"Kurdistan" v. Turkey v. Iraq

Turkey Gives Go-Ahead For Raids

ISTANBUL, Oct. 17 "” Turkey's Parliament voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to authorize sending troops into northern Iraq to confront Kurdish rebels in hide-outs there, sending an angry message to the Baghdad government and its Washington sponsor. But Turkey, a member of NATO, made it clear that it would not immediately carry out the resolution.

The 507-to-19 vote was the culmination of months of frustration here with the United States, which has criticized Kurdish rebels who attack Turkey from Iraq but has failed to get its Kurdish allies in Iraq to act against them. President Bush on Wednesday reiterated American wishes for a diplomatic solution.

The vote to authorize sending troops, which Turkish officials say gives them up to a year to take action, was, in essence, a blunt request for the United States to acknowledge Turkey's status as an important ally in a troubled and complex region.

"We're at a point that our patience has run out," said Cemil Cicek, a government spokesman and a member of Turkey's Special Council Combating Terrorism. With Turkey central to oil transit in the region, United States crude oil futures soared to an all-time high of $89 a barrel on Wednesday, Reuters reported, though prices later dropped.

The vote came as relations between the countries were strained by a House committee's passage last week of a bill calling the World War I-era mass killing of Armenians an act of genocide. In a nod to Turkey's importance as an ally in Iraq, Congressional leaders began to back away on Wednesday from a commitment to hold a vote on that bill.

"We are at a defining moment in Turkish-American relations," said Morton Abramowitz, the American ambassador to Turkey during the Persian Gulf war of 1991, commenting on the Turkish vote. "This is a very big warning sign to the Americans and to the Iraqi Kurds."

Quandary For Iraqi Leaders

BAGHDAD, Oct. 18 "” Turkey's decision to allow the dispatch of troops over Iraq's border in pursuit of Kurdish guerrillas throws into relief a troubling quandary for Iraq's leaders.

On one hand, Iraq wants a cordial relationship with Turkey, a powerhouse in the region and a counterweight to the competing pulls of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

But Iraq has been able to do little to halt the rebel group's activities because Iraq's central government must rely on its ethnic Kurdish minority, which populates the region where the guerrillas are active, to take a stand against them.

Another factor complicating matters for the Iraqi government is that the Qandil mountains of the border region with Turkey are among the most rugged areas in the Middle East, and the area has never been fully under any government control.

Iraq's Kurdish region has been semi-autonomous since 1991 and controls its own armed forces, which also patrol the border with Turkey. All ethnic Kurds, they are reluctant to fight the rebels because it means fighting brother Kurds, with whom they are generally sympathetic.

The guerrillas are ethnic Kurds who come primarily from Turkey and speak Turkish. The rebel group, known by its Turkish initials P.K.K., has an estimated 3,000 fighters in the mountains of northwest Iraq, from which they carry out attacks on Turkey. In the past, the rebel group has aspired to have an autonomous state in Turkey, though it is unclear exactly what the group's demands are now.

While the Kurds in northern Iraq are not thought to participate in the activities of the Turkish rebel group, neither have they sought vigorously to eradicate the rebels "” in part because it would be tantamount to going after their own. "The P.K.K. members are Kurds just as we are," said Rebwar Karem, 31, a student at Sulaimaniya University on Thursday. "The state of Turkey hates the Kurds so while we don't respect the armed struggle of the Kurds in Turkey, I'm against anyone who orders them to leave" the Kurdish area of Iraq.

I know this is bad but I honestly don't know enough to guess as to what long term ramifications this could have. From a high level I just feel that from an Iraqi perspective this has got to be a "WTF?" moment. I realize that Turkey has done this several times in the recent past but now with our occupation taking place it seems it can only damage what little control they may feel they have over their own country. Manpile!

I can't say this much surprises me.

Yeah it was a long time in coming. I'm kinda surprised that Turkey has been able to keep calm for this long.

Its a good thing they are predicting a "warm" winter this year, else who knows what oil prises would end up at.

What's striking is that Turkey has done relatively little to address their own internal Kurdish minority. They seem unwilling to sort out that status for fear of upsetting either their Kurds or the ethnic Turks. Hitting them in Iraq is not a fix, although it could serve to disrupt operations by the armed groups for a bit. However, it's likely to inflame Turkish Kurds, which could actually lead to more violence inside Turkey, which would then be blamed on the Iraqi Kurds...

Problem is that the Kurds want a homeland and see it in Northern Iraq. Turks and Iranians fear that if that happens, their Kurds will want the same. So they are all focussed on the Iraqi Kurds - and guess which group of Iraqis we most strongly protected from Saddam during the No-Fly days?

