| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Explosion Rocks Turkish Embassy in Iraq |
| 2003-10-14 |
| A strong explosion rocked the area near the Turkish Embassy on Tuesday, but police sealed off the area and it could not be determined if the chancellery had been damaged. The private Turkish television station CNN-Turk reported that two people were injured in the blast and that windows were shattered. Turkish NTV television said the two were embassy employees. The blast came after Turkey’s Parliament approved the deployment of Turkish troops in Iraq as part of a peacekeeping force sought by the United States. But many Iraqis sharply oppose any Turkish troops on the country’s soil. I guess when they said "No" they meant "No". The blast occurred two days after a powerful car bomb exploded at the Baghdad Hotel, home to U.S. officials and members of the Iraqi Governing Council. At least eight people including the bomber were killed. Fox is reporting this as another car bomb, developing. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #17 well, if you ask me (not that anyone is), this is all just as pathetic as watching an abusive relationship. I know he hit me before...but he won't do it again. He promised! Besides, he really didn't mean it the first time. I neeeeeed him...no one else will have me. It will be different this time. Not. |
| Posted by: B 2003-10-14 6:28:40 PM |
| #16 LH - I'm not sure what to call information like this... political chicanery and betrayal? It's certainly the gutless cynical choice of convenience over obligation that I feared and talked about here when this began. Fuck both the UN and Turkey. If this crap is true, well, it would be hard to make me feel more disgusted. The poor Kurds, not to mention our dishonored dead. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-10-14 4:54:10 PM |
| #15 Negotiating "seriously" with the Turks is meaningless as whenever it becomes inconvenient for them, they just don't honor it. How is that a deal? Tapyip proved himself to be willing to make very bold, brinksmanship moves to advance his position at US expense. We all are aware and openly acknowledge that he is doing it again. I just don't understand the denial of the mess that is being created here. Sure, you could say that paying a high price for a car is not such a bad deal if it is the only car for sale. But I think we need to keep in mind that no price is worth it if the car's got a 90% chance of blowing up in your face. This is not a good idea...no matter how bad we need it. Just like dealing with them the last time ended up being a bad idea...no matter how desperately we needed it. There are no surprises here. We learned all we needed to know when they screwed us last time. Tapyip is bold enough to try again. Fooled us one..shame on them. |
| Posted by: B 2003-10-14 4:50:51 PM |
| #14 dot com: I agree, in essence. (I would be willing to give the Turks a tad more than that, including cooperation against the PKK, guarantees against Kurdish INDEPENDENCE, and maybe even toss in some control over the oil industry (better the Turks than the French:) but, NOT a centralized, sunni arab controlled state) But THAT means we need a source of troops other than the Turks - at least to improve our bargaining position with the Turks. Now maybe we'll have enough locals trained, and things will be calm enough to just pull the 101st out in January, and pull the 4th ID out in the spring. Or maybe not. Army Reserve/NG is already hurting - do we really want to gut future recruitment for the Army NG/R? That means additional foreign troops other than Turks, and THAT means cutting a deal at - yes - the UNSC. I hope we're not giving away the store there, but I also hope we ARE negotiating seriously. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-10-14 3:44:50 PM |
| #13 Ernest...maybe so. But seems to me that all parties are willing to admit that the Turks are, once again, offering to cover our backs, with the expectation that once we allow them to do so, they will be in a much better position to stab us in it. If this were the horses, both sides seem to be desperately betting on the long shots in an effort to make up for past losses. Never a good idea...IMHO. As they say...when you make deals with the devil, expect to get burned. |
| Posted by: B 2003-10-14 3:30:16 PM |
| #12 Personally, I find this appalling. I dislike almost every word of it and am hoping beyond hope it doesn't pan out this way. It Sucks. After the guts to go and the guts to win, it really sucks to be gutless now - and to an unacceptable extent, IMHO, lose the peace. Fucking nitwit Sunni's. They will lose, sooner or later, one way or another, but they just had to be asshats. Sigh. The Kurds deserve much much better - and the Turks deserve a shit sandwich. I hope these smug StratFor Foggy Bottom refugees are wrong. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-10-14 2:19:27 PM |
| #11 the reason to avoid UN control is to avoid a UN lackey forcing ex-baathist types into the govt, and subverting the US goal of democratization and regional transformation. A strategy that, at turkish request not only forecloses Kurdish autonomy, but turns away from the Iraqi shiites, will essentially do the same thing. If the admin plays off the Turks against the UN thats one thing. If they give in to the Turks on all of the above demands out of pique at the UN, and focus on congruence of short term strategic interests with Turkey (against iran and Saudi, for example) we will be making a big long term mistake. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-10-14 2:01:54 PM |
