Turkey Warned About Invading Kurdistan

July 20, 2006

Comments

Pick your cliche–adding gasoline to the fire, straw to the camel’s back, or whatever. The U.S. has warned Turkey that it is not to cross the Iraqi border to pursue Kurdish guerillas making raids into Turkish territory. Turkey is none too pleased about that warning.

WASHINGTON warned Turkey yesterday that it opposed any attempt to pursue separatist Kurdish rebels into northern Iraq.

The statement came a day after Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, said that his security forces were drawing up such plans.

Although such a move would prove domestically popular it is likely to hurt Turkey’s already precarious European Union accession talks and threaten to destabilise the calmest part of its strife-ridden neighbour.

The US statement, issued by its embassy in Ankara, said that Turkey had a right to defend itself against Kurdish rebels but warned against unilateral action across the border.

Mr Erdogan said: “There is no point in endlessly discussing the issue. Our security forces are getting on with their task. Whatever steps need to be taken will definitely be taken.”

I’d like to think that it goes without saying that the last thing the Middle East needs right now is Turkish troops crossing the Iraqi border. Unfortunately, I can come up with a bunch of worse scenarios off of the top of my head. Still, if Turkey gets embroiled in Iraq, there’s no question that things are going to get worse. The U.S. has, by and large, pretty much lost Turkey as an ally, but if they cross the border, Turkey will no doubt come down on the enemy column. Things could get even worse if U.S. troops are sent north to confront the Turks.

I wish I could see a positive side of this, but I don’t.

19 responses to “Turkey Warned About Invading Kurdistan”

AHS ILERI

July 20, 2006 at 4:05 am

Unfortunately, there is no positive side to this… I would have to add that I disagree with the US having “pretty much lost Turkey as an ally” since the existing ties are too complex to dismiss summarily. The US may have lost the present AKP government… The US could have helped the situation positively had the Northern Iraqi Kurds been controlled after 2003 thereby cooling the tension in SE Turkey. Of course, this may have been better “arranged” had the Turkish parliament allowed for US troops to move into Iraq from Turkey in the north. This is the thorn in US-TR relations which keeps coming up…The Turks had good reason (PKK) to move into N Iraq while the No-Fly zones were in place (N and S) and this in fact was beneficial in controlling “terrorist action”, until Iraq, as we knew it before ’03 ceased to exist and the game was effectively changed. US support(and some indications of Israeli “training” of the Kurds) to the Kurds of N. Iraq is a source of major concern to Turkey and will continue to be so as long as Turkey is not assured and convinced of what it’s ally (the US) has in mind in and for the area in question. In a way then, it may be up to the US to understand and explain this to its ally – and possibly re-structuring its long standing ties once again – as was evident in the latest round of C. Rice and A. Gul talks, both in TR and in DC.
AHS ILERI

July 20, 2006 at 6:09 am

FYI; some more in relation to the above on the counterterrorism blog and here http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=35091#
LJD

July 20, 2006 at 8:02 am

Maybe if we kidnap the soldiers crossing the border, they’ll give back the American citizens held in Turkish prisons…
AHS ILERI

July 20, 2006 at 8:55 am

LJD, sorry… but, what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China? Evidently, if anyone (US citizen or otherwise) is to break a law in the US they would be punished for it, wouldn’t they? So…I fail to understand what specific case you are referring to in this context…and why?
Also, referring to the subject of the article…please note that “closed doors” conferencing about an entry by Turkey into N. Iraq is currently underway…in which the US seemingly would like 3 way (US-TR-Iraq) exchange of communication “etc”. Maybe this bit of info is of help in answering your comment?
regards.
madmatt

July 20, 2006 at 9:11 am

So it is ok for israel to defend itself but not turkey….why?
Anderson

July 20, 2006 at 9:52 am

Another prewar prediction coming home to roost …
DC Loser

July 20, 2006 at 10:16 am

Turkey will just use the Israeli example and pursue terrorists across its borders.
LJD

July 20, 2006 at 10:20 am

Uh, it was a joke. I was alluding to the left-bollah defense of terrorists in Lebanon.

As far as I know, we do not give people life in prison for posession of personal amounts of the local crop.
legion

July 20, 2006 at 10:40 am

Ugh. I was afraid of this… I don’t think a lot of people realize just how much the Turks and Kurds hate each other (and how long this has been going on). If Turkey really does go across the border “officially” (as opposed to the unofficial raids they’ve been making for years), they won’t stop with just securing their border. They will begin a systematic extermination of all Kurds, just like what happened in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The only hope is if enough Turks would rather have an economic future (by getting into the EU) than killing a bunch of Kurds…
DaveP.

