Turkey Threatens to Invade Iraq, Again

Following the recent re-election of Turkey's prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan , (dubbed by the Jerusalem Post as being "Turkey's Boring Elections"), it was thought that perhaps all of his saber-rattling and military buildup of a reported 140,000 troops along Iraq's northern border (which the US military denied, of course) lining up to go after the PKK in that country might subside - that Erdogan had just used the macho military stance as an election ploy. That assumption, however, may have proven to be a huge misjudgment (and who knows? It may have already started).

(Sidebar: Let's just take note of what WH press sockpuppet Tony Snow had to say about that in early July:

In Washington, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the US shared Turkey's concerns but that it was "important, we think, to recognise the territorial sovereignty of Iraq".

Laugh. I'll wait.)

Alrighty then...on we go...

According to the Washington Post:

CAIRO -- Turkish leaders this week will give visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki what Turkish military commanders and analysts said could be a final warning to act against anti-Turkey Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq -- or to stand by while Turkish forces go after the rebels themselves, risking a new front in Iraq's war.

Leaders of Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party appear to be in agreement with Turkey's generals that the time has come to move against the Kurdistan Workers' Party, known by its Kurdish initials, PKK, in its bases in the mountains of northern Iraq, former generals and a military expert close to the Turkish military's general staff said.
[...]
Turkey accuses Iraq's Kurds -- who have built a nearly autonomous Kurdish state in northern Iraq under protection of the U.S. military since the early 1990s -- of giving the Kurdish rebels a haven and allowing them free passage back and forth across the Iraqi border into Turkey.

And if that sounds exactly like the rhetoric the US is using about going after al Qaeda in northern Pakistan, whether Pakistan agrees or not, it's because it is.

As the WaPo article notes:

Robert D. Novak wrote in a syndicated column that appeared July 30 in The Washington Post that Eric S. Edelman, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey and now an undersecretary of defense policy, had secretly briefed U.S. lawmakers that the United States was planning a covert action with the Turkish army against the PKK in northern Iraq. Edelman added that "the U.S. role could be concealed and always would be denied," according to Novak.

The leak of the alleged plans for a U.S.-Turkish operation makes a fully covert mission now impossible, noted Strategic Forecasting, a private intelligence-analysis agency based in Austin.

But it was one of those "handy" leaks for the US government as well:

With the alleged planning made public, "the United States is betting that the Iraqi Kurdish leadership will succumb to pressure to act against the PKK itself, and thus preclude the need for a major Turkish incursion -- which would be an extremely messy situation considering the bloody result of having two NATO allies, PKK rebels and battle-hardened pesh merga forces fighting it out in mountainous terrain," the group wrote, using the Kurdish term for fighters.

And to complicate matters:

Iran, also combating Kurdish rebels on its soil, has used the situation to court an alliance with Turkey. Last month, the two countries signed a major gas line proposal, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan invited Maliki to the Turkish capital, after Erdogan's party triumphed in the elections. The prime minister accompanied his invitation with a new public warning that Turkey's military would strike the PKK in northern Iraq if the United States and their Iraqi allies failed to do so. Maliki is due in Ankara on Tuesday.

So, if US forces joined in the fight against the PKK, they'd ironically be on the same side as the Iranians. Maybe there was a bit more to the meeting on Monday between the US ambassador and his Iranian counterpart than we know about.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi Kurdish party passed its own oil law on Monday (which invites foreign-based oil companies in to pillage for profit) as a signal to al Maliki's government that it will proceed regardless of his parliamentary problems. Nothing like creating even more tension in Iraq:

While the Kurds view their petroleum law as a mark of their self-governing powers, other Iraqi observers say the Kurdish parliament's actions today could further inflame tensions with Iraq's Shiite and Sunni populations.

"Oil is politics in Iraq and I think this will fuel to the fire and upset more people in Baghdad," said former Iraqi oil minister Issam Al-Chalabi, who is now an independent energy consultant. "I think the Kurds should have waited to get a federal deal first before passing their own oil law."

The Guardian notes:

The operations at Taq Taq and Tawke are based on controversial production-sharing agreements signed with the Kurdistan regional government, under which the private companies get between 10%-20% of the profit. The rest goes into government hands.

