Turks!

[Chicken Little]

Uh oh,

quote: Hundreds of Turkish troops crossed into northern Iraq early Wednesday to chase Kurdish guerrillas who attack Turkey from bases there, Turkish security officials said. One official said the troops had returned to their bases by the end of the day, but Turkey's foreign minister denied they had ever entered Iraq.

[Hawkins]

Turkey. One of our most strategic allies during the cold war. A moderate Muslim nation that before our invasion of Iraq had a favorable impression of the United States.

According to a recent poll, our approval rating in Turkey is now below 20%.

Its so sad to see our image in the world deteriate so sharply in such a short time. The current Bush White House has probably achieved the worst international diplomacy record of ANY president in our history.

And if anyone doesn't think Turkey is important, well let me remind you that throughout the cold war they were the first line of defense against a Soviet invasion of the middle-east and Israel.

Secondly, it was strategic missile silos in Turkey that Kennedy traded for the removal of the Cuban missile bases in a last minute deal that saved us from World War III back during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Thank all heaven that George Bush wasn't our President during such a real crisis, or we'd all be boiling our water and living in caves right now.

[Hawkins]

--

[guido911]

That's right Hawkins. It's Bush's fault that Turkey invaded Northern Iraq. Gosh, if only Saddam were in power. The U.S. would be popular again.[}:)]

[TheArtist]

It would seem to be in the interest of the Iraqi Kurds to quell the PKK and keep them from using the Iraqi North as a staging area.  Not doing so will only invite more problems for both sides.  Something the Kurdish North does not need.  

Before the war, it would have been wiser to have worked to stabilize the north and southern provinces in Iraq.  They were already becoming semi autonimous because of the no fly zones and because we had essentially boxed Saddam in.  I would have said continue to squeeze him into a smaller and smaller space and limiting his abilities. while at the same time nurturing stabilized areas in the North and south of the country.  Taking it slow and steady versus running in and kicking up the whole hornets nest. The administration kept framing the issue as a choice between war and having Saddam able to give WMD to terrorists. War, especially this war at that time was not the only way. I also blame the Dems for spinlessly and ignorantly not reframing the issue and pushing for other options.

There was talk of letting the north become a Kurdistan.  The administration said that was a bad idea because Turkey would not like it. The response should have been, they weren't going to like a war either.  

The Kurdish area could have been established with the expressed intention that it eventually unite as a state, federal style, within the larger nation of Iraq. Whether it would stay a part of Iraq we couldnt know, but we don't even know that now.  A stabilized, functioning, Kurdish state could have given the Kurds in Turkey and elsewhere a sense of identity, purpose, and a stake in its success. If properly nurtured this Kurdish state could have acted as a buffer between the new Iraq and Turkey. A way to alleviate ages of tension. Sure it could also be a point of contention and problems. But in this instance it seems as though we try to deny the inevitable and instead force a status quoe, hoping it wont go wrong.

[MichaelC]

The solution for Turkey, unfortunately, is to invade and occupy the Kurdish areas of Iraq and deal with the Nationalist groups directly, OR a forced migration of all Kurds from Turkey into Iraq (ex: forced German migration from post-WWII Poland).  Neither is all that pleasant, but Turkey can't assume that Iraq will take care of it.  Sure can't expect the US to get involved securing the northern borders.  And an independent Kurdistan could be more harmful to Turkish sovereignty than the current situation (ex: Serbia vs Austro-Hungarian Empire  @1914).

Forced migration would be unlikely.  But if Iraq won't contain it, or if a Kurdish state won't contain it, there's really no course left for Turkey but to invade.  Turkey has plenty of experience dealing with Nationalism.  If it reaches an intolerable level, Turkey will act and it will be impressive.

[cannon_fodder]

Turkey is a nation divided.  The military and the cities and are very western oriented and devoted to a secular society.  But the rural areas very traditional Muslims - that is to say they believe in the combination of church and state and a sectarian society.

Also of import, is that the Turks are a fairly race conscious people.  They massacred the Armenians in the early 1900's and within Turkey different races and tribes have tensions that run deep.  The Kurds are a minority race that want their own country, as such, the tension there is deeper than with any other but the Armenians (who are not even allowed in Turkey and have had a closed border for decades).

SO - a military incursion into Kurdistan is a very interesting development.  I cannot fault them as I believe the account of Kurdish insurgents entering Turkey from Iraq.  If they entered in pursuit of such insurgents, so be it.  As Michael suggested, it is in Turkey's interest to not have a long standing enemy form a nation along its borders.  That would make for a tough neighborhood with Armenia and Kurdistan as overt enemies, and Syria as an enemy of any non-Islamic state.

However, if they send a force to stay in Kurdistan we would face the prospect of a Kurdish-Turkish war being fought between American allies with American weapons supplied to both sides.  Then que the Shia/Sunni war and the game is really on.  

and as TheArtist pointed out, much better planning probably could have avoided this dilemma along with many others.  

Lets cross our fingers and hope this doesn't boil over.

[jne]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

It would seem to be in the interest of the Iraqi Kurds to quell the PKK and keep them from using the Iraqi North as a staging area.  Not doing so will only invite more problems for both sides.  Something the Kurdish North does not need.  