July 20, 2006 at 11:11 am

Turkey is still very vulnerable to American diplomacy- they’ve been dying to get into the EU for ten years now, and turned down every time on human rights grounds (actually, the real reason has more to do with demographics than rights). Over the past few years, Turkey has changed its rights policies dramatically to bring itself into compliance with EU diktats- and still is denied. American support could make or break EU membership for Turkey, and and if it isn’t forthcoming, a trade treaty with America could dry a lot of economic tears.
Irritate us in Iraq, however, especially after Turkey’s performance in the Iraq invasion… all bets are off.
AHS ILERI

July 20, 2006 at 11:20 am

We need to get the facts straight…Are we aware of the % “population” of Kurds living in Turkey? of the “legal” amount of business they do (and maybe of the illegal trade, ie narco-trade). A systematic extermination and the possibility for a comparison w/the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda do not exist, the conditions are wholly dissimilar as a short perusal of history will show…
but to have gone thru nearly 15 years of a “separatist” movement (w/30000+ Turkish citizens killed) in the SE and have it surface again at, coincidentally, the same time as the “full situation” in Iraq and now the full situation in Lebanon/Gaza strip is noteworthy. And note also that the “former” PKK is also recognised by the US as a terrorist group…
BTW, close to 70% of the TR population is in favor of joining the EU, of which both TR and the EU would benefit tremendously, tho’ the whole process is not an easy series of steps… taking that into account TR would, both militarily and politically, “weigh” all this very delicately before taking any action…and I doubt any action taken would be unilaterally decided upon.
yetanotherjohn

July 20, 2006 at 12:04 pm

I suspect that this is more Kabuki diplomacy on the part of Turkey to set itself up as a broker for a cease fire. There apparently have been some statements by Turkey to Assad in Syria that they were “maneuvering behind the scenes” to make this happen.
Cernig

July 20, 2006 at 12:42 pm

Madmatt asks a really important question and no-one answers.

I will try again. This is one of the three truly fundemental questions pointed up by the current conflict in the M.E. (the others are here).

Could someone please explain whether the Bush Doctrine, backed by Cheney’s “one percent” theory, is a universal paradigm or whether we are to understand it as the sole preserve of America and those allies it deigns to “green light”?

Turkey and Iran have both been attacked by a terror group with admitted strong ties to and support from Kurdish local authority in Iraq and with ties to the Iraqi govt. as a whole (inc. Talibani). India and Afghanistan are both certain they have been attacked by terror groups with strong ties to and support from Pakistani intelligence.

Why are these four nations not allowed to apply the precepts of the “war on terror” that have been most touted by the neocons and the Militant Right?

Someone?…Anyone?…James, Alex, Steve, Greg?….Bueller?

Regards, Cernig
legion

July 20, 2006 at 1:01 pm

Cernig,
The main difference between Israel and Turkey is that nobody’s threatening to wipe Turkey off the map. No country, AFAIK, has ever stated an intent, or even a desire to see, all Turks murdered. And while every country has the right to defend its own borders, there’s a big difference between defending and full-on counter-invasion… You need a lot more justification (and Israel might just have it, but that’s a different debate) to invade a neighboring country and call it ‘self-defense’. While the Kurds may be a huge pain to the Turks, they’re no threat to the existence of the country…
Cernig

July 20, 2006 at 1:22 pm

Legion,

By your logic, which is in direct opposition to the Bush/Cheney/Kristol version of the Pre-emptive Doctrine, (which comes complete with that hair-trigger of “one percent”) but seems rather more compelling to me, the US was probably right to invade Afghanistan but definitely wrong to invade Iraq and India could make a damn good case that it would be right to invade Pakistan.

Now can you explain the inconsistencies between your logic and the neocon/Militant Right position? Currently, they seem to be selectively blind to the implications of Bush’s words which includes the precept that – ‘We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them”.

Selective blindness does not make a Doctrine, it makes a biased expediency. There’s a large chunk of the rest of the world, myself included, that wouldn’t object to a “benevolent American hegemony” if that’s what it actually was – but selective blindness doesn’t fit that bill of sale either. It makes for a rule of force which will automatically be resisted even by ostensibly friendly nations and groups.

Regards, Cernig
yetanotherjohn

July 20, 2006 at 3:43 pm

Cernig,

Apply the same logic to the massive incursions across the US border from Mexico.

The Bush doctrine was that pre-emptive war to eliminate a threat that was not imminent now but is seen as likely to grow is justified. Iraq was not in compliance with the UN demands, we had a cease fire (but not an end) to the Gulf war where Iraq had violated the terms of the cease fire (heck even Clinton fired some missiles at them).