| #10 B, As Murat can tell you, the Turks control the headwaters of the Tigris/Euphrates river system. If the Marsh Arabs are to get their wetlands back to full bloom, we'll need their help. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2003-10-14 1:54:37 PM |
| #9 "They bombed a Islamic countries Embassy?" This would be the second islamic embassy, the first big car bomb hit the Jordanian embassy, consulate, visa shop or whatever it was. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-10-14 1:22:45 PM |
| #8 They bombed a Islamic countries Embassy?! What ever happened to Brotherly Love!? |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-14 1:12:36 PM |
| #7 Hmmm. Ok, uh, um, please don't delete this! Ever! Deletion is so skeery! Please oh please don't throw me into the briar patch! ;) |
| Posted by: .com 2003-10-14 12:45:46 PM |
| #6 Though Ankara understands its demands are bold, it sees the United States as desperate to get Turkish troops in Iraq. Same line of thinking caused didn't work well for them when they refused to allow our troops on their soil. Apparently, they plan to try the same logic this time. If you ask me, this is a twice burned situation for both sides. |
| Posted by: B 2003-10-14 11:40:03 AM |
| #5 Damn. If you'll delete this response, I'll clean out the excess breaks and resubmit. Important content, I think. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-10-14 11:26:09 AM |
| #4 Stratfor Report... Apologies for length... ================================================ Shared Control: The Price for Turkish Troops in Iraq Oct 13, 2003 Summary Following tough negotiations on a Turkish deployment to Iraq, it appears likely that Ankara will join Washington in exercising control over the occupied country. Though this will not halt attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, it could aid the United States in attempts to gradually extricate itself from the main burden of fending off the guerrilla war. Analysis Under pressure from the government and despite significant public opposition, the Turkish Parliament recently passed a motion in favor of sending troops to Iraq. Ankara now has a green light to negotiate with the U.S.-led coalition authority on conditions for the deployment -- initially planned for about 10,000 troops. U.S. and Turkish officials likely will begin talks on the details in the coming days; officials in Ankara say the negotiations could take up to two weeks, according to the Turkish Daily News. In the weeks leading up to the U.S. attack against Iraq, Turkey refused to send troops into the conflict or to allow U.S. forces to use its soil as a staging point. So what has caused the policy reversal? This analysis, drawing on the statements of Stratfor sources within the Turkish government as well as from the public statements of U.S. and Turkish leaders, will examine that question, as well as what Ankara seeks from Washington in exchange, and how the negotiations might end. Turkey: At Geopolitical Crossroads These are fascinating days for Turkish decision-makers: Since the Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power late last year, the nation has been in the process of reinventing its geopolitical course and priorities. And when a nation is at a crossroads, it can take any -- even the most unexpected -- path if that is best suited to its national interests. The last such instance for Turkey came after World War I, when Kemal Ataturk founded the modern state. Forging a geopolitical direction, however, took several years: First, Ataturk turned against entente -- the alliance of Western powers to which the United States belonged -- and defeated British-Greek intervention between 1919 and 1922 with some military help from another fledgling state, Soviet Russia. However, Ankara later formed a long-lasting association with the West -- first with Germany and, since the end of World War II, the United States. Ankara is now re-examining its path again. What distinguishes this Turkey from that which existed until the end of last year, however, is that the current government no longer is restricted to the role of junior ally in its relationship with foreign powers. Ankara feels the time has come for Turkey to follow a course defined by its own national interests, regardless of how that fits with or detracts from the goals of other powers. Thus it was that Ankara denied Washington permission to base combat forces on Turkish territory in March: The government did not see such a move as benefiting national interests. But seven months later, the situation has changed. Officials in Ankara realize that, for all the risks involved, it would be better for Turkey to intervene militarily in Iraq than to continue bowing out. Ironically, as it strikes a more independent geopolitical stance, the new government is finding it beneficial to again drift closer to Washington. Turkish Forces in Iraq: What's at Stake Several major national interests make it imperative for Ankara to intervene militarily in Iraq on the side of the United States -- and foremost