Story

"Turkey signaled today that it was prepared to allow more than 60,000 American troops to use its bases to attack Iraq. At the same time, the United States Army's top general said the military force for postwar Iraq could total several hundred thousand American soldiers to provide security and relief aid."

- - - - -

I recently spoke with a professor-friend of mine from Ismir (pronounced, "IS-murr") Turkey, and she explained that the Turks are positioning themselves to cash in on any military agressions against Iraq.

Turkey already hosts several U.S military bases and hopes to profit from hosting more soldiers.

I guess this money could come in handy for Turkey, as the majority of refugees are going to single Turkey out for a choice of shelter, in addition to the Kurds who will probably join them at that time.

It has been difficult to avoid asking her questions about the possibility of a new nation, Kurdistan.

- - - - -

Interesting excerpt from later in the article:

"The measure would also authorize sending an unspecified number of Turkish troops into northern Iraq. The plan prompted a Kurdish parliament in the self-governing northern part of Iraq to appeal today to Washington to prevent Turkey's military from entering Iraq in any war. Relations between Turks and Kurds are clouded by mutual suspicions rooted in repeated conflict."

[ February 26, 2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Turkey is "negotiating" a package mainly because the White House made it clear that it would pay to get Turkey on board. The folks running the show in Ankara are just following up on that commitment. And using the need for Turkish bases as a good lever.

Interesting that in the first Gulf War, there was not much need to do these things. The coalition that James Baker and Bush Sr. built was very solid and multi-lateral. Of course, they had a much more legitimate basis for the conflict -- the invasion of a small, sovereign nation that could not defend itself. Not only did world leaders get on board to support it after a fashion, they also paid the majority of the bills.

Now we are bribing allies like Turkey with huge financial aid packages, and looking at costs projected by the Pentagon in the $100 billion range. What could we do with that money domestically at a time where our economy is not able to support our own people who want to be employed and independent?

Can anyone say, "Adana Kebab"?

I don't know what this means yet; but Turkey could very well suck up A LOT of foreign money if (did I actually ask, "If?") she wants to, especially since it is common knowledge that Turkey can expect a large number of conflict and post-conflict refugees.

[ February 28, 2003, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

On a related topic, I'm watching how Chile will vote in Thursday's Security Council meeting on the war resolution. They have not committed to voting yes. The U.S. just finished free trade agreement negotiations with them (something Chile has wanted since NAFTA was passed ten years ago).

Curious, then, that a few days ago, U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick said that he would have the written text of the FTA ready on Friday (it needs to be sent to Congress for passage) -- a day after the U.N. vote. Of course, that deadline could always slip ... Coincidence? I think not!

Bush may have a hard time pronouncing "quid pro quo" but he sure knows how to use it

[ February 27, 2003, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

I call this thing blackmail, thats how I feel about it. frown

Yes, it is funny how we prosecute people in this country for bribery and extortion. Yet, when the government uses the same tactics, it is somehow supposed to be diplomacy and foreign policy. Whatever.

Turkey seems to be in the best positiom for getting what they want. Other countries are being strong armed. Mexico has been holding its position on following a path of peace, but who knows if they will hold out through the vote.

I do think that the three vetoes who are against the use of military force at this point in time will quash any resolution. We will be going in without the consent of the UN. Of course, that does not seem to bother the White House.

How do you make a multi-lateral foreign body irrelevant? Ignore it whenever you don't get your way.

Team Bush had to bribe Turkey to come on board with Bush's war. A poll in Turkey showed that over 90% of Turks are against the war. I guess money talks. To bad the only president we have isnt interested in throwing that money around in this country.

The money will be well spent protecting our oil interests in the MidEast. If we lose our supply it will cost us more than the "bribe" to Turkey and reak havoc in the US.

Keep this in mind next time you fill-up the tank.

Josh

[ February 28, 2003, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

But didn't Turkey also want more money ($5 billion) than they're getting ($2.3/2.6 billion)? Also, the Turkish Parliament still hasn't approved the deal; they could hold out for more loot and force the U.S.'s hand, because our warships are waiting off Turkey's coast and can't do so indefinitely . Also, if we don't have Turkey as a staging ground, then we won't be able to launch multiple ground strikes, from all sides, against Saddam. We can't go through Iran or Syria, so that leaves only Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, where the desert conditions are most intense.

Finally, weren't we supposed to be asking the Kurds for their support against Saddam? If Turkey invades Iraq and suppresses the nascent Kurdish autonomous government there, won't that bode ill for us in the future? Turkey has had to deal with years of Kurdish insurgency, and we let the Kurds down once before, so if we pull this stunt and assist Turkey in suppressing them, are we expecting that they'll forget the betrayal and go along with whatever we come up with in Iraq? I'm not sure we can buy off their renewed anger and resentment; that is, of the Kurds who're left after Turkey's military bombs and gases them.