Such production-sharing agreements are anathema to much of Iraq's oil establishment, as well as to the country's oil unions. The unions, which are strongest in the southern oilfields around Basra, have also rounded on the Iraqi oil minister, Hussein Shahristani, threatening to disrupt production and exports if foreign oil companies are granted too much access to Iraqi oil. In response, Mr Shahristani has ordered his ministry's agencies and departments not to deal with the unions.

And those union members have been very busy protesting and striking , despite the violence on the streets all around them.

Let's face it: war for oil is a messy business.

Oh...and let's throw Karzai saying nice things about Iran in the mix just to show how absolutely screwed the clueless, incompetent neocons really are.

This war won't be over for a very long time.
 

Turkey, Northern Iraq & the US Military

The Independent reports that Turkey has stepped back from the idea of invading Northern Iraq:

As Turkey's government savoured an overwhelming electoral victory yesterday, regional analysts agreed that the immediate impetus for an invasion of northern Iraq had receded.

Sunday's clear mandate for the Islamic-rooted AKP of the Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been received as a snub to his secularist and nationalist opponents, who put the fight against Kurdish separatist guerrillas across the border at the centre of their failed campaign.

The US military has continually denied reports that Turkey has massed over 100,000 troops on the Iraq border while one general is now raising the possibility of moving US troops out of Northern Iraq and placing the entire region in the hands of the Iraqi government.

If put in place, Mixon's approach would not necessarily mean an overall reduction in U.S. troops early next year. It could mean shifting several thousand troops from Mixon's area to other parts of Iraq for some months.

That, however, could mark the beginning of a phased move away from the heavy combat role U.S. troops have played, at a cost of more than 3,600 U.S. deaths, for more than four years. That, in turn, could lead to the first substantial U.S. troop reductions beginning in the spring or summer — a far slower timetable than many in Congress are demanding.
[...]
There are nearly 24,000 U.S. troops in Mixon's area of responsibility. It stretches north from Baghdad to the Turkish border, including the semiautonomous Kurdish region where three provinces — Dahuk, Irbil and Sulaimaniyah — already have returned to Iraqi government control.

Mixon said he might be able to reduce that total by one-half in the 12 to 18 months after beginning a transition in January.

But, via The Guardian, it's obvious that things aren't quite that simple:

It remains to be seen if the mandate will quickly dissolve the air of crisis that has enveloped Turkey in recent months.

The possible threat of a coup, deadlock between government and opposition over a new head of state, pressure for a military invasion of northern Iraq to crack down on Turkish Kurdish guerrillas sheltering there, poor relations with the US over Iraq, and near-paralysis in Turkey's efforts to negotiate membership of the EU - all these are issues piling up in the in-tray.

The multiple challenges have produced an outpouring of extreme nationalism, resulting in the parliamentary presence of the MHP, widely viewed as neo-fascist, with a paramilitary wing. Its leader campaigned with a hangman's noose, his preferred solution to the Kurdish insurgency in the south-east.

And, just as a side note, one army colonel who commented about repositioning US troops from al Anbar province said, "The police are the keys to maintaining security from al-Qaida," - interesting since many people like me believe that al Qaeda should have been dealt with from a police standpoint to begin with.

So, has the US government already received assurances from Turkey's government that its troops will stay out of Iraq or is the US military planning a pullout to avoid being trapped in that front of the war? Hard to say. Of course, considering how the so-called "surge" is working out, it's also possible that these redeployments to other areas of Iraq are just another move in the huge whack-a-mole game strategery they're now employing.

According to the Turkish Weekly, Turkey's PM warned before the election that "if the talks fail with Maliki Turkey will be left with no other option but to act against the PKK in northern Iraq." And:

Erdogan said Turkey conveyed its concerns to the U.S. over reports that the Americans were suspected of supplying weapons to the PKK in northern Iraq. He said the Americans had explained that they too had detected that such weapons had found their way into the PKK arsenal and that their investigation showed this could have happened as a result of corruption involving some U.S. personnel.