What happens to US hopes for Iraqi unity when our strongest ethnic allies in Iraq figure out that we are not going to protect them, much less provide them with a homeland?

Prederick wrote:

President Bush on Wednesday reiterated American wishes for a diplomatic solution.

I'm hoping he's saying this knowing that the Turks won't make a move without U.S. and Iraqi approval. I can't believe we'd treat this like interested bystanders.

Quick straw poll: how many people here share the belief that Kurdistan, as a nation and a state, "has a right to exist"?

"This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait." -- George Bush, Aug. 6, 1990.

They pretty much have sort of have already since 1991 like the article said.

Quick straw poll: how many people here share the belief that Kurdistan, as a nation and a state, "has a right to exist"?

I do. Of course, I thought Iraq should have been partitioned into 3 separate states years ago. I'd much rather see a peaceful transition than the mass bloodshed that will take place during the eventual uprising.

I wonder if we have any troops up there now. If we don't, I am curious to see if the decider will put a few thousand troops near the border, and dare Turkey to come across.

I wonder if we have any troops up there now. If we don't, I am curious to see if the decider will put a few thousand troops near the border, and dare Turkey to come across.

If we really wanted to defend the Kurds we'd just establish a no-fly zone (again). Without enemy air power I think the Kurds would have the advantage on their own turf.

As possibly the only Meersheimer realist on this board, I would like to state emphatically that Kurdistan does NOT have a "right to exist". By that, I mean that the fact that it doesn't already exist speaks volumes to that question. One's "right to exist" is entirely defined by one's state of existence and one's ability to affect that status. We Americans have a "right to exist" by virtue of the fact that no country is dumb enough to incur the wrath of the US military.

Much like I often tell my Israeli friends, one's theoretical "right to exist" does not extend to anyone's obligation to protect that "right". There is no moral, political, or otherwise human obligation Americans have to ensure the existence of any other state (be that Israel, Kurdistan, or the freaking Principality of Sealand). There is only the cold, political calculus of American interests. Anything else is fatuous sentimentalism and the sort that gets Americans killed over absolutely f*ck all.

Kurds attacked and killed 13 Turkish soldiers in Northern Iraq. Reuters.

Great. Now America will need to yet again blunder its way through yet another long-running ethnic feud in the mideast.

Hang on, surely Turkey has every right to defend itself as much America and Israel does? If its good enough for the goose its good for the gander.

Axon wrote:

Hang on, surely Turkey has every right to defend itself as much America and Israel does? If its good enough for the goose its good for the gander.

Certainly as much right as Britain had to defend its control of Ireland when Irish people wanted their own country.

Speaking hypothetically, would it have been better if the Irish were kept within the British Empire instead of allowing separatists to create their own nation? I think both countries are better off, even if it meant that Britain lost a sizable amount of territory within its historical realm.

I have been reading up on the PKK and it is starting to sound like they are just a bunch of angry, unreasonable, Marxist assholes. The Turkish Kurds are much better represented in the Turkish congress than any other ethnic minority group and most of the demands that the Kurdish minority have aske for in the last ten years have been met. The PKK is no longer really a Kurdish nationalist group as much as they are group of confused Communists. Why we are in leage with these asses is beyond me.

The big problem is that the PKK may very well force the hand of the Turks to deal with them and create a conflict with Iraqi Kurds -- who will feel obligated to protect them out of some sense of ethnic identity. And our tying ourselves to their fortunes smells a lot like the Black Hand all over again.

Man I thought you were talking about Black Hand the Destroyer.

Paleocon wrote:

The PKK is no longer really a Kurdish nationalist group as much as they are group of confused Communists. Why we are in leage with these asses is beyond me.

Ugur and Ahmet Kaymaz were shot by policemen in this mainly Kurdish region in November 2004. The officers say they returned fire in self-defence during an anti-terrorist operation targeting the Kurdish separatist PKK.

Ahmet's death alone might have passed without remark, but Ugur was just 12 years old. Forensic evidence showed he was shot repeatedly in the back at close range.

Link. I don't think it's as simple a situation as you think it is. Seems like there are angry, violent people on both sides of the issue. But that's not unusual in separatist movements.

Funkenpants wrote:
Axon wrote:

Hang on, surely Turkey has every right to defend itself as much America and Israel does? If its good enough for the goose its good for the gander.

Certainly as much right as Britain had to defend its control of Ireland when Irish people wanted their own country.

Speaking hypothetically, would it have been better if the Irish were kept within the British Empire instead of allowing separatists to create their own nation? I think both countries are better off, even if it meant that Britain lost a sizable amount of territory within its historical realm.