That last paragraph is the crux of this issue. Turkey wants free reign re: the Kurds and we're handing it to 'em on a silver platter. Our double-cross of the Kurds--AGAIN--is loathsome.

And to think, people in this country geniunely wonder why US foreign policy isn't viewed favorably everywhere.

All of the polls indicate they are against a conflict in Iraq by NATO. All they want is the money. The "high rent" district of Turkey is just that and is black mail in my opinion.

Josh

Money's not all they want. With the US having bought them off in exchange for looking the other way, they can try to "solve" their longstanding issues with the Kurds in southern Iraq. I won't bat an eye if a few months after Bush's war starts that an article, that will probably be buried on page A14, states that the Turks are going in to southern Iraq in the US's wake and are doing not-nice things to Kurdish villages.

We would do well to remember that humbling the U.N. is a long-cherished goal of the American hard right. Bush taking the matter to the U.N. was not primarily a sop to Tony Blair, as it was made out to be in the media. Sure, politically Blair needs the legitimacy of U.N. sanction, but he will follow Bush no matter what. Rather, by taking this to the U.N., the administration thus forces the U.N. to choose between "irrelevancy", as W. likes to term it, and subservience to America.

The media pundits all seem to think that Russia & China will abstain from the vote on the second resolution, because both ultimately value their relations with Washington above all. Perhaps they are correct, but I wouldn't be so sure: Vladimir Putin has shown himself to be pragmatic in his dealings with Washington, but his acquiencence over NATO expansion & the U.S. presence in Central Asia should not be interpreted as support for America's foreign policy goals. If the ad hoc coalition of France, Germany & Russia can hold itself together, this more than anything else would render NATO irrelevant, which, I think, is ultimately what Putin would want. An alliance of all the second-tier powers (excluding Great Britain) to oppose & contain America would be a major diplomatic coup for Russia (& France & China too, both of which fear American hyperpower), & I think this is what Putin might be going for.

Turkey, as we all could have figured, will be bought off--it is just holding out for the best deal it can get & seems to want cash up front, & its leadership rightly feels that if war is inevitable, it needs to participate in order to have a say in the settlement. As always, in the end it will be the Kurds who get screwed.

As for Mexico, who knows? Ultimately, I think the U.S. has too much leverage for it to hold out indefinitely, but then, Mexico has a few bargaining chips vis-à-vis the U.S. as well. Bush dispatched José Maria Aznar from Crawford, Texas down to Mexico to personally persuade Vicente Fox to get in line, apparently to no avail. But there's alot of baggage in the history of U.S.-Mexican relations, which seems to be forgotten by all those who assumed that Mexico would be automatically on the U.S. side. Then too, perhaps Presidente Fox has had his fill of double-dealing & broken promises from George W. Bush.

"You got it right, Mr. President. That's U.S. 7.5 million dollars in navy blue suitcases. All bills should be of $20 denomination, and unmarked. And for your considerable trouble, we shall provide your delivery people with ten (10) cases of raki for an evening toast at the White House." wink

[ February 28, 2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

Why on earth would Mexico be persuaded by anything José María Aznar has to say? Spain's major leverage is with the countries of South America, primarily Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, where it has invested billions of pesetas-euros in snapping up businesses and resources.

Vicente Fox realizes that he has been kicked to the backburner, and that many of Bush's promises and agreements were pure BS. Mexico has 90 million people, is intimately linked to the U.S. by proximity, treaties and economics, and can demonstrate to the U.S. that it will not be treated as a bastard sibling in the UN vote. Ultimately Mexico will go along with the US's plans, I think, but only after it has registered its disgust at W's treatment of it. The same is true of Canada. To the person who claimed that Canada's palms are upturned, don't forget that Canadian investment outstrips any other nation, and that Canada is our major trading partner alongside Mexico. Yet we treat Canada like a the pathetic little brother we can bully around when need be. We don't give a damn about rich Germany and France, but we could at least do a lot better with our wealthy neighbor to the north and our populous neighbor to the south. They really are family in more ways than one.

[ March 01, 2003, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Poor Vicente..... :mad: frown

I didn't realize that Spain was that involved in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil; and, Brazil in particular.

It makes perfect sense - I just did not know it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2810133.stm

>>
Turkey upsets US military plans
A knife-edge vote in Turkey's parliament to allow US troops on Turkish soil is declared invalid.
....
The Turkish Government now faces the prospect of either conceding its loss and forfeiting the deal that it worked out so painfully with the United States or calling another vote in the hope that some of its own MPs might change their minds.