Now, I'll note that I don't know the reputation of the Turkish Weekly but it also published this warning from Turkey's PM which shows there is definitely tension between Turkey and the US government:

"As a strategic ally we are extending support to you (the U.S.) whenever you confront terrorism and ask for help. Afghanistan is the biggest example of this. It is not right to adopt an approach discriminating as 'my terrorist is bad, your terrorist is good.' All terrorists are bad. And we need to form a joint platform for combat this. We have situated ourselves against terror wherever it is encountered because we suffer from it. The number of martyrs we have given to terror has exceeded 15,000. Just as how you have alarmed the world when the twin towers were hit, you should show the same participation and cooperation in this now. If you do not fulfill your responsibilities in this, we will have to do whatever it takes. And that 'whatever' is obvious," said Erdogan.

It seems there aren't many countries left that want to call America "friend" - not that Turkey has been a US sockpuppet since it refused to allow US troops deployments from its soil into Iraq when that war began.

So I guess the waiting game is on and there aren't any particularly clear indications from Turkey about what it will do to deal with attacks coming from inside Iraq.

Related: The big question: What are the implications of the Turkish election result?

More on the PKK reportedly using US weapons from the Chicago Tribune.

(h/t to JJB over at Marisacat's blog for the link to The Guardian's article.)
 

'Will Turkey Invade Northern Iraq?'

That's the question asked by AP reporter Christopher Torchia in this article and according to the Times Online, the Turkish prime minister hasn't ruled it out.

This past Sunday, the New York Times editorial The Road Home (which finally called for troop withdrawals from Iraq - a very hollow and far too tardy appeal from a newspaper that published Bush's Iraq war propaganda as it if was factual) included this suggestion:

The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.

That's not going to happen if the Turkish government continues to feel betrayed by the US and threatened by PKK militants in northern Iraq. So, while the NYT editors seem to think that Turkey isn't shouldering any of the burden, they refuse to even acknowledge the current reality on the border.

On Monday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Turkish television that Turkey would take whatever steps were necessary if the United States fails to fulfill its pledge to help in the fight against Kurdish rebels, but he appeared reluctant to order an invasion before the elections.

"We are seeing with great grief that America remains quiet as Turkey struggles against terrorism. Because there were promises given to us, and they need to be kept. If not, we can take care of our own business," Erdogan said. "We hope there won't be an extraordinary situation before the election. But there'll be a new evaluation after the elections."

Flashback to this 2005 story and you don't exactly have to wonder why the relationship between the US government and Turkey is on very shaky ground:

US blames Turkey for Iraq chaos
March 22, 2005

The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has blamed the inability to gain permission to invade Iraq through Turkey for the power of the insurgency that the US now faces.
[...]
Asked on Sunday what he considered to be the greatest mistake of the war, Mr Rumsfeld told ABC: "Had we been successful in getting the 4th Infantry Division to come in through Turkey ... I believe that a considerably smaller number of the Baathists and the regime elements would have escaped.

"And as a result the insurgency would have been at a lesser intensity than it is today."

Typical Rumsfeld: blaming everybody else for his own incompetence.

So now we have the NYT wagging its finger at Turkey, telling it that it's for its own good to help the Bush administration get the hell out of Iraq when, all along, Bushco has either ignored Turkey's pleas for help and/or blamed that country for the mistakes made by the "flowers and candy" neocons.

So, tell me again how the NYT has changed its stripes from being a Bushco propaganda mouthpiece?

And, if you want a picture of the possible effects of a Turkish invasion, read this. The stakes are high for all involved and this is a front that the US military is not prepared to deal with, as the article states. Meanwhile, the only thing the Pentagon seems to want to do is play the numbers denial game about how many Turkish troops are actually on the border. Fat lot of good that does. The Pentagon denies every initial war report about anything that might be Bad News™ propped up by the state department's spokespuppet who has offered absolutely nothing about how to deal with a possible incursion. Useless, as usual.

The US has a "Special Envoy for Countering the PKK", retired Air Force General Joseph Ralston, appointed in 2006 and whom the authors of this Harper's article wonder aloud about his seeming lobbying on behalf of Lockheed Martin to the Turkish government.

As a former supreme allied commander for NATO and vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he would appear overqualified for the job.

Then came the mid-September announcement (just weeks after Ralston's appointment) that Turkey would be purchasing thirty new F-16's from Lockheed Martin. Weeks later, the Turkish government ruled out purchasing any Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes. This leaves only one option—Lockheed Martin's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. A deal between Lockheed and Turkey would be worth as much as $10 billion.

