A New Complication - Suspected in bombing, Kurdish group another worry for U.S.

Baghdad, Iraq - Investigators suspect that last week's bombing of the Turkish embassy here was carried out by the PKK, a Kurdish group that has fought a long guerrilla war against Turkey, according to a senior Iraqi official.

U.S. and Iraqi officials had thought initially that Tuesday's suicide bombing was the work of Saddam Hussein supporters or fighters linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network who have slipped into Iraq in recent months. But investigators have developed evidence of the PKK's (or Kurdish Workers Party) involvement in the bombing, which injured 10 people, said a senior official at the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

"The investigation is not finished, but there are signs that the PKK was behind this bombing," said the official, who asked not to be identified.

The PKK had in this situation a chance to evolve toward something different. They haven't taken it. They are paintint a bulls-eye on their chests, and there are consequences to such stupidity.

I hope.

Further to the issue of Turkish troops in Iraq, there are several issues. First is the issue of history. The whole issue of Kurdish/Turkish conflict, Armenian/Turkish conflict, of the Ottoman empire, all of that is relevant. History should help to illuminate the present, although it shouldn't be used to paralyze us in the present. I have actually seen comments that the US is unqualified to act in the world because we wiped out the Apaches in the 19th century. When you are scratching for an argument, I suppose any argument is a good one.

But while history should cause us to approach the world with some modicum of humility, it shouldn't cause us to retreat into isolation.

The Iraqis themselves are probably uncertain about the introduction of Turks into the mix. I have seen articles written about the Polish troops, saying essentially the same, that they preferred US troops and felt more comfortable with Americans. But in a chaotic situation, any change is likely to be viewed with dread. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't yet know.

In the region where the Turks will be deployed they are actively killing Americans, so the problem isn't necessarily one of affection for the US. This is the Baath region. They are the ones who feel agrieved at the loss of power. 80% of the country was ruled by 20%, and the Turks will be deployed into that 20%, which is where we need the help. They probably won't appreciate any occupying power there.

In the end the key consideration has to be if the deployment will be effective. Will it serve the long term interests of the Iraqis, and of the Turkish people?

It can't be in the interests of the Iraqis as a whole for the Baath ever to get near the levers of power, ever again. Whatever sympathy the Baath may have in the Baath triangle must be ignored, and they have to be hunted down. So then the question is whether the Turks are capable of doing that job, which the answer is certainly a yes, and whether they are willing.

If they won't help, we will do it. We are doing it now. Long term the only answer is to get an Iraqi constabulary deployed to go after them, and we are in the process of doing just that, its just a matter of time for training and seasoning. In the meantime, we could use some help. If Turkey will help we will appreciate it. Our cranks will still take shots at you over historical issues, and there will be plenty of shots taken at us over historical issues. But we can work together in the here and now, and let the cranks yammer at each other. There is no reason to let the cranks rule.

But Turkish boys will almost certainly die on this deployment, there is no way to sugar-coat this, so the question as to whether they will be effective is the important one, and whether to be allied with the US against the Baath is in Turkish interest, and in Iraqi interests long term. That is a question only Turkey itself can answer. I hope the answer is yes, and that we will see you at our side and soon. But I would understand if Turkey would want no part of it.

Maybe they could increase their force in Afghanistan instead, maybe that would be the better out. It would smooth over the diplomatic issues with the US but keep them out of a conflict in a neighboring country.

First off, the longer one talks about what they're going to do, the more the enemy gets to prepare and oppose the plan. We've been listening to lip-shit for too long now, and my take is that the Turkish government is starting to cool to the whole idea. How long will the US take to make up their minds on this deployment? The Turkish government has been waiting for a rely for about two weeks now.

Secondly, if you want to talk about history, you may as well look at the British and American track record in the region.

None of this really matters. What you are witnessing is a direct result of US govt indecision which, in my view, is only going to get worse. Soon the US will leave, and having achieved the presence of indifferent troops like Poles, and Mongolians there, those who oppose Turkish troops will split the country up into little pieces..

my take is that the Turkish government is starting to cool to the whole idea.

That is my take exactly. They weren't too thrilled about being deployed beyond Kirkuk from the beginning. Now they are saying, well, if the Iraqis don't want them, perhaps they won't deploy. I think they are still looking for an exit. Can't blame them. I blame them for not being there from the beginning, but I can't blame them for not wanting to get in at this late date.

Secondly, if you want to talk about history, you may as well look at the British and American track record in the region.

I think this fits with my own point on the subject. The past should illuminate the present, but should not be used to excuse paralysis in the present. So the Kurds and the Armenians don't like the Turks. The Turks aren't going to Armenia or Kurdistan. So the Iraqis have a grudge against the Brits going back to the twenties. That has nothing to do with the present question, which is whether or not we are going to coexist with a Baathist government. We have decided "no", and oddly enough the Brits are the most popular of the occupying powers. That may be like saying that chicken pox is your favorite disease, but hey.

What you are witnessing is a direct result of US govt indecision which, in my view, is only going to get worse.

I fear you are right. My view of this is as a long term problem to be managed over a decade. But US presidencies go in 4 year cycles, and our system lends itself to indecision, and to backpedaling, and to the abandonment of the policies of the previous administration. If Bush holds on to the White House, I expect to see us continue with the mission, but that is an open question right now. If his political enemies take the White House, your guess is as good as mine what they will do. They will probably bring the UN in and leave. The Baath will probably reconstitute itself under another name and retake power. And if that happens, we may well be worse off than we were from the beginning.

There is no other power besides the US that is prepared to make sure that the Baath never comes back, no matter who sits in the White House. It is becoming plain that Turkey will not be that guarantor. So it becomes very important geopolitically that Bush remains for a second term, to finish the work.

When you are balancing a lot of conflicting issues, and trying to forge a new government out of forces that don't like each other, and trying to forge an alliance between countries that aren't sure they like each other, and trying to get congress to pony up the cash in the middle of a presidential election, and trying to get France to sign on to a new UN resolution, your finely tuned machine may begin to look as though it is wobbling a bit.

It may actually be wobbling a bit.

Your image of a duck may be apt. You see the duck placid on the surface, while its really kicking like crazy below the surface. I call it placid, you call it deer-in-the-headlights... you say tomahto, I say tomato...

The duck's beak aids in helping you to talk out of all sides of your mouth at the same time. If you've ever been a salesman then you know how it works. Its not really deceit, you tell people what they need you to tell them in order to justify doing what they need to do for their own good. Since everyone knows thats what you are doing, its only deceit if it doesn't work and they need somewhere to cast the blame later.

>> you say tomahto, I say tomato

Let's call the whole thing off.. lol!

Hey, with all that's going on, it's obviously very diffcult to "maintain," which is exactly what the administration has been trying to do.. It's been a lame duck for at least a couple of months now. The focus has been on maintaining some aspects of the status quo. Thus no real protection of the northern pipeline, for example, we wouldn't want to catch the rascals red handed because then we'd have an escalation and a "disturbance" in the awkward balance we're trying to maintain..

Why maintain? several obvious reasons. Election year coming up, the war is getting pretty costly, we wouldn't want to return to war (!), we might end up having to spank our new found donkey thief allies for harboring terrorists..

If nothing else, the promise of Turkey to pitch in with fire power has helped the US push through the UN resolution.. And that's quite a bit in itself..

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.