Northern Front Options

efreedomnews ^ | 3/1/2003 | Jonathan Rhodes

[efnwriter]

efreedomnews         WAR ON TERRORISM - AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE

Northern Front Options
Jonathan Rhodes
1 March 2003

Turkey's military has the institutional responsibility to maintain the secular nature of the Turkish government.  As detailed in Stratfor, Modern Turkey was founded by the Turkish army as an explicitly secular state and "periodically has intervened in public life to guarantee that secularity." Not that a coup is by any means necessary now although the democratically elected Islamicist government has been unable to agree to specifically allow 60,000 US troops to disembark at their ports. Instead, this government has been careful not to invoke religiosity in order to avoid US assistance. The military can still facilitate movement of US troops and material. The government can continue to respond to the reported 90% anti-war opinion in Turkey. If domestic politics get out of hand, the Army will intervene.

The option for a light armored force directly built up in northern Iraq is already in progress.

US material has been consistently offloading at Turkish ports and moving by rail towards the Iraqi border. The U.S. roll-on/roll-off ship the Capella unloaded military equipment including "heavy vehicles, tankers and work machines" at Iskenderun yesterday. The cargo ship Gute, also unloaded there Friday and military equipment was unloaded at a port farther west near the city of Silifke in Mersin province.

In August, 2002 efn reported that the US had uncontested control of the skies in the no-fly zones. Combined with relative Kurdish autonomy in the North, this gives the US the ability to operate unmolested, so far.

American Special Forces Units have been in the Kurdish regions of Northern Iraq since March, 2002, working with the Kurds. Turkish Special Forces have likewise infiltrated the Turkomen regions near the oil cities of Mosul and Kirkuk.

American and Turkish engineers have built and refitted a series of small airbases along three axes:

Axis 1, or the western axis, starts in the northern Kurdish city of Zako and stretches southwest along the Iraqi border with Syria to the city of Sinjar, west of the oil city of Mosul.
Axis 2, or the central axis, stretches from Zako south to the Kurdish-controlled city of Irbil, located between the two main Iraqi oil cities of the north – Mosul and Kirkuk. The airfields now under construction are points on the axis.
Axis 3, or the eastern axis, stretches from Irbil to Sulimaniyeh, the Kurdish power and government hub in northern Iraq.

Some C-130's and the C-17 Globemaster are capable of operating from underdeveloped airfields like those now in place in northern Iraq.

 

An invasion along the northern front would involve difficult mountainous terrain and poor transportation infrastructure. Turkish units are already deployed and could carry the beginning of the fight in the north. Lighter US forces supported by the Turks could continue to build up after the southern invasion started. Already, Republican Guard units are reported consolidating out of the Mosul area south to Tikrit.

The main goals of the northern front are to hold the Kurdish areas and the northern cities Mosul, Kirkuk and Al Sulimaniyeh along with the Syrian-Iraqi railroad and oil pipelines. This can all be accomplished through an independent buildup in northern Iraq.

[efnwriter]

efn PING list. To subscribe/unsubscribe from list send freep email to efnwriter

[Friend of thunder]

So, what does this mean if we cannot use bases in Turkey? I have been trying to find info on how this will affect our timetable, both here and on news outlets; I cannot find much.

[sam_paine]

Funny. We can't ship arms into Iraq, but everyone else can.

[ScholarWarrior]

And you won't find much that is reliable. Thank God.

[Friend of thunder]

I am not looking for detailed plans, obviously if we cannot use bases in Turkey it will make an invasion of Iraq more difficult. I am curious as to the opinions of people who have more knowledge about these matters than I do.

[Fabozz]

"So, what does this mean if we cannot use bases in Turkey?"

From the article, which certainly sounds cogent, it doesn't affect things much. The Turkish military is not happy with this decision from their Parliament, so they're going to find ways to work around it. Basically, the Turks will transship our equipment over the Iraqi border, where it'll get picked up by US troops landing at provisional airbases there. Sort of like a Kurdish REFORGER.

