups, and neighbouring countries, might well try to seize some oilfields amongst the chaos if all-out civil war does get going. And I agree that while the US and friends are there, they will keep a lid on things enough to prevent complete Balkan-style or Rwandan-style war. But the US isn't going to stay forever. Consider Vietnam - things were relatively stable in 73 for the pullout ... but by 75 ... that is what I would anticipate in Iraq. A period of stability, a pullout, a brief pause, a few mosque bombings, then whoooommmm!

I agree. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter ... in most cases. Some are just psychos. But the Kurds do seem to me to have a legitimate claim for nationhood being repressed by various powers.

One: yeah it has become that way hasn't it. A while back I asked folks what it would take for the US to "be over" the September 11 attacks, but got very little response. It made me wonder, though. Catching Osama would make a lot of people (especially outside the US) feel that the job was done and the war was over. So I started wondering if the US had deliberately taken the pressure off catching Osama for this very reason - as long as he's loose, they have a license to invade anywhere, but if they get him, in a lot of people's minds, that license expires. mmmmmmmaybe. Conspiracy theories are sooooo tempting, we must guard against their seductiveness.

Regarding Deadbeater's suggestion, that the PKK are trying to spark a region-wide war in the hopes that a Kurdish nation will emerge from the rubble... possibly, but that's one hell high risk strategy. If it were up to me, I'd be concentrating on consolidating Kurdistan-in-Iraq, surviving any troubles in Iraq, and waiting for future opportunities to "liberate" the rest of Kurdistan from Turkey, Iran and Syria.

For the record, I think that outlandish conspiracy theories involving illuminati and such are fun and all, but some 'conspiracy theories' could very well be the truth. Watergate, CIA 'family jewels...' these things would have easily been dismissed as 'crackpot conspiracy theories' if there weren't definitive evidence there.

I don't dismiss the possibility that there are some dirty minded, handsy people involved that are using 'the war on terror' to get some things done they've wanted to do for a while.

A. 'The man' caused/ignored 9/11 on purpose... pretty outlandish.
B. 'The man' used 9/11 to muster support for things that otherwise would have less... sounds more likely.

I dunno, the kurds don't really whine so much as lay waste to their enemies. Some of those kurdish militias are some real hard-cases, and would give even the all-mighty US military a serious run for their money. They're certainly far more competent than the IQ security forces.

shit.

nothing on american news yet but according to this russian news source....

this is not good.

Re: Ibram's news story
Eeeep! IF it is true. Could be, but I'm gonna wait for more reports. The whole story is based on citing "local (Turkish) papers" - which puts a fair bit of time delay between the bombing and the posting on the Russian source ... so why not a peep from other news sources, especially considering that there are plenty of reporters in Iraq?
It is possible that this is a false story. The Turkish public want to strike at the PKK, some are marching in the streets for it. This could be either crap journalism, or a Wag-the-Dog phony war ... or the real thing. I'm waiting a while yet.

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