Turkish troops entering Iraq

Remove all ads!

News speak about some 10000 troops to be deployed in Northern Iraq soon. I wonder if those will be good at enforcing peace seeing how Turkey's history towards the Kurds is somewhat unhealthy. Now what are they going to do there? Generals already shout about how their troops "will defend themselves if attacked", which I feel means that they want to duke it out with the PKK and related parties.

Do you think this will bring a piece of stability in Iraq anytime soon?

 

Both Turkey and the US want to see the northern Kurds kept within a federal Iraq - for different reasons, admittedly. The US is also keen to see Muslim peacekeepers on the ground to buff its international image, though it'll probably do as little good in the Islamic world as the American liberation of Muslim Kosovo. There's not any "safe" nationality to peacekeep in Iraq - the Americans are occupiers, the British are ex-colonizers, the Turks have bad blood with the Kurds, the French are Hussein-sympathizers, the Indians are Hindu, the Polish are American lackeys, etc. Given the choices available, the Turks' positives well outweigh their negatives - and the Turks would interfere anyway in the Kurdish areas, so the US had may as well enlist them in positions of accountability.

But will it bring stability? To my eyes, it doesn't look like adding troops will bring any more stability to Iraq, given how much stability is already there - one dead soldier every other day is hardly even a pinprick. But, by enabling US troops to lower their presence, it'll make US domestic support more stable - and that's critical, because it's the US that will (or won't) invest the resources Iraq needs to become truly stable.

Maybe the US should ask Syria's help, since they've done such a lovely peacekeeping job in Lebanon. Oh, wait, that's not peacekeeping...

 

The turkish troops will not be deployed in the Kurds' territories (even if this is the wish of the generals of the turkish army), they will cross them in order to reach their final destinations, which, according to BBC, are:

1.Salahuddin province, north of Baghdad, close to Kurdish areas and including Saddam Hussein's home town, Tikrit.

2.Part of Al Anbar province, west of Baghdad, along the Euphrates River, including the town of Fallujah.

3.A different part of Al Anbar province, further north - an option the Turkish Government is not keen on.

Of cource, this doesn't mean that the turks will not try to enter the kurdish areas and deal with the kurdish militia and PPK guerillas, if they have this opportunity in the future, since it is known that their ultimate goal is the elimination of any possibility for creation of a kurdish state.

 

Well, sorry, but I doubt the relevance and vindicability of that reasoning. I am yet to see any Kosovo-Albanian who would feel some bond to Arabs. They usually even make a clear distinction between themselves and Albanians. And I doubt that Arabs or muslim Indians on the other way around feel any bond to Kosovo-Albanians or Muslims in Bosnia. Except for sometimes pointing out shortcomings of the Europeans in politial speeches.

As for the Turks, I've seen a turkish general in the news today making clear, that in any case the Turkish troops are attacked while crossing northern Iraq, the of course will defend themselves appropriatley.

Again for the Turks, they're making progress and taking steps to better the relationship to the Kurds in their east, since a few years now. I hope involvment in Iraq will not somehow lead the Turks to abandon their domestic course in the right direction. As I am sure, that some Turks would love to have a reason for that.

But I think that's a very good point. Alliances enable new ressources. New ressources keep things going. But alliances also mean compromise and giving the partner what he wants. To many small alliances will make the whole thing to a patchwork. I do not think, that a patchwork will bring stability in the end. I expect more turmoil. But who would have expected me to excpect something different anyway.

 

Granted - that was part of my point. For all the US' effort to keep from appearing anti-Islamic, that's far from the highest concern in the area, so putting Muslim peacekeepers on the ground (instead of Western crusaders) has good domestic public relations value in the zealously tolerant America and Europe, but not much practical import in Iraq itself. Occupiers are occupiers are occupiers.

Yet...I am reminded that al-Qaeda has referenced East Timor (of all places!) in its list of grievances against the West. The murdered UN representative was the fella who had shepherded "Christian" East Timor to independence from Islamic Indonesia. You'd think that terrorists in Iraq that look as far afield as Indonesia's edge could spare a glance north to Albania.

Not so much a patchwork as spokes on a wheel, with the US in the center. The US usually prefers bilateral agreements - military alliances, free-trade agreements, etc. - since that way the US has a better bargaining position. It appears there's more infighting between the US State Dept. and the Pentagon than there is between the US and any of its allies in Iraq. Turkey can probably be trusted to toe the line.

 

Well there is a minor problem here. All arabic countries do not feel at ease with Turkey for two reasons. First of all since Kemal Attaturk Turkey and especially Turkish generals have a distaste for anything has to do with muslim religion. They try to prove that their nation is a democratic country (which i am afraid is not at least yet) and not a muslim country. Secondly Turkey has an mutual defence (against any threat) pact with Israel taking thus the place of the traitor in the eyes of the Muslim world. In fact Turkey has better bonds with the west than with any Arabic nation.

If ever the solution was bringing more troops in order to bring stability then Turkey should be the last choice not only because of the Kurds.
Turkey has a couple of years ago and i don't know if it's finished started to build a hoover dam on Tiger, who incidentally was the main water supply for Iraq and Syria iirc. And during the last ten years there have been many silenced invasions of the Turkish military in the Iraq to fight with Kurdish guerrila. Iraqies do not see Turkey as a good neighbhor and if this tells you something even the Iraqie council that was chosen from the USA administration reacts negatively on the probability of Turkish troops stationed anywhere on Iraq soil.
I fear that if Turkish soldiers do go as apart of the peacekeeping force in Iraq we will have a new war 99%. The Iraqies are already have bad temper now this will drive more people to start guerrila actions.

And this statement makes me bet that while turkish army is crossing nothern Iraq and specifically about 30Km from the borders give or take there will be an attack but i won't say from whom, guess .

I really wish you are right allthough i know from various sources that the steps taken are too small and not so democratic as they should be. They still do not want to breed any thought of independence from the minds of the Kurdish population. And the reactivation of PKK under a new name (i cannot recall the name but PKK was renamed after Otsalan was captured) won't help towards that goal. I really wish this was different but allthough many Turks now don't like that much the policies Turkey administration (and especially the generals) follows, the administration has following the same policies nevertheless (again i will say this, especially the generals)

 

I do think that the murder of the UN-representatives was the most significant terrorist "success" in Iraq until now. As I think the reasons were to kill with De Mello one person with the reputation of being very very competent and to complicate the work of huminitarian organizations which would lead help to get stability and good PR.

I think until now, it's not clear who bombed the UN-HQ and to which group they belonged. As you cite Indonesia. Now Indonesia has it's own internal and external problems and I think simply that they will try to gain sympathies with people in Indonesia, whith their on agenda and plenty of money. Or said in a different way, "muslims" will neither look for Indonesia or Kosovo (by the way, Iraw is one of the most secular "muslim" countries). Political parties and globalized organizations will look everywhere to raise money and gain allies, to work together. I think their is plenty of common ground between an Indonesian nationalist and an Saudi-Arabian nationalist, to work together to reach their own goals.

Again, I do not think that muslims stick more together as christians. And christians primarily kill themselves and look out for themselves, completly irrelevant if they share "common" believes. At least they did that until not so long ago.