If the Iraqi army were organized enough to mount a preemptive strike into the Kurdish areas, Saddam might be able to hit our troops while they were unpacking their gear. Since Iraq can't hope to do that and defend the southern front at the same time, that won't happen. Likewise, if Saddam could control his skies, he could afford to reinforce his southern front for the first few weeks, shifting troops later as the delayed northern invasion force got going. However, once the war begins all Iraqi forces will be pinned in place—remember the Highway of Death?—so if there's ever going to be a northern front, Saddam has to defend it properly now.

No, the big losers in this are the Turkish people. But hey, you get the government you deserve. If they want to be part of dar-al-Islam rather than the West, so be it.

[ScholarWarrior]

You are right that it is always easier and safer to deploy using developed facilities in a secure perimeter with electricity, gasoline, and food.

We know how to do it the other way, too.

[Bulldogs22]

Wait till tommorrow when Turkey's currency falls and thier stocks plummet. Turkey will care about this more than thier public opinion in the next few days. Watch.

[Amerigomag]

obviously if we cannot use bases in Turkey it will make an invasion of Iraq more difficult. I am curious as to the opinions of people who have more knowledge about these matters than I do.

As this article points out the Turkish vote does not have a material effect on the invasion of Iraq. It does have a material effect on the conduct of the war, more specifically on the post Saddam political configuration of Iraq.

Without US troops based in Turkey (northern Iraq) the initial invasion may well lead to military confrontations between the Turks and the Kurds instead of concentrating on the preservation of the strategic assets of historic Kurdistan.

[TimPatriot]

The Turkish military is not happy with this decision from their Parliament, so they're going to find ways to work around it

I'm interested in what evidence "we" have that the Turkish military is both unhappy with the Parliament action and that they will definately be able to work around it. I ask out of ignorance, not to debate your statement.

[SoCal Pubbie]

"US material has been consistently offloading at Turkish ports and moving by rail towards the Iraqi border. "

I'm surprised more posters have not picked up on this. If true, and I thought I saw news footage days ago to this effect, then cannot the troops be airlifted into northern Iraq to meet up with the equipment? Is this what's happening?

[EaglesUpForever]

Yeah, we should just have the troops dress up as North Koreans, or French/German "human shields", and they'll receive a warm welcome.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Friend of thunder]

From the article, which certainly sounds cogent, it doesn't affect things much. The Turkish military is not happy with this decision from their Parliament, so they're going to find ways to work around it. Basically, the Turks will transship our equipment over the Iraqi border, where it'll get picked up by US troops landing at provisional airbases there. Sort of like a Kurdish REFORGER.

Okay, so the military is, to some extent, ignoring the will of the government. I realize they have that power but do we need permission (from the government of Turkey) to transport troops and equipment across Turkey? And if the Turks themselves cross the boarder of Iraq themselves isn’t that an act of war? And with such a large percentage of the population in Turkey, against war will our Government really be part of what is, while not coup, certainly behavior that we in the United States we would not tolerate (i.e. the military making policy) or am I missing something?

[FreeReign]

And with such a large percentage of the population in Turkey, against war

More Turk reps. voted for our troops than against.

will our Government really be part of what is, while not coup, certainly behavior that we in the United States we would not tolerate (i.e. the military making policy) or am I missing something?

The democratically elected representitives of Turkey as directed by their constitution have told the US that they will hinder the US from removing a threatening tyrant -- Sadaam.

It is within our unalienable right to work with the Turkish military against their elected government that defends such a threatening tyrant.

[Friend of thunder]

It is within our unalienable right to work with the Turkish military against their elected government that defends such a threatening tyrant.

Clearly we have the right to defend ourselves. My understanding is that we do not need a northern front. Working with the Turkish military against their elected government is to say the least provocative; I wonder if our government will take such an unconventional action.

[FreeReign]

It is within our unalienable right to work with the Turkish military against their elected government that defends such a threatening tyrant.

Clearly we have the right to defend ourselves. My understanding is that we do not need a northern front.

If we don't have a need to use the northern front, then clearly we should not work with the Turkish militarty against their elected government. It all depends on reasonable need.