Opinion polls show that 80% of Turks are opposed to the war and tens of thousands of protesters, from academics to family parties, turned out in central Ankara.
<<

[ March 01, 2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

I was (pleasantly) surprised by the Turkish parliament's rejection of the deployment deal. I know that Turkish public opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to war, but there was simply too much on the table, & there remains too much cost to Turkey for sitting out, both in the settlement of post-Saddam Iraq & in long-term relations with America.

Aside from the promise of $15 billion in direct aid & loan guarantees, the military & political aspects of the agreement hammered out between the Bush administration, the Turkish cabinet & the Turkish military are equally important, though they have not been commented upon much in the American media. The agreement called for Turkish troops, not under American command, to invade Iraq along with American troops from the north, with American troops seizing the lowlands including the oil fields & the oil-rich cities of Kirkuk & Mosul (both of which have Kurdish populations but are under the control of Saddam's army now). Turkish troops would enter the mountainous areas that now are controlled by the 2 Kurdish armies & have effective automony under the protection of the no-fly zone. Thus is envisioned a long-term occupation & dismemberment of Iraq, with a Turkish zone & an American zone of authority. America gets control over the oil supplies, & Turkey gets a free hand to deal with the Kurds as it sees fit, & its military sees an opportunity to end the Kurdish problem once & for all. Another part of the deal calls for the Kurdish armies to be forcefully disarmed after the conflict is over. America wants the Kurds on its side, but it NEEDS the Turks, so guess which one will get screwed in the end. Once again, the Kurds' only friends are the mountains.

The Kurds, of course, have vowed to resist all this, & they have a total of 70,000 troops & thus constitute a formidable battle force. So Turkey, if it enters this war as planned, is facing a real war, with casualties, blood & gore, & probably messy aftermath that could drag on indefinitely, so it's no wonder that the Turkish people are so adamantly opposed. Not to mention that they would be regarded with contempt by their fellow Muslims in neighboring countries.

This war is about so much more than Saddam, & the entire world knows this. The Bush administration is busily constructing a new world order, based on the imposition of American power & unapologetic American supremacy over any & all other countries & international organizations. (There's a method to their madness in tearing up all these treaties & trashing the U.N.!) Countries that dare to try to thwart American ambitions (like France) will be made to pay dearly; countries that support America will be rewarded. With these kinds of ambitions, Bush will light the fuse on this powder keg no matter what. Turkey, by going along, can have a privileged position in this new world order, so I can't imagine that the Turkish military will let this vote stand.

My guess is that, with so much at stake, the Turkish military & cabinet will "strongly recommend" that the Turkish parliament reconsider. Despite its democratic government, the military has long been the power broker in Turkey, so a coup d'état isn't out of the question if the parliament continues to balk. (If that happens, Turkish democracy will have been subverted ostensibly in the name of Iraqi democracy.)

But I could be wrong. What do I know? As the Turkish parliament voted, more than 50,000 people demonstrated against the war in Ankara a few blocks away. One of the signs in the crowd read: "The people will stop this war." Could it yet come to pass???

[ March 03, 2003, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Billy ]

Well, that's a show of guts that I don't get to read about every day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/internat.../02TURK.html?th

- - - - -

"The vote casts a shadow over the American-Turkish relationship, which Turkish officials said had come under great strain during the negotiations."

"Casts a shadow".....yeah, I BET it does. Turkey is saying that it can make its own decisions - even when it will disagree with the wishes, whims, and pleasures of the U.S.

Good for them.

Did everyone see Ari Fleischer getting LAUGHED OUT OF THE ROOM -- by the media! -- after he said at one of last week's briefings that "world leaders...are not buyable?" A joy to see; it was on Bill Maher's HBO show, among others.

Hurrah for the Turkish parliament.

Changing the subject a little: did anyone else happen to hear that Italy has quietly backed out of Bush's "coalition of the willing"? I saw no reference to it except in a column by William F. Buckley yesterday. But in that column he discussed it at length, so apparently it wasn't made up. Buckley also states dryly that supporters of the war must start to come to grips with the fact that it is highly unpopular outside of the U.S.A. & will have lasting damage to the way in which the world regards America. (Unpopular? There's an UPRISING against this war! At this point only the most self-referential among us could fail to see it.) Italy wouldn't have been able to offer much in terms of military support, but W. was looking for additional flags more than anything else, to create the appearance of a broad-based coalition. But more than 3 million Italians marched against the war on 15 February, & there have been massive acts of civil disobedience, such as dock workers refusing to load armaments & bonfires blocking the railways. Public opinion was running something like 80-90% against, apparently strong enough that even the imperious Silvio Berlusconi could no longer ignore it. W. may dismiss all of this, but even his administration can feel the momentum shifting. It appears that all those contemptible lefties & pacifists are starting to make a difference!

Yeah...well, this a not a war - THAT's at least half the reason people are so against. It's an "agression" against Iraq, and (FINALLY!) the global community is standing against bullying, if not war, altogether.

