Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does Turkey have more justification for Invading Iraq than the US did?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does Turkey have more justification for Invading Iraq than the US did?

    No time to elaborate on this at the moment bt surely it's going to be an important issue.
    My personal feeling is that iraq is now well and truly a playgound with everyone from Insurgent planners to American housewifes thinking they can contribute to the mess.
    American housewife you say?? Anyone know what I'm on about with that??
    keep reading the good read
    lodestar

  • #2
    with premeptive war, any oen can attack anyone - it's just a matter of ability.

    as for turkey. well there is no real invasion planned, let' shope so, as this would be a real mess.... a NATO member attacking a part of a country invaded by another NATO member.... what if the US attacks turkey, would all of NATO have to fullfill it's treaty and attack the US???

    let's hope this remains in the realm of the silly.
    "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

    Comment


    • #3
      Are you drunk or are you practising some kind of creative writing?

      Anyway,
      They used to cooperate with Saddam to handle the problem when he was in power. The breakup of Iraq created more problems than it solved anything for Turkey. Now they are left alone with a even stronger group of "terrorists" at their border than they where when Iraq was made up as an objective in the GWOT.
      "The secret of war lies in the communications" - Napoleon Bonaparte

      Comment


      • #4
        They might. It's a difficult question off hand. I could see yes with the PPK operating from Iraqi soil into Turkey trying to dirupt the government and set up their own homeland.Then their is the fact that the Iraqi Kurds and Americans haven't done much about this group operating from that area. (Now if we gave the Turks some cruise missles and some intel they just might get lucky) I'd say no because It'd put their Nato ally (the US) in a really bad spot, because now the iraqis will expect the US to do something about a Turkish incursion. I think the US will need the help of the other Nato allies and the EU to defuss the situation.
        "To the USA Commander of the encircled town of Bastogne. . .There is only one possibility. . .the honorable surrender of the encircled town."
        "To the German Commander: Nuts! The American Commander."
        Brig GEN McAuliffe response at Bastogne Dec 1944

        Comment


        • #5
          Does Turkey have more justification for Invading Iraq than the US did?

          If the PKK cannot be subdued by MNF-I, Iraqi Security Forces and their fellow Kurds...Turkey has every right to defend itself. As a Member State of the UN, Turkey has an obligation to not impede MNF-I in its efforts to pacify Iraq. As a NATO member, Turkey should be able to count on other NATO states for assistance in preventing Iraq-based PKK terrorists from attacking Turkey.

          However, NATO has historically shown little interest in helping Turkey deal with the PKK and some EU members have been downright friendly to the PKK...

          From the May 17, 2005 Wall Street Journal opinion page, I apologize for not providing a link - it was in the print edition:
          Abdullah Ocalan isn’t exactly a household name in America. But he’s even more notorious than Osama bin Laden in Turkey, where his Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) waged a terrorist and guerilla war that cost an estimated 37,000 lives. Last week, incredibly, the European Court of Human Rights ordered that he be given a new trial.

          For Americans, this verdict should serve as yet another warning about the dangers of joining permanent multilateral legal institutions such as the International Criminal Court. ICC backers claim that the court can be trusted to exercise its authority with prudence and discretion. But the Ocalan verdict is only the latest example of the European Court’s frequent overreaching.

          It has ruled, for example, that British law permitting the spanking of children somehow violates the European Convention on Human Rights’ prohibition against “torture” and “degrading treatment”. Obviously the Convention – drafted in the aftermath of World War II – was intended to limit the systematic abuses of governments, not the disciplinary discretion of parents. But the tendency of judges over time is to amass whatever power they can get away with, a danger all the more pronounced in any legal system not directly accountable to national governments.

          Here’s a quick history of the Ocalan case: For years, he received sympathetic treatment from Europe – especially Greece, Belgium and France, where the wife of the late President Mitterand was a fan. Ocalan was expelled from Syria in response to the credible threat of Turkish military force in 1998 (no “land for peace” nonsense here). Within a month he was captured in Italy, which actually considered granting the mass-murderer political asylum because Turkey had a death penalty. If any other European countries wanted to help put Ocalan behind bars, they didn’t show it.

          In January 1999 Ocalan was shipped out of Italy on a private jet. “I don’t know where Ocalan is, and I don’t care” remarked Italian Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema. A month later with help from American intelligence, the Turks captured Ocalan hiding in the Greek Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. Not content to leave it there, Europe’s political class began pleading for Ocalan’s life. And Turkey, desperate not to offend during its EU membership drive, duly commuted the death sentence Ocalan received. This verdict is Turkey’s reward.