among these is to ensure that nothing can threaten Turkey from the south. From the Turkish perspective, this requires several steps. First, officials in Ankara believe, the new government in Baghdad should be either pro-Turkey or at least friendly toward Turkey. This means the Turkish government should exert some influence in Baghdad -- something that would be easier to do if its troops were deployed in significant numbers to Iraq. Ankara fully understands that the United States intends to wield controlling influence in Iraq for years to come -- and this will be no problem for Ankara if Washington agrees to give it "second in command" status. Second, Turkish leaders fear that Iran could become a dominant power in Iraq or share that role as the main ally of the United States. In either case, this would exclude Turkish influence: Turkey and Iran have struggled over what is now Iraq for centuries, including through bloody wars. It now appears that Iran is better positioned to win this game, given its strong ties with and influence over the Shiite majority in Iraq. To reverse the odds, it seems Turkey must put troops on the ground in Iraq. Third, Turkey feels it must resolve the Kurdish question. Though Ankara limits this goal officially to the elimination of the PKK guerrilla group (now known as KADEK) operating in southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq, its larger strategic goal likely goes much further than that. It appears Ankara seeks to weaken all Kurdish militant forces in Iraq, by military defeat if necessary. If Iraqi Kurds stand idly by while U.S. and Turkish units crush KADEK units, Kurdish control of northern Iraq would be diminished. However, if Iraqi Kurds intervene and launch attacks against Turkish troops as they have threatened, Ankara would have an opening to wage a military campaign against all Kurdish militants in Iraq. Moreover, it is almost certain that U.S. troops would intervene on the Turks' behalf -- which would play nicely into Ankara's hand. Fourth, Ankara wants a share of the energy wealth found in northern Iraq, including obtaining a major say for Turkish companies in the country's energy sector. Again, putting troops on the ground will aid this endeavor. Though Turkish troops initially would be deployed outside Kirkuk and other northern oil fields, Ankara possibly could expand its military presence on the pretext of escalating violence. Fifth, Turkey needs to strengthen itself economically and militarily to meet its geopolitical goals in Iraq and elsewhere. If Ankara sends troops to Iraq, lawmakers reason, Washington might return the favor in the form of loans -- both from Washington and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) -- as well as military hardware. Finally, being able to pursue its own agenda without alienating the United States is certainly an attractive opportunity for Ankara in Iraq, where officials believe -- likely correctly -- they can reinvigorate the erstwhile alliance by sending forces to help relieve embattled U.S. forces. Turkish troops almost inevitably would come under repeated attacks in Iraq, but from Ankara's point of view, this strategy might be less risky than standing idly by while other powers gain influence over the country. Moreover, it appears to us that Turkish leaders, though speaking of the deployment as that of peacekeeping forces, would not really mind if they become embroiled in combat: The more Turkish soldiers are fighting in Iraq, the better Ankara's chances for influencing future developments in the country and region. The Payoff: Ankara's Demands In accordance with these goals, Ankara is laying out the following negotiating points in its dialogue with Washington, Turkish government sources tell Stratfor: * Certain eradication of PKK/KADEK units and their infrastructure in Iraq, either through U.S., Turkish or joint action. * A U.S. guard for Turkish supply lines through Kurdish areas to the Sunni Triangle. This would be in addition to an absolute guarantee from Washington that the Kurds would never receive de facto or de jure independence. * Iraq should be a united state with a pro-U.S. and pro-Turkish government, and the role of Turkomen in the Iraqi government should be increased. * Assurances or cooperation from Washington to ensure that power will not be transferred to Iraqi Shiites as proxies of Iran, and no role for Tehran in Iraq. Ankara will ask Washington to abandon its strategy of relying on Iran and Iraqi Shiites as its main ally against the Sunni resistance movement, arguing that Turkey should fill that role. * A slice of the Iraqi oil industry, second only to that of the United States. In particular, Turkey should have a major say on how Iraqi oil in the north is treated and where revenues go. By the same token, Turkish firms should become major participants in oil deals in the north. * No role for Saudi Arabia and other Arab states in the future Iraq -- a goal that Ankara believes Washington seeks itself. * More financial aid from the United States and IMF. * New deliveries of large amounts of modern military hardware to the Turkish army, at significant discounts. * A green light for Turkish forces to combat and defeat Iraqi Kurds if there are any attacks against Turkish supply lines in northern Iraq. This is a non-negotiable point from Ankara's position, sources