Israel had an immediate danger (troops captured), a medium term danger (missiles across the border) and long term danger (the puppet master is developing nukes).

Turkey has every right to request Iraq to control its borders so that it doesn’t act as a sanctuary. Not that this would be the first time in history that an international border is used as a sanctuary with or without the consent of the country. It is not reasonable to go the further step and say that the threat to Turkey is so dire and the ability of the Iraqi government to contain the threat is so lacking to justify Turkey crossing the border.

The US had a problem similar to this in the last century. Armed bandits, whom the central government would have been just as happy to see hanged as the US would have, raided across the border into the US from Mexico. The US repeatedly pulled up short at the border. They tried to work with the Mexican government. The US stationed troops along the border and seriously curtailed the raids into the US, but attacks continued against Americans inside Mexico.

17 Americans were pulled from a train in 1916 and shot (one got away by faking death). The US still did not invade. A couple months latter a 500 man raiding party attacked into the US killing over two dozen. The about 30 of the US military chased those responsible and killed about 100.

The US response was to station more troops on the border and get the Mexican government’s agreement to pursue Villa. Wilson’s war orders limited Pershing’s actions, especially since Pershing was not allowed to fire on Mexican troops, even if they were aiding Villa.

The US situation is much more in line with what Turkey is facing in Iraq. If Turkey had joined with the US in 2003, they would most likely not be facing the issue as they would have troops on both sides (a good argument that it would have made the Kurd situation harder in Iraq can also be made).
MSM

July 20, 2006 at 3:46 pm

Turkey has a right to defend itself against terrorists and the countries that harbor them
legion

July 20, 2006 at 4:24 pm

Cernig,
OK, here goes…

the US was probably right to invade Afghanistan but definitely wrong to invade Iraq

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, in that I do not believe (nor do I believe the evidence at the time showed) that Iraq was going to become a direct threat to the US in any meaningful timeframe.

and India could make a damn good case that it would be right to invade Pakistan.

That would be an interesting case, but I don’t know enough to throw my hat in that ring yet.

Now can you explain the inconsistencies between your logic and the neocon/Militant Right position?

You do a pretty good job of that yourself…

Currently, they seem to be selectively blind to the implications of Bush’s words which includes the precept that – “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them”.

‘Selective blindness’ is an apt term. There are several areas right now that are much more obvious (>1%) threats to the US than Iraq was… yet we’re not invading (for example) North Korea. And Saudi Arabia’s connections to AQ, wahabbism, and terrorism in general are quite well documented, but we never even considered invading there.

Selective blindness does not make a Doctrine, it makes a biased expediency.

It’s not even that. It’s purely an excuse applied after-the-fact to rationalize doing whatever they wanted to do in the first place – in this case, invade Iraq. The fact that it contradicts current policy means nothing, since it was only a convenient lie to begin with…
AHS ILERI

July 21, 2006 at 4:53 am

Maybe a bit late late in this argument, but to get back to the article’s heading itself…there is no “Kurdistan” (established) to “invade”. Underlying this whole issue there is an intent, by the Kurds, to establish such a “de-facto” state which would also require that some sovereign nations would give up territory to. SE Turkey is shown to be a part of these nations ‘forfeiting’ land…note “Blood borders-How a better Middle East would look…By Ralph Peters” as published recently in the US Armed Forces Journal… so a right to protect a sovereign nation against this should be understood in its context…(ie Israel). So, the intent may not be to wipe Turkey off the map but to secure/gain an amount of land that is within established borders (Turkish) and in doing so kill many thousands (of Turks)would not be acceptable in any self respecting democracy…ie the Villa case in the US, as mentioned above.
I fully agree with “The US situation is much more in line with what Turkey is facing in Iraq. If Turkey had joined with the US in 2003, they would most likely not be facing the issue as they would have troops on both sides (a good argument that it would have made the Kurd situation harder in Iraq can also be made) as posted by ‘yetanotherjohn’…and wish that TR had in fact done exactly that…and think that it would have made a different situation out of what we are seeing in the whole of Iraq presently.
In short, Turkey should not be an ally to be summarily “dismissed” by the US in the eventual possibility of this case. It is a recognised fact that the US understands the Turkish position on the politics of this region and the importance of Turkey’s strategic alliance. Naturally, this works both ways… needless to say Turkey’s military relations date back to Ottoman times and were strongly apparent during the Korean War in the 50’s… so I doubt that this issue is just “blowing in the wind”.
In many ways I appreciate the input all of you have provided/shared in this discussion…and thank you for it…Tho’ I agree with some comments and not all… I think this ‘site’ provides for an excellent exchange of views. Regards to all.