The Menu (Turkish Editorial)

Milliyet ^ | 2/24/2003 | Guneri Civaoghlu

[a_Turk]

During Gulf War 1 I visited the residence of our current Foreign Minister Yashar Yakish, who was the Turkish ambassador in Riyadh at the time.

Yakish had called the US ambassador.

He had secured meetings with some of the US commanders of the operation. The first signs of the challenges Yakish has met nowadays were visible during those meetings..

Two US officers with excellent Turkish skills made some very interesting statements in a suite on the upper floors of a hotel where the US command was at work. Even though I had written about these conversations in previous essays, I think it makes sense to repeat some of them..


The Hand on the Map

The American colonel had worked as part of an aid team in Ankara and knew perfect Turkish.

While providing his information he had moved toward the map on the wall, had placed his palm over northern Irak andwhile moving it around had said:

"We will move up to Baghdad.

Saddam will fall.

Irak will go through a transition.

But... even if Saddam were to stay, Turkey will enter a difficult time..

Because the Kurds in northern Irak had already militarized. They will confiscate the heavy weaponry left over fdreom Saddam's forces. They will be stronger.

They will put together their own regime in the area.

They may demand land from Turkey.

You're either going to give it to them or you're going to have to fight..."

Not deep but Cool

I couldn't believe my ears..

Was there some mistake?

Or perhaps it was a joke.

No, it was not... Because the other office who spoke next repeated what the first one had shared..

I asked:

"And you?

Will America be a spectator?"

Their answer... "Once we're done with our work we are going to leave here. We'll return home. Turkey will remain with the Kurds of northern Irak."

I didn' want to drag this out. They were after all gears of a plan hatched by others far higher up..

Yet, I had said a few things, none the less:

"You performed this operation with Turkish help.. You used our bases.. The northern Iraki Kurds you said would 'demand land from Turkey, may opt to fight' ran to us from Saddam's butchery.

We took them under our wing.

So now you're telling me that, as though this weren't the result of US policy: 'We will leave and northern Irak will be your problem to deal with.'

What kind of friendship is this, what kind of partnership?"

Their answer was not deep, but cool.

"The US partnered with Turkey for the liberation of Kuwait. Once our goal is reached we will leave..."

Vietnam reminder

I thought..

This seems to be how America operates. It leaves without even looking back.

The waste it lays is no longer her problem. This was how she left Vietnam after years of fighting there.

After years of shoulder to shoulder fighting, their friends were left to the Communists in a heartbeat.

Let's return to our own (Turkish) geography.

Plainly Turkey had had her situations with the Kurdish challenge in northern Irak before Saddam had attacked Kuwait, and before the US pushed him back.

That's why the US officers were shrugging and suggesting that 'nothing had changed.'

Yet it was the US who had altered the scene by removing the central authority and by arming northern Irak.

After leaving a warehouse of bombs there, and lighting the fuse, she was claiming to have nothing to do personally there.

Cafe Politics

Yashar Yakish was the guest on the Sunday Morning show, Cafe Politics.. He was complaining that there was still no agreement with the USA on the military and political aspects of northern Irak.

"The forces of Barzani and Talabani are are arming themselves well in northern Irak, and they will arm themselves even better.

These arms must be collected after the war. This is where we're unable to agree." he was saing.

In other words... The scenario which was presented to Yashar Yakish 12 years ago while he was ambassador to Riyadh is being presented again.

Turkey will be spent (that means given the "oh well") one way or the other in the end, and she is right to fight as had hard as she is for her national security interests.

[a_Turk]

ping..

[a_Turk]

ping

[Sparta]

I hope Bush doesn't betray Turkey with an independent Kurdistan. That nation would be ruled by Islamists or Communists.

[ScholarWarrior]

There will be no independent Kurdistan.

We were leaving after Gulf I. We have other things to do after this one.

[a_Turk]

Signature required..

[Dog Gone]

If signatures meant anything, Hitler couldn't have attacked Stalin.

[ScholarWarrior]

Fraid mine doesn't count for much, Turk, especially since my wife went shopping again today. My guess is that W isn't going to write anything down that would p*** off the Kurds while we're warming up the jets.

However, to give you some solace, I don't see how it would be in the US advantage anyway to promote independent Kurds. We would want Turkey to guard the left flank while we wrap up Baghdad and then go to Tehran & eastward.

[DeuceTraveler]

Here is one way to look at it:

What is in the interests of the US to push for a seperate Kurdistan? I can't think of one.

[a_Turk]

I wasn't asking for your signature, I was stating their position :)

[Bob J]

NOW on RadioFR! Brent Bozell (Media Research Center), Scott Hogenson (CNSNews.com), Bill Federer (author and ex US Congressman), Tygh Bailes (Leadership Institute)and Gary Nowlan (Libertarian Party Prez Candidate)!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep! HIFI broadband feed HERE! (when available)

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Click HERE!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

Miss a show?

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

[a_Turk]

>> What is in the interests of the US to push for a seperate Kurdistan?