          The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights has three main due process objections to the Ocalam trial: a military judge was present for part of the proceedings; Ocalan didn’t get quite as much access to his lawyers as he wanted; and there was a delay in bringing him before a judge after his capture (as if he had no clue what the charges might be). These are essentially frivolous reasons for ordering a retrial, since no serious person could imagine the possibility of a different result.

          After reading the verdict, David Rivkin, an international lawyer who has argued before the Yugoslavia war crimes tribunal, rendered the following judgment to us: “political, and despicable in its arrogance and hypocrisy.” And Europe wonders why the U.S. doesn’t always take its opinions about the war on terrorism seriously.
          The Unites States needs to make it very clear to our Iraqi-Kurdish allies that they need to squash PKK, very quickly and with extreme prejudice.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm afraid Doc's right. Turkey has every right to defend itself against attacks.

            I won't get into the question of "more justification?" as it seems to be a question trawling for a controversy.

            Comment


            • #7
              doc, that WSJ piece had less to do with the PKK, and more to do with US disdain of the ICC. (makes sense - it's an American newspaper)

              As to question, I'd not be surprised to the see the Turks pull an Op: Litani style cross border incursion; the big question is whether the US forces would oppose it or not.

              People also forget that the Kurds themselves are not united - the PKK is probably the best known, but the KDP and PUK are also big players, and they all have their own peshmergas (guerillas). The PKK has historically leaned towards Syria, and the KDP has close ties with the US. Then there's the PUK which is for whatever the KDP is against.

              It was against this backdrop that OP: Provide Comfort took place in the nineties. While that mission was considered a success, it and the rest of the fallout from Resolution 688 didn't exactly endear the US to the Turks. Remember that by agreeing to the sanctions against Saddam Turkey cut it's own throat economically when it shut down the Kirkuk pipeline, costing itself US$9 billion or thereabouts. Afaict, Turkey never got compensated for that (though they might have been - I've never found anything, but then I never looked that hard.) That's not going to help the public perception.

              I remember talking with a Turkish colleague in Cote d'Ivore about it and he basically said Turkey doesn't have an issue with Kurds, because there are no Kurds in Turkey. There's "Mountain Turks" but no Kurds. When you're facing ideology like that, it's not hard to see why the turkish govt, and more importantly the turkish military, would be pushing to establish a buffer zone, or round up expected insurgents, a la the IDF's Op: Litani.
              Now listening too;
              - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'd say yes . . .

                IIRC the Kurds have been asked in no uncertain terms to reign in their errant factions. IMO the US is not interested in another front. The Kurds have de facto autonomy and now have to live with the consequences. Both Iran and Turkey have fired artillery into Kurdish areas and US has said very little about it to Iran and nothing at all to the Turks AFAIK. That in itself should tell the Kurds what the US position is.
                Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

                Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Surely the US, by virtue of what it has done, must now guarentee Iraqi borders against open foreign incursions (as opposed to guerrilla elements sneaking across from Iran, Syria etc which it can only try to stop with what it has to spare).
                  The Turks are not noted for restraint when dealing with minority group opponents (just ask the Armenians post-1890, the Asia Minor Greeks post-1918 or any other unfortunates who where within their reach post 1454!!).
                  An invasion (call it what you will the Pentagon used 'incursion' when it entered Cambodia in 1970 and Loas in '71) is unlikely to be a gentle affair and can only contribute to destabilising the region.
                  We will be stuck in this mangrove swamp for decades.
                  keep reading the good read
                  lodestar

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    after this morning's attacks, the Turkish government have no choice but to react militarily. The US has asked the Turks to hold off for a few days, but they can't, not with civilian casualties and anti-Kurd sentiments being expressed by the populace. I thought it was particularly droll of US SecDef Robert Gates to worry about the collateral damage a turkish incursion may cause.

                    But the PKK have gone stupid - they had the moral high ground, the international guilt of their suffering under Saddam and Turkey to buy concessions with, and they throw it away on meaningless attacks on exposed turkish units.

