Posted on 03/04/2003 6:18:00 AM PST by Axion
War Diary: Tuesday, March 4, 2003 Monday, March 03 was a strangely quiet day. On the diplomatic front, the United States indicated that it would not ask for a new resolution until next week -- March 10 or later. On the military front, the 101st Airborne Division deployed to Kuwait, instead of to Turkey as had been expected. The 101st is awaiting its equipment, which is due to arrive later in the week. With the arrival of the 101st, there is now the equivalent of more than six divisions in Kuwait. Only the 4th Infantry Division is still back in the United States, waiting at Fort Hood for orders to deploy to Turkey, or to Kuwait, or to be left out altogether.
Mar 04, 2003
The reason for the quiet was that leaders in Washington were trying to figure out the meaning of the Turkish parliamentary vote that denied the possibility of U.S. troops stationing in the country. They also were trying to figure out what effect this new move would have on strategy.
Washington sources said that it would not ultimately affect war-fighting strategy, which likely is true to some extent, but still leaves open the question of how to manage events in northern Iraq during and after a war.
Washington's first response was that it expected the Turks to reconsider their vote. The vote was reversed on a technicality - in essence the lack of a quorum -- and Washington seemed to feel that Parliament would reconsider. At this point, there is no sign of such a move. Nor is it clear where the Turkish military stands in the situation.
One answer to the issue of a northern front is that the Turks would take responsibility for it by themselves. If the United States attacked from the south and the Iraqi government were collapsing, Turkey would have little choice but to move farther south into Iraq than it already has.
First, the Turks do not want chaos on their southern border. Second, they would not object to taking control of Iraq's northern oil fields. Third, the Turkish administration, which violently opposes the creation of an independent Kurdish state on nearby Iraqi territory, would be able to prevent this more effectively than would the United States.
In moving south, particularly in the direction of Kirkuk, the Turks inevitably would encounter Iraqi forces deployed in the region. The Turkish army is sufficiently competent to deal with the Iraqis. Therefore, in effect, there would be a northern front with or without U.S. forces. There also probably would be some sort of partitioning of the country -- along the lines of a Turkish-controlled north and a U.S.-controlled south -- but that still would satisfy U.S. strategic interests. Thus, even if there are no U.S. forces in Turkey, it is difficult to see how the Turks would refrain from serving as a surrogate force -- whether they wanted to or not. Their national interest is not compatible with the emergence of a Kurdish state, which could bring chaos on their borders or a loss of valuable oil fields.
The Iranians clearly are aware that this might be the Turkish policy. Iranian forces have been moving the thousands across the frontier with Iraq. They are equally opposed to a Kurdish state, even though they are allied with a Kurdish faction. More important, if Iraq is to disintegrate, then the Iranians intend to at least protect their frontier -- and possibly enhance their own strategic position. The problem is that it will be up to the Turks and Iranians to manage the situation alone -- and given their support for competing Kurdish movements, the opportunity for instability is substantial.
Thus, as Washington tried to absorb the implications of the Turkish position, there was no real sense of panic. As we have said in the past, no major thrust was likely from the north anyway, and the U.S. read of the situation was that the Turks had no choice but to act alone. However, the deployment of the 101st to Kuwait would take some time, and airmobile forces are important for the attack on Iraq.
The war timing is becoming increasingly opaque. Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported that the timing of the war had now moved to late March or early April. If true, it would mean that the United States is risking war during hot weather and dust storms. It is possible, but the compelling reason for such a decision is unclear. Aside from diplomatic advantage, the military advantage is dubious.
The Iraqis of course are intensifying their defensive measures. They are digging wide ditches for tank traps and preparing to fill them with oil. They appear to be placing these north and south of Baghdad, so that even if Baghdad falls, another defensive line will be formed to the north. They are redeploying forces. The Iraqi forces are not growing weaker, and in this atmosphere the probability of a resignation by leader Saddam Hussein or coup in Baghdad is minimal. Therefore, with time no longer on the U.S. side, the Israeli report, if true, is puzzling. We continue to believe that, simply from a military standpoint, an action in the near future makes more sense than any further postponement.
To give cover to the Turks to go in alone? Sparing us from getting involved with a messy situation in the North?
I give them about as much weight as any other Freeper's opinion. They're not experts, even though they claim to be.
They missed the boat on this one again. Annexation of northern Iraq by Turkey would not be acceptable.
We are now about the point where any further news coming out is questionable. Buckle up your seatbelts.
We would never fire on a NATO member unless fired upon. We would have to drop more troops into n. Iraq to stop them.
No kidding. Whoever wrote this doesn't understand our Commander in Chief one whit. Our current CIC has the integrity of the father of our country, another Commander in Chief, and another George. If you don't understand that about George W. Bush, you will always miss the mark.
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.