| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Turkey Leaders Discuss Iraq Deployment |
| 2003-08-13 |
| ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Turkish leaders on Tuesday began discussing a U.S. request to send thousands of peacekeepers to Iraq, where Ankara would like to see its influence increase. Turkey, which snubbed a U.S. request in March to host American troops intending to open a northern front in the war against neighboring Iraq, seems determined not to create a new crisis with the United States. Okay, who here talked to Necdet? Paul? Frank? Zhang? I’d blame PD but Necdet is still in one piece. President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who reportedly had reservations against sending troops without a U.N. resolution, chaired the meeting of government and military leaders. But a statement issued at its conclusion did not mention a U.N. resolution. The statement made no firm commitment on sending troops, despite apparent endorsement from the military and government. It said parliament would decide. And we know how that works. ``The scope, nature and framework of Turkey’s possible contribution’’ will be determined ``according to Turkey’s national interests,’’ presidential spokesman Sermet Atacanli said, reading from the statement. The meeting was the first in a series of high-level debates about the matter. Although parliament is in summer recess until October, it can be called into session earlier. ``The issue is not whether to send soldiers or not,’’ Deputy Premier Abdullatif Sener told private CNN-Turk television Monday. ``The issue is how the Turkish troops will go, what will be their status, where they will be deployed.’’ The government, which has a comfortable majority in parliament, might see the peacekeeping mission as an opportunity to mend ties with Washington, the country’s As if none of the rest of us worry about casualties. Heck even the Salvadorians have enough sense to figure this out. Ankara realizes that a mission could help prevent Kurds in northern Iraq from declaring an independent state. Ankara fears that would encourage Turkey’s own Kurdish rebels, who fought a 15-year war for autonomy in southeast Turkey. ``If there is instability next door, we can’t keep our eyes closed,’’ Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, the deputy chief of general staff, said Sunday. With American military manpower stretched thin, the United States is looking to a number of countries to send troops to Iraq and relieve some of its burden. Washington has requested troops from India, Pakistan, Germany and others. Germans? Great. Indians and Paks? No thanks, keep them away from the powder keg please. Turkey has several thousand soldiers in northern Iraq to chase the Turkish Kurdish fighters. Those troops fall outside the scope of the U.S.-led mission. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #20 "a Polish command over Turkish troops seems to have been refused by the general staff." The Little Red Hen makes yet another appearance WRT Turkish integration into Europe. "LOL!! Still holding a grudge after 300 years or so?" The Turks have a different memory of "September 11" than we short-historied Americans. Oh, to be in old Vienna... |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2003-8-14 12:22:55 AM |
| #19 Hi Murat: Saw you over on a BBC message board the other day doing a little America bashing. Glad to see you're still "on message." |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-8-13 5:42:26 PM |
| #18 Murat?!?!? Cool. |
| Posted by: growler 2003-8-13 5:28:21 PM |
| #17 a Polish command over Turkish troops seems to have been refused by the general staff. LOL!! Still holding a grudge after 300 years or so? I don't blame the Turks. Gotta start reading the Polish press. I want to see how this gets spun. Hilarious!! |
| Posted by: Raphael 2003-8-13 1:23:28 PM |
| #16 Welcome back, Murat, we've really missed you. That does NOT mean we won't hand you your head in a paper bag, but we'll try to be friendly doing it! 8^) Turkey would be the nation of choice for guarding the oil line to TURKEY, for patrolling the border between Iraq and Syria, and for securing the area along the Turkish border, over to where the Kurds have been granted authority. The only problem area would be along the Turkish/Kurdish line of control. Another area where Turkish troops would be most welcome is the mountainous area north of the Shatt al Arab, marking the border between Iraq and Iran. I also think that ALL the nations that are contributing peacekeepers should have a headquarters element in Baghdad (to facilitate coordination and cooperation), and also provide a few military police to help secure the peace in Baghdad. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-8-13 1:14:32 PM |
| #15 Uh, I meant "delicately" not "delectably" folks. Sorry about that. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2003-8-13 1:02:04 PM |
| #14 Welcome back, Murat. Perhaps it should be wiser to reset the combined entries before hiding the comments at, say, 200... |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-8-13 12:46:22 PM |
| #13 Good to have you back at Rantburg, Murat: polite voices of dissent are always welcome. I think the presence of Turkish troops would be a positive development, so long as it is handled delectably so as not to upset the Kurds. Of course, neither we Americans nor the Turkish are known for being delicate.... |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2003-8-13 12:41:31 PM |
| #12 Looking at the latest news it looks as if around 10.000 Turkish troops are going to be deployed, if of course the parliament approves to this time. I am curious what kind of regulations will be met, judging from the press a Polish command over Turkish troops seems to have been refused by the general staff. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-8-13 11:24:08 AM |