Replace Irish and Ireland with America and Americans to get your answer.

Edit: Oops missed the hypothetical part of that question. I was working myself up into a lather.

Paleocon wrote:

The big problem is that the PKK may very well force the hand of the Turks to deal with them and create a conflict with Iraqi Kurds -- who will feel obligated to protect them out of some sense of ethnic identity.

I love this logic and I'll tie it into Funkenpants answer to the a countries right to defend itself. Everytime Britain resorted to collective punishment as a mean to solve "the Irish question" it ended in disaster. Whenever they approached it with dialogue and as a criminal matter they made inroads. I believe the lessons in this are very clear.

As for the "obligation" Kurds will feel to support the PKK, don't be so sure its that tenuous. The choice for people to either fully support one side or the other is never that simple. For example, during the Troubles, members of the Irish cabinet were running guns to the IRA and the IRA operated more or less in the open in many areas of the Republic. Remember, in the words of Ronald Reagan, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

And just to be clear I'm defending no-ones actions here, merely pointing out the political realities in question.

Oh and I'm sure the likes of Ireland, France, Poland, Germany along with a few others, will be watching this very closely vis-á-vis EU membership. Very closely indeed.

I saw on tv that officers and military members of the Northern Iraq Kurds have been quoted as being hesitant since they are their brothers. Either way the US in the Crossfire.

Axon wrote:

Replace Irish and Ireland with America and Americans to get your answer.

The revolution involved the political separation of people of the same ethnic group as the British, with whom they shared a common language and customs. That is a much rarer set of circumstances than a distinct ethnic and cultural group that finds itself under the control of a stronger ethnic group.

Did people in Ireland consider themselves to be ethnically British but just had certain political disagreements with the British government that mandated a separate political structure, or did they look at the king as a foreigner with no right to rule over them?

Funkenpants wrote:

Did people in Ireland consider themselves to be ethnically British but just had certain political disagreements with the British government that mandated a separate political structure, or did they look at the king as a foreigner with no right to rule over them?

Actually you have me stumped here. The Irish have found themselves fighting for the King and against him on a few occasions and we had members in the monarchy for quite a while. Also there were Irish MPs in westminster, I have an ancestor who was MP for Carlow, but we have our own cultural difference to the English, Welsh and Scots.

The answer as to why we broke away is a tricky one. If we were happy with our lot we may well be still in the Union upto this day but as we see the Union falling apart as of late that is hard to be certain of as well. If you were to pin me to my collar and ask for an answer it was really down to landownership and absentee landlords. The other two scenarios you describe, while very romantic, were never going to be enough to for what was a peasant and poor country to really care about. Land and land alone is what drove these people and if the British parliament gave in to Daniel O'Connell* repeal of the Act of Union we could still find ourselves under a British monarch. They didn't and so began the pretty inevitable march towards independence and war.

*Ireland's favourite son who democratic methods were copied the world over including, I'm pretty sure, the Republican Party in the US.

Axon wrote:

The answer as to why we broke away is a tricky one.

What do you think the chances are that the history of the Turks and Kurds is equally tricky and not subject to the one-line characterization of "Turkey has the right to defend itself"?

Funkenpants wrote:
Axon wrote:

The answer as to why we broke away is a tricky one.

What do you think the chances are that the history of the Turks and Kurds is equally tricky and not subject to the one-line characterization of "Turkey has the right to defend itself"?

I was being facetious. I clearly don't support the collective punishment method. Sorry for the confusion

Edit: Just to be clear here, I was merely drawing parallels with the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon. There were plenty of cheerleaders for that conflict and now it seems those same voices aren't so forth coming. Thats what I meant by the "good for the goose" comment. Again you seemed to have gotten the wrong end of the stick there.

Edwin, that was an excellent find. It was very strange for me seeing the end of the video as I spent my time on convoys escorting KBR contracted third country national (Turks, Lebanonese, Egyptian, etc.) truck drivers that came through that gate they stopped at. Those drivers will literally sit there for weeks before they begin filtering south to various installations in Iraq. I never went that far north. I wound up escorting those drivers through the northern tip of the Sunni Triangle. It was great.

Thanks Reaper. I always find that Current has a much more accurate view on pretty much everything happening in the world, which is why I tend to link to them more often than any other media sources.

I think the Turks have already shown extraordinary restraint. The problem is that there seems to be little if any political will on the other side of the border to deal with a clearly criminal element. The PKK (a Marxist terrorist organization with territorial ambitions in Turkey) is operating with impunity in Northern Iraq. This is precisely the reason why we bombed the living snail snot out of Afghanistan (a policy universally endorsed by members of the European Union).