Skip to comments.Our Allies The Turks
Posted on 07/13/2007 4:13:43 AM PDT by theothercheek
Nabi Sensoy, Turkey's ambassador to Washington, is complaining that Kurdish guerillas staging cross-border attacks into Turkey from Northern Iraq are armed with American weapons that were supplied to the Iraqi army. Sensoy also accused the U.S. of not applying enough pressure on Kurds in the Iraqi government to rein in the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has been fighting for an independent Kurdistan since the 1980s.
Turkish officials are promising retaliatory military strikes against the PKK in Iraq, which will further destabilize the country. Turkey's military chief, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, is prodding the government to set political guidelines for an incursion into northern Iraq, if the U.S. and the Iraqi governments cannot stop the cross-border attacks.
Last week, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul confirmed that detailed plans for an incursion into Northern Iraq were in place, and an anonymous senior U.S. diplomatic official tells The Associated Press that military action against PKK rebels in northern Iraq in the days before the July 22 elections in is very high.
Officials with the Pentagon and the State Department said such an incursion would not be "helpful."
U.S. Brig. Gen. Perry Wiggins, deputy director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also points out that we can do only so much, seeing as "our military's focus is on Iraq and the situation in Iraq." In other words, there is no strategic military gain to be made from diverting our soldiers to the relatively calm region of Northern Iraq from Baghdad and other areas that are hotbeds of insurgent activity and sectarian violence.
And, with all due respect to Turkeys importance as an ally in the War on Terror an unreliable ally, it should be noted, as its government has repeatedly threatened to cut off access to Incirlik Air Base if Congress adopts H.Res. 106/S.Res. 106 ("the Armenian Genocide Resolution") there is little political gain to pissing off our Kurdish allies in the Iraqi government by going after the PKK.
[Editorial Note: Instead of griping about U.S. inaction against PKK rebels in Iraq, Turkey's ambassador might explain why two Turks, Mehmet Yilmaz and Mehmet Resit Isik, were funneling foreign insurgent into Iraq for al-Qaida operations until they were killed by coalition forces in late June.]
Can you imagine! Telling another religion who is and is not its legitimate leader. Unbelievable.
The Turk wanted to play games when it came time for the 4th ID to transit from port to north Iraq, so the Turk is now free to eat dog droppings.
Pay back’s a muther.
Northern (former Iraq) is now Kurdistan. It is not all that the Kurds had hoped for, but it is theirs.
They should use it with a brain, call other Kurds to it, and stop fomenting discord with Turkey. They could be an increbibly powerful state if they’d simply recognize what’s been handed to them.
Sounds good in theory. What do you think will happen the second the US leaves Iraq? The Turks will attack Northern Iraq and take the land and kill the people. You may not have noticed, but they are not “live and let live” sorta folks.
The Kurds are the ones soaking up the lessons on warfare being given by the US Government. They’ll be an impressive fighting force.
Also, I think the US might have a long presence in Kurdistan. That would mitigate against any Turkish attack. That’s why Kurds outside of Kurdistan should begin a homecoming; recognizing as did Israel, when granted Palestine by the UN, that their ultimate security lies in strengthening their own state.
The Turkish sabre-rattling is encouraged by the treasonous talk of withdrawal in Washington DC. They think we will leave Iraq soon, so they can come in, destroy Kurdistan, take Kirkuk and have the oil. If the forces of sanity prevail here, we will have permanent bases in Kurdistan to maintain strategic presence and help our Kurdish partners.
I fully agree with you.
The Kurdish people, though, need to recognize the gift that’s been given them in an independent Kurdistan complete with great natural resources. They should knock off aggravating the Turks, Iranians, and Syrians.
Turkey is prepared to move 140,000 troops to its border with Northern Iraq. The entire fighting force of the US in Iraq - including the surge - is 150,000. What chance do the Kurds have against the Turkish army - armed with US and Israeli weapons, I might add.
That is what we call ethnic cleansing. Genocide like the Armenian genocide should not be repeated by these evil Islamists. I also hope Constantinople will be liberated, and the lost territories of the Armenians returned. Turkey has not paid the price as Germany did.
I wish the Albanian Muslims attempting to steal Serbian Kosovo would listen to your advice and go home to Albania!
Of course, Albania doesn’t want them back, they know the folks stealing Kosovo represent the Jihadists and the worst of their criminal element.
Sorry, I replied to a different post.
I think Turkey would be just fine and dandy IF the Kurds would knock off their plots and schemes from inside Turkey.
OK, then. How do you explain those Turks in Iraq that were working with Al-Qaida to restock the country with foreign insurgents as fast as we are killing them? Turkey is a 99.8 percent Muslim country, and has been repeatedly chastised by the EU, the Pope, etc. for harassing (if not killing outright) the Christians who live amongst them. This is not a secular, pluralistic democracy - and in recent years both nationalists and Islamists have been gaining political and social clout so Turkey is definitely moving in the “wrong” direction as far as the West is concerned. Turkey is not a reliable ally in our protracted struggle against Islamofascism. Face it, we have another duplicitous Saudi Arabia on our hands - but without the oil.
Turkey has never been a barrel of laughs. Democratic forces are currently losing to radical islam in Turkey. They have not been a dependable ally.
Therefore, we should abandon Kurdistan????
If we lose the Kurds because we side with Turkey against the PKK, then Iraq is lost.
The Turks bought and paid for this.
Nobody wants the Kurds to be free because there happens to be lots of oil under them, and their neighbors like to steal it.
Kurdistan would be carved out of illegally seized territory now held by Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
The range of territory in which Kurdish people exist is greater than the territory in Iraq granted as Kurdistan.
The Kurds, however, should take the offering and not expect anything more. No one will be carving up more of Turkey or Iran and handing it over to them.
They’ve got a state now. Rejoice and build it into something that others would find attractive.
We get to pre-emptivate, but they don’t...
We should withdraw from Iraq through Tehran. Heres how I think we should pull out of Iraq. Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. Its the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we dont want to play that role, Iraqs civil war will end with A or B.
Lets say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a withdrawal from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when were all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldnt really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who dont mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that dont secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they dont engage with Turkey. But that doesnt say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesnt relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isnt our problem, its 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), theyre fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didnt allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
Its time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your friend when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldnt be a wise move for them, theyd get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. Its time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, its a messy situation. If Turkey goes into the war on Irans side then they aint really our allies and thats the end of that.
I agree that its hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the 15 rules for understanding the Middle East
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that dont agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant allies like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that wed need as many folks in police and nurses uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didnt follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just havent won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, theyve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when theyre done with that, we can help negotiate with our other allies, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up whats left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
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.