If it were truly a war, there might be more support becuase there would at least be some issue on the table.....

I saw that, it was great. Ari is a very poor liar, unlike his "boss." I guess we can mark Turkey off the list of the "coalition of the bribed."

No, we can probably add Turkey back to the coalition of the bribed. The general who serves as chief of staff of Turkey's army on Wednesday publicly rebuked the parliament, though he avoided using any outwardly threatening language. This matter will be brought to a vote again, under the stern watch of the Turkish military, & if it balks again, the army will take over. Again, Turkey has too much to lose by rejecting this deal: America gets the oil fields & a much easier path to victory, while Turkey gets a free hand to deal with the Kurds as it sees fit. After all, part of this deal is that the 2 Kurdish armies that control Iraqi Kurdistan will be forcibly disarmed. The Turkish military sees an opportunity to solve its Kurdish "problem" once & for all, & they simply won't allow this vote to stand. Viewed from this vantage point, the money almost seems secondary.

Whatever the democratic pretensions, power in Turkey resides with the military & not with the parliament. Power does not belong to the people of Turkey, who are against this war something like 90%, or the people of Europe for that matter. Power belongs to George W. Bush.

The end result of all this: the U.S. & Turkey are both going to be in Iraq for a long, long time. War with Iran at some future date is not out of the question either. And the Kurds are doomed--no question about that.

[ March 05, 2003, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Billy ]

This is getting a little bit too weird for me.
Turkey...in...Iraq?!?!?

Turkey has no business in Iraq (another recipe for disaster).

What are left to do? Turn ourselves over to the bioterrorist authorities, every one of us?

Everything about what is going on with this situation is SO wrong.

I just saw a demonstration of students and activists marching in protest at Wayne State University today. They were followed by a slow Detroit police car, and they were peaceful.

Nevertheless, I think it's PRETTY obvious that very few people are supporting GWB - yet, if he goes ahead with his plans, a lot of people will be plotting against him, the U.S. and any of GWB's allies for a long, long, long time.

Billy, I did, but it's interesting that the coverage has been so scant. Italy's parliamentary system keeps its leader on his toes, even though he controls the media there.

I keep seeing Spain and Bulgaria, but recall that Spain had to have the U.S. step in to negotiate a recent quarrel over Ceuta (was it?) with Morocco--MOROCCO! And Bulgaria couldn't defeat Poland with its army, let alone do much of anything. It's become a farce.

France and Russia are resolved to stand against the U.S., so we are going to do this alone, even though the President has said that we need coalition partners for the aftermath. It's so perverse, but he made up his mind a year ago based on plans drawn up before he took office by cronies of his father, so it's going to happen and THE REST OF THE WORLD BE DAMNED. Literally.

I must also say that I find the title of this thread disturbing. Turkey lost hundreds of billions of dollars worth of trade, profits and exchange as a result of the 1991 Gulf War, and the U.S., which had promised it restitution (as did other Muslim nations nearby), turned quite parsimonious once we'd withdraw from Iraq. So Turkey, like Mexico, like Grenada, like Afghanistan, like all the countries we've betrayed, has grounds for its demands. Turkey's oil pipeline with Iraq was shut off, and its longstanding trade with that country was disrupted by the war and, as a result of the sanctions, destroyed. In 1990 Turkey's economy was growing; after the Gulf War, it collapsed.

Now, we are on the verge of again screwing Turkey, by 1) forcing its military's hand against its democratic Parliament; 2) making it deal with the potentially hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Kurdish refugees; 3) stirring up the Kurds IN TURKEY, thus creating security problems for that country and initiating a situation of increased military control; and 4) pushing Turkey into a scenario in which it is further alienated from the rest of the Muslim world. Has W. thought about any of this? I don't think so, and I don't think he gives a damn. It's all about him, his buddies and their plans. The irony is nauseating.

This whole thing is an outrage. Here's what Christopher Hitchens, still pro-war, has to say about this. Hitchens article

More from Timothy Noah at Slate. Kurd Sellout Watch According to this article, it appears that if George W. Bush launches his invasion, the Kurds are screwed whether Turkey accepts the deal still on the table or not: if America & Britain invade from the south, Turkey will invade Iraqi Kurdistan from the north, DEAL OR NO DEAL with the U.S. It is unlikely that the U.S. would, in this instance, attempt to restrain the Turks.

If Turkey's parliament doesn't reverse itself, there's going to be a coup.

OK, fantomas...I am willing to consider a few suggestions from you.

- - - - -

What. a. mess. Not that ANY nation is the promised in that region (not that we are either), but Turkey is so messed up that I have to approach it in pieces at a time.

I wonder, incidentally, where this fiasco fits in the (Turkish) Presidential plan to rebuild the nation...I know that (the next election) is four years away in 2007, but Turkey is truly botched up at the moment.