tell Stratfor. If supply lines are attacked, Turkish military control of Iraqi Kurdistan -- perhaps shared with the U.S. military -- should be established, Ankara is likely to suggest. * Turkish forces in Iraq should operate under Turkish command, though it is possibly that Ankara will coordinate with the U.S. command on counterinsurgency operations. Though Ankara understands its demands are bold, it sees the United States as desperate to get Turkish troops in Iraq, believing that no one else -- not even a coalition cobbled together from dozens of nations -- will really be able to aid U.S. troops on the ground, given the inherent divisions between goals and languages of participating countries and the Turks' prior experience in the Iraqi climate and terrain. If Washington accepts these conditions, Ankara will renew its full alliance with the United States, but on a more equal footing than before. In exchange, Ankara will fully commit itself to pacifying Iraq, up to the point of completely but gradually taking over the counterinsurgency war from Americans, thus releasing U.S. troops for their force projection goals in Iraq. Basically, Turkish forces would do all the fighting and U.S. forces would be stationed in Iraq for strategic purposes. But this would be the case only if Washington accedes to Turkey's demands. Washington's Viewpoint: Turkey or U.N.? Turkish negotiations with Washington over the Iraq deployment will be difficult indeed. Washington has its own vision for Iraq, and an overly strong (from its perspective) Turkish role and full accession to Ankara's demands does not fully fit in. However, the Bush administration is likely to agree to most of Turkey's negotiating points, for several reasons. For one thing, the time for Washington to decide how to defeat the Iraqi resistance movement is rapidly running out, before U.S. President George W. Bush's re-election chances diminish beyond repair and before the financial costs of operations in Iraq become economically unbearable. Who would be able and willing to make a timely difference on the ground in Iraq? Surely not Honduras. In Stratfor's mind, it appears that only the Turkish army, which is strong in both numbers and training -- as well as familiar with the war theater and local guerrillas' tactics -- is a viable option. That would require much more than the initial 10,000-strong deployment -- but the Turkish General Staff has a follow-on plan to rapidly expand its military presence in Iraq. The end goal also would require significant and continued human sacrifices, but the tolerance among the Turkish army and public for these are higher than those of Americans. Another reason Washington is likely to accept most of Ankara's demands is that a Turkish deployment would largely extricate American forces from the war, allowing them to serve the goal they came to Iraq with in the first place: To project force against other countries in the region that are deemed to be potential U.S. foes, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia or Iran. Moreover, if Washington makes a deal with Ankara quickly, the United States would stand a chance of outmaneuvering its opposition within the U.N. Security Council over Iraq: With a massive deployment of skilled Turkish soldiers on the ground, Washington could simply cancel its draft resolution requesting U.N. authorization for foreign troops. This would keep the Bush administration from having to cede control over Iraq to the United Nations -- though that control would have to be shared with Ankara. It would seem that in Washington's eyes, this is the lesser evil. ================================================ |
| Posted by: .com 2003-10-14 11:14:20 AM |
| #3 I'm now inclined to let the Turks patrol Sadr city without media minders... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-10-14 10:20:35 AM |
| #2 Update: A suicide bomber detonated a car packed with explosives at the gates of the Turkish Embassy on Tuesday, killing at least one person and wounding two or three others, witnesses and U.S. soldiers said. The car tried to ram through the gates of the embassy in the Iraqi capital in the mid-afternoon and suddenly exploded, witnesses said. U.S. troops and Iraqi police sealed off the area and would not permit journalists and others to approach the building. Turkish NTV television said two embassy employees were hurt. In Ankara, a Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman strongly condemned the attack and said the incident shows "how grave the security situation in Iraq is" and "how strong the need is for everyone to immediately contribute to ensure security and stability in the country." Iraqis fear that neighboring Turkey seeks to dominate or grab territory in their country, or that the deployment will cause friction with Kurds in northern Iraq. On Tuesday, radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said there would be no difference between Turkish soldiers and members of the U.S.-led force, which he wants to leave the country. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-10-14 9:06:37 AM |
| #1 Seems that 2 assailants died and two embassy personel (guards?) got wounded, some windows smashed and a part of the surrounding security wall had collapsed, no major damage. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-10-14 9:05:16 AM |