                    When turkish authorities have to use riot police to disperse protesters criticising them for not being harsh enough, then you know it's time that military has to get involved. The Turkish military were exposed to the idea of "filtration camps" due to their liaisons with the Chechens in the First Chechen War, maybe it's time that they started using the same measures to secure their border.
                    Now listening too;
                    - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Once again, Turkey has a right to defend itself. And it should be added that US interests is in clamping down on the PKK and not in a war against Turkey. The Iraqi Kurds ought not to complain, after all that the US has done for them.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ogukuo72 View Post
                        Once again, Turkey has a right to defend itself. And it should be added that US interests is in clamping down on the PKK and not in a war against Turkey. The Iraqi Kurds ought not to complain, after all that the US has done for them.
                        And what exactly has the US done for them? Not having a go btw, I'm just curious as to why you think the US has benefitted them. The Kurds still remember being told to rise up against Saddam, and that the US will support you - except they didn't. That was one of the main reasons Op: Provide Comfort even occurred.

                        The US hasn't made any demands to Baghdad about Kurdish independence, so the Kurd's don;t even really owe the US political support.

                        The other fact of the matter is the Kurdish group with the closest relations to the US is also the smallest (the KDP). The PKK is as likely to heed the US's advice and/or wishes as the Iranians are.
                        Now listening too;
                        - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov View Post
                          And what exactly has the US done for them? Not having a go btw, I'm just curious as to why you think the US has benefitted them. The Kurds still remember being told to rise up against Saddam, and that the US will support you - except they didn't. That was one of the main reasons Op: Provide Comfort even occurred.

                          The US hasn't made any demands to Baghdad about Kurdish independence, so the Kurd's don;t even really owe the US political support.

                          The other fact of the matter is the Kurdish group with the closest relations to the US is also the smallest (the KDP). The PKK is as likely to heed the US's advice and/or wishes as the Iranians are.
                          The US has done much, beginning all the way back to 1991. Read up on history. It helps.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            yes, and why did the US help out in '91? Was perhaps it because George Bush urged the Kurds to rise up and overthrow Saddam?

                            Was it maybe because Norman Schwartzkopf allowed Iraqi gunships to fly under US-controlled skies, allowing the Iraqi Republican Guard to quash the nascent Shi'ite rebellion in the Euphrates? Actions that freed up troops to move north against the Kurds under Jalal Talabani who had seized Kirkuk?

                            George Bush had urged the Kurds to rise up, and on 4 March 1991, they did - they'd seized Kirkuk by 13 March, and their were plenty of US forces in the area to help them out. The last Coalition forces didn't leave until 8 May. But no, after they were done crushing the Shi'ites around Basra, Saddam's forces moved against the Kurds - took them 3 hours on 29th March to retake Kirkuk.

                            And what happened when Saddam moved against the rebellious Kurds? They fled, one and half million of them, in all directions, but over a million of them headed towards Turkey, that particularly Kurd-loving place. So Turkey, who had just let the Coalition forces fly over 5000 sorties from their airbases, and severely hurt themselves financially by agreeing to the sanctions against Saddam, very strongly suggested to the US that perhaps there should be Kurdish safe areas established - and those safe havens would be in Northern Iraq.

                            America owed Turkey, and Turkey made it very clear it expected help from it's NATO allies, and specifically the US. Ofc, then there was UN Security Council Resolution 688:

                            Originally posted by 688
                            Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region,
                            then Bush took the lead on the issue, even though John Major was the major champion for the cause. The Us had just finished a war, they didn't want to get stuck in Iraq again, but after using the UN to get Desert Storm happening in the first place, Bush couldn't very well now turn his back on it, especially when it was a humanitarian mission that was the result of his policies.

                            The result? Operation: Provide Comfort; a great success, mainly due to the fact it was a multinational operation carried out by forces trained in OOTW/SASO ops - largely parachute/SOF units from the US, Britain, Spain, Italy, France, Canada, Australia, Belgium, and Germany.

                            But the the Turks were still free to chase the PKK into "Kurdistan", and the PKK hated the westerners as much as they did the Turks. Plus, it ended in 1996 by request of the Turks who wanted better relations with Iran and Iraq - those other traditionally Kurd-friendly countries.

                            So yeah the Us did some good, but as a matter of chance, not because they set out to do it in the first place. If anything, the Kurds have the Turks to thank more than anyone - how's that for irony.

                            But what do I know? I need to read up on history - apparently it helps
                            Now listening too;
                            - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov View Post
                              And what exactly has the US done for them?
                              The Kurds definitely believe that the USA has benefitted them immensely. They proclaim the invasion as 'liberation' and coalition forces as 'liberators'. They put a lot of money in TV advertising in the USA thanking the USA for helping them.
                              "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X