Neither can I see why the US should disarm the militias, the leaders of which have this on their web site:



.. Who can swear that dems won't be in the Whitehouse in 2 years? With this economy, I won't..

We need a little treaty. Lip service, seems, won't do..

[ScholarWarrior]

Sorry, my mistake.

Actually, unless I'm mistaken, the Kurds aren't pushing for ind Kurd., are they?

Also, I hope you understand that it is better if we have the support of the Kurds during operations. . .

[AM2000]

Thanks for the ping. This article really brings it all together in a way that lets even those unfamiliar with Turkey (like me) understand why Turkey has recently behaved the way they have. Unfortunately, when it comes to geopolitics, loyalty costs money and soldiers, so it's hard to stay loyal to anything but the actual mission.

[Mortimer Snavely]

"This seems to be how America operates. It leaves without even looking back.

The waste it lays is no longer her problem. This was how she left Vietnam after years of fighting there.

After years of shoulder to shoulder fighting, their friends were left to the Communists in a heartbeat. "

Actually, JFK screwed Vietnam much earlier by supporting a coup against Diem.

Bay of Pigs, anyone?

[a_Turk]

>> Actually, unless I'm mistaken, the Kurds aren't pushing for ind Kurd., are they?

The map is off their website.


>> Also, I hope you understand that it is better if we have the support of the Kurds during operations. . .

Sure, I understand that between their leaders' irresponsible behavior and American pragmatism the poor Kurds are going to have a Turkish boot shoved up their asses...

Their leaders will be dead, you'll be back in suburbia trimming your hedges and we'll have to put up with their indignation for another ten years...

[AM2000]

Just what exactly is the problem with an Independent Kurdistan comprising of the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, anyway? Turkey's done a good job of protecting its territory so far, it'll just have to continue doing that. Help me understand..what is the big issue here?

[a_Turk]

Their parliament declared 3 parties, one of which is the terrorist group the PKK. Plus their Map. We don't need another nutty neighbor.

[WOSG]

awww, crap ... same old crap ... "This seems to be how America operates."

Vietnam was 25 year ago .. it happened due to Democrat perfidy. They wanted to leave people under COmmunism
more than they wanted to bother with defending our allies.

IN case you havent noticed in the debate this past 6 months, they would rather let people rot under dictators than make America look 'bad' by standing up for our interests and security. They really have gone AWOL on defending America and defending freedom.

Vietnam happened because "Cut and run" is the preferred mode of *some* in America. Same with 'bay of pigs', same with Clinton in Somalia and same with Clinton's 'Desert Fox' where he wounded Saddam (slightly) - violating the dictum to never wound an enemy. (Either kill him or leave him alone).

"It leaves without even looking back."

The critique of US as cut-and-run is
PROOF ONCE AGAIN THAT G W BUSH IS PAYING A PRICE FOR THE ERRORS OF THOSE WHO WENT BEFORE HIM.

(It's a fair critique when you recall how even in Iraq we shafted the Kurds and a few Iraqi generals in 1996 who were ready to topple Saddam, then Clinton admin got cold feet at the last minute ... a "Bay of Pigs" experience indeed; many fighters for freedom were killed, many plotter found by Saddam's forces and executed, and Saddam won the day.)

G W Bush is different, but he will have to prove it!

Sure you can critique us, by America *was* steadfast in standing down the Communist/Soviet threat. You can find remarkable examples, like the Berlin airlift, Korean War, our support of Afghan rebels, our patient and oten frustrating mideast diplomacy, our work in NATO, etc. etc.

If there is a lesson it is that steadfast policies work, and 'cut-n-run' breeds disaster later.

As for Gulf War I, there was the option to take out Saddam... it is hypocritical in the *extreme* for Turkish editors to whine about it going down the way it did, since *they* and the *Saudis* and a bunch of other regional powers DIDNT WANT US TO TAKE SADDAM OUT!!! (If you can find an editorial or govt statement contradicting it, I'm all ears!) Turkey and other nations put pressure on the US *not* to invade Baghdad, so we didnt. There was also pressure *not* to let "anarchy" (ie freedom loving rebellion against saddam) erupt, so we did nothing to stop Saddam slaughtering Kurds and Shiites who rebelled.

So I think the editorial is not honest. It is not true that we left Kurds and Turks to fight amongst themselves (even if a Colonel implied it would be so); we've been there stopping Saddam from killing the Kurds, we have 12 YEARS of no-fly zones. And the whole time, nobody has suggested eith changing Turkey's borders or promoting Kurdish independence. USA is not listening to kurdish separatists ... it's a red herring!!!

US policy has been consistent. The borders will remain the same. See the UN resolutions. The country will be democratic. Anything else is self-serving or biased. Turkey gains with respect for kurdish autonomy and freedom in Iraq - it will mean less border 'problems' and will eliminate terrorist breeding ground.

[a_Turk]

All I did was translate one of the editorials. They all sound similar. The paper is a nationalist paper.

Whether the President deserves it or not is inconsequential.

Question is do you deserve it..