| #11 wrt to Iraqis - it takes time to train troops - iraqi army we're talking about a goal of 40,000 in like 2 years. Militia, who will be less well trained, is a temporary solution, and smaller in number. To get through the crunch of the next 18 months we very much need foreigners. Indians and Pakistanis are ALREADY trained, some experienced. And its a bit optimistic to simply assume that Iraqi troops will all prove reliable. I support the Wolfie plan - but to assume we can overnight create an Iraqi army that doesnt have any of the problems of 3rd world armies strikes me as a tad optimistic. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-13 11:21:51 AM |
| #10 re Indians - i am just not convinced the locals in Iraq take the jihadi anti-Indian line. How about put them in the Shiite areas of Baghdad - the Shia dont seem that interested in Kashmir, et al. And Hindu troops should be great "flypaper". Re: Pakis - more of a problem - but this isnt Somalia, theres plenty of US troops to do the hard stuff. How about putting them in Kurdistan - the main job there is watching the borders with Iran and Turkey, not too much if any local police work. Pakis should be good at watching mountain borders, and no Pashtun here to worry about. That would relieve the 173rd airborne. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-13 11:17:02 AM |
| #9 LH: I'm really concerned about Pak troops in Iraq given (1) the various problems with the jihadis in Pakland and the susceptibility of the soldiers to the inducements of the bad guys in Iraq (2) the instability of their government (3) their poor performance in Somalia 1993 when they mostly stayed in their barracks. I'm concerned about the Indians because I don't think the Iraqis will respond well to Hindu troops, particularly once the usual jihadis start blabbering on Al-Jismera. The overstretch issue IS serious; that's why I'm wondering about the rotation plans, tour of service, etc. in another post here. But I think that getting a decent Iraqi milita trained over the next 6 to 12 months would be a better idea than bringing in unreliable troops from elsewhere. I have nothing against the Latin American troops; they can take some of the easy stuff and thus help with our rotation plans. But in the end, we need an indigenous solution, not a bunch of UN peacekeepers. Murat: welcome back. 1) Bremer is not president; he's the chief administrator -- much more powerful. 2) GWB did cite national interests four to five months ago along with the other issues he cited. You could go to the White House website and read the speeches he made back then; they're all there. 3) As long as the Turkish government doesn't have an ulterior motive (e.g., reconstituting the Ottoman Empire) and can respect Iraqi sensitivities over their presence, I'd have no problem with Turkish troops helping out in Iraq. They're well-trained and capable. 4) Enron is out of business. 5) Texaco will compete with everyone else, including in the end (I suspect) Yukos and TotalFinaElf. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-8-13 10:55:21 AM |
| #8 Hello guys thanks for your welcome, nice to see you too. why would enron and texaco hire guards for facilities owned by the Iraqi national oil company? The Iraqi national oil company of President Bremer you mean Libby? OK Ptah you mention the right reason "national interest", that's something different than those artificial reasons summoned four to five months ago, nice to hear that. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-8-13 10:17:38 AM |
| #7 Wow! Welcome back, Murat! I don't expect that any criteria for Turkish participation in Iraq be any different than US involvement in Liberia: If you've got national interests to protect, get involved. if not, we don't expect you to sacrifice blood and treasure getting involved. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-8-13 10:04:19 AM |
| #6 Hey Murat? How's that EU-participation thang goin'? Your French friends not so cozy now? I'd welcome Turkey's participation now that things are over but we'll not forget how it went this Spring. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-8-13 9:32:58 AM |
| #5 why would enron and texaco hire guards for facilities owned by the Iraqi national oil company? Turkey realizes that a stable Iraq is in its interest. The possibility of Turkish troops without a UN mandate helps us gain leverage in GETTING a UN mandate. For those who keep dissing Indian and Pakistani troops - are you basing this on actual performance in peace keeping missions? The Indian military in particular, is not a particularly inefficient force AFAIK. And teh overstretch issue is SERIOUS. Folks who keep up with military affairs, particularly US Army affairs, like blogger Phil Carter, all seem to think its quite serious. As it is we have a rotation plan that barely gets us through spring 2004, and that assumes an international division replacing the 101st in the winter. There are things that could go better - an Iraqi militia might reduce the need for american forces by a division. On the other hand theres also the prospect of things getting worse - I dont expect they will, but its hardly wise to plan based on best case scenarios. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-13 9:27:50 AM |
| #4 Hey,Murat.Welcome back,long time no see.That is a good idea,them Gurkha's be some bad-ass troops. Ben,I see you have already caught on to our old friend,Murat. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-8-13 8:10:37 AM |
| #3 A nice liberation it is, probably the Iraqis don't know yet they have been "liberated" and saved for "mass destruction weapons" :) |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-8-13 8:10:08 AM |
| #2 Uday and Qusay are so much more preferrable to US Marines is what Murat is saying. His definition of a mess is liberating a population of 24 million people from under Saddam's boot. |
| Posted by: Ben 2003-8-13 7:26:39 AM |
| #1 Personally I think it is a wrong idea to get involved in US produced mess and call it a "peace keeping mission". I would say let Enron and Texaco hire some Gurka's to guard the oil wells. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-8-13 5:40:45 AM |