Before the war, it would have been wiser to have worked to stabilize the north and southern provinces in Iraq.  They were already becoming semi autonimous because of the no fly zones and because we had essentially boxed Saddam in.  I would have said continue to squeeze him into a smaller and smaller space and limiting his abilities. while at the same time nurturing stabilized areas in the North and south of the country.  Taking it slow and steady versus running in and kicking up the whole hornets nest. The administration kept framing the issue as a choice between war and having Saddam able to give WMD to terrorists. War, especially this war at that time was not the only way. I also blame the Dems for spinlessly and ignorantly not reframing the issue and pushing for other options.

There was talk of letting the north become a Kurdistan.  The administration said that was a bad idea because Turkey would not like it. The response should have been, they weren't going to like a war either.  

The Kurdish area could have been established with the expressed intention that it eventually unite as a state, federal style, within the larger nation of Iraq. Whether it would stay a part of Iraq we couldnt know, but we don't even know that now.  A stabilized, functioning, Kurdish state could have given the Kurds in Turkey and elsewhere a sense of identity, purpose, and a stake in its success. If properly nurtured this Kurdish state could have acted as a buffer between the new Iraq and Turkey. A way to alleviate ages of tension. Sure it could also be a point of contention and problems. But in this instance it seems as though we try to deny the inevitable and instead force a status quoe, hoping it wont go wrong.

I agree.
Randome thoughts on Turkey:
Now it looks like the divided turks are unifying around the position of taking action in Norther Iraq.  While they are requesting approval, their faith in joining the EU is waning and they have to focus on bringing together a divided nation -secularism (maintained by military) vs. more traditional Islam (majority) The West supports Gul (Islamic  majority party) for president, but he is an extremely polarizing figure as secularists see him as a threat. Turkey has to distance themselves from the stigma (and threat) of fundamentalist Islam, while making the west happy for EU hopes.  This is a case where the slim, but solid majority and their strong party representation would be making a mistake by pushing through a candidate that will further drive a wedge between 2 major factions (sound familiar).  If Turkey allows for general elections, then Gul will become president. I don't think absolute democracy is the answer here.  They aren't quite ready for that. Turkey is in a tough spot.  I'm certainly not a fan of such staunch secularism that it suppresses religious expression, but their proximity makes it an issue and their progressive East/West gateway culture is their bread and butter and strong secularism makes that possible.  As a nation, they have to mature beyond the reforms of Attaturk.  They will need to learn to be more respectful of their religious majority and racially divided underclass (Kurds), but its going to take time.  I worry that moving into Northern Iraq is going to cause a lot of problems with Turkish Kurds and will also drive them further away from hope of EU memebership. That could set Turkey back on a lot of progress and minimize them as an asset to the U.S. I sort of think it is time to start splitting up Iraq (or let it happen on its own).  Turkey should focus on securing their border and the U.S. may just have to assist in that matter.  The Sunni and Shia folks may just need to be left to settle the score with eachother (better than both of them killing our soldiers) What a fricken mess!

[MichaelC]

I don't think Turkey has to be more respectful toward anything.  Turkey is fully aware of not just Nationalism, but the tendencies of Religion to hijack the better judgement of secular gov't.  

And as the only stable gov't in the Middle East (excluding Israel and Iran), the US might actually welcome a Turkish invasion privately, while rebuking it publically.  It's not quite time though.  Turkey has to allow the US the time needed to get out of the way, which will also allow time for Turkey to build up internal public support.  Northern oil issues aside, the Turkish frontier extending itself to include points nearer to Baghdad may not be a bad thing.

[jne]

Turkey cannot sustain oppressive policies toward its majority forever.  The hijab is not allowed in public buildings or schools.  Moderate Islamic women are not receiving an education because of this.  
Their Kurdish minority is becoming more of a liability as extremists (those willing to commit acts of terrorism) from within the nation are going to become more active.

I do, however, think that now is definitely not the time to  let up on their militant secularism.

FYI - I will be landing in Istanbul in 2 wks. I'll be in Ephesus, Ishmir, Cappadokya, Antalya, Ankara.  Nothing too fare east, but everybody cross your fingers that some pissed off Kurd doesn't blow me up with a bicycle bomb.

[MichaelC]

To a certain degree, Turkey may have more in common politically with say Pakistan, than any other Middle Eastern country.  Of course Pakistan is more of a true military dictatorship than Turkey, they both have democratic institutions, both have a military capable and willing to intervene.   But ethnically, culturally, religiously, Turkey is far more moderate than Pakistan.  Pakistan may have to keep up the militarization for a very long time, military intervention in the Turkish gov't will likely become less and less necessary.

Not that Turkey is "as white as the driven snow", but I do have the tendency to believe that Turkey (it's military and it's gov't) knows quite well what it's doing.  And predicting the eventual outcome of the relationship between gov't and religion in Turkey, is complicated.  If the military can continually prevent Turkey from becoming another "Islamic" dictatorship, that's probably not a bad thing.  But, we don't really know if that would happen without military intervention.  The military just doesn't allow that scenario to be played out, the eventual outcome would be completely unknown.

It's complex, I'm satified as long as Turkey is stable.

[Conan71]

Just as long as it's the Turkish military who determines whether or not it's a secular or religious gov't and not the U.S. military. []

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by jne

FYI - I will be landing in Istanbul in 2 wks. I'll be in Ephesus, Ishmir, Cappadokya, Antalya, Ankara.  Nothing too fare east, but everybody cross your fingers that some pissed off Kurd doesn't blow me up with a bicycle bomb.

Screw Kurdish bombers, you better leave the country before I locate you and take your ticket.  []

[jne]

If my passport doesn't show up soon, then you can have it.