Did Special Envoy Ralston lobby on behalf of Lockheed Martin during his encounters with Turkish officials? It seems likely. Ralston sits on the Board of Directors of Lockheed Martin and serves as vice chairman of The Cohen Group, a lobbying firm that has represented Lockheed since 2004. On August 11 of this year, seventeen days before he was named Special Envoy, Ralston was appointed to The Cohen Group team that lobbies for Lockheed.

So, just how effective is Ralston when it comes to actually advising Turkey if his main function seems to be enabling US war profiteers? It appears that his "special envoy" status doesn't have much to do with what his mission is supposed to be - unless Turkey plans to use those Lockheed Martin planes to attack the PKK within Iraq. Who knows? I guess we'll have to wait until after the Turkish elections to find out what's going to happen.

As for the NYT, which is still shilling for Bushco on the Iran invasion front thanks to several columns by Michael Gordon - a willing leftover from the Iraq war propaganda days - it will take more than one sorry "we support Iraq withdrawal now" editorial to restore its seriously damaged credibility. If its editors couldn't even research the Turkish situation to the extent that they would have had to conclude that Turkey's government isn't in any mood right now to facilitate the withdrawal, their suggestions for such a strategy certainly can't be taken all that seriously and they obviously need to learn how to use Google instead of relying on whoever is whispering administration rhetoric in their ears.
 

Turkish Troops Invading Northern Iraq?

For all of the propaganda-like blustering the Bush administration has been doing to try to find some justification to invade Iran by providing weak evidence that it's involved itself in the war in Iraq, perhaps they should have been paying more attention to Turkey.

There are denials flying around everywhere that Turkish troops have actually crossed the Iraq border to go after the PKK, but there is no doubt that Turkey has been threatening action for quite some time now. Defence secretary Gates tried to warn them off this past week.

Note the double standards:

SINGAPORE (AP) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday cautioned Turkey against sending troops into northern Iraq, as it has threatened, to hunt down Kurdish rebels it accuses of carrying out terrorist raids inside Turkey.

"We hope there would not be a unilateral military action across the border into Iraq," Gates told a news conference after meetings here with Asian government officials. Turkey and Iraq were not represented.

Gates said he sympathized with the Turks' concern about cross-border raids by Kurdish rebels.

"The Turks have a genuine concern with Kurdish terrorism that takes place on Turkish soil," he said. "So one can understand their frustration and unhappiness over this. Several hundred Turks lose their lives each year, and we have been working with the Turks to try to help them get control of this problem on Turkish soil."

The Turkish government should know better: only the US military is allowed to hunt down perceived threats all over the world without regard to a country's sovereignty. It's might uppity of the Turks to think the same rules would apply to them.

Exhibit A:

At the Singapore news conference Gates was asked about a reported U.S. naval bombardment on Friday of terrorist targets in northern Somalia.

"That's possibly an ongoing operation," he said, adding that as a result he would not comment on it.

A PKK leader has told Reuters that this story may be a "test balloon":

PKK military commander Bahouz Ardal said the reports had been planted to test public reaction to any such a move.

"These reports are a test balloon from the Turkish army ... to calm internal Turkish opinion, which is expecting a move against the PKK, and test the reaction of the United States, Iraq and Kurdish parties and the PKK," he said by telephone.

So, at this point, no one seems to be able or willing to actually confirm anything. We'll have to see how this plays out.

Meanwhile, I find it interesting that this news may bury this story: Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Resolution That May Force End to Occupation.

Is the tail wagging the dog again?

Update: I think this bit from the IHT keenly illustrates the situation.

"Government officials fell victim to their own games. They cannot get out of this trap they have fallen into," columnist Mehmet Ali Birand wrote in the Turkish Daily News. He said Turkey's war talk had been designed, apparently in vain, to push the United States into expelling the PKK rebel group from northern Iraq.

The United States says the PKK is a terrorist group, but U.S. forces are consumed by chaos elsewhere in Iraq, and want to preserve the Kurdish-dominated north as a rare spot of relative stability. The Iraqi Kurdish administration has tense ties with Turkey, which has accused it of backing its Kurdish brethren in the PKK movement.

In other words, the US military is too busy to deal with it and wants to perpetuate the myth that all is well with the Kurds because it keeps pointing to their situation as the bright spot in Iraq. Denial as their modus operandi. Nothing new about that.