by Bay Fang
The United States and Turkey, longtime NATO allies, are struggling to avoid a clash over Turkey's border security that could pose serious complications for the American military operation in Iraq.
Turkey's parliament is expected Wednesday to vote overwhelmingly to authorize a cross-border military attack on Kurdish separatists in northern Iraq, a move that could destabilize the region and create enormous problems for the Iraqi Kurds, U.S. allies who oversee the most peaceful parts of the country. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan attempted to play down the threat Tuesday, saying an incursion was not imminent. But the maneuver worried Iraqi government officials enough that Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi flew to Ankara for emergency meetings.
U.S. officials have been scrambling to repair strained relations with Turkey after a House committee passed a resolution last week labeling the World War I-era killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians as "genocide." In the wake of the vote, Turkey recalled its ambassador and the Bush administration sent two senior officials to the capital of Ankara in hopes of smoothing over the issue.
See the rest of the story in today's Tribune:
A number of House members indicated Tuesday they were withdrawing their support for the measure, citing Turkey's angry reaction and the potential risk to U.S. interests in the region. But some analysts believe the resolution may have freed up Turkish officials to cast aside American concerns and strike a tougher stance against the separatist rebels from the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK.
"If there had not been the Armenian resolution, there still would have been the problem with the PKK," said Mark Parris, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey who is now at the Brookings Institution. "What the U.S. resolution has done is remove a lot of the constraints Turks might have felt in getting out of sync with Washington."
The move comes just ahead of high-profile meetings between Turkish and U.S. officials. Turkey plays host to a ministerial-level conference of Iraq's neighbors in Istanbul on Nov. 3-4, and Erdogan is expected to meet with President Bush in Washington directly after that.
"Until all this, the road to the Istanbul conference seemed pretty smooth," said one senior administration official. "The U.S., the Iraqis and the Turks were going to meet separately on the margins of the conference. Now that is all up in the air."
Erdogan's remarks on Tuesday were aimed at toning down tensions. "The passage of the motion in parliament does not mean that an operation will be carried out at once," he said. "Turkey would act with common sense and determination when necessary and when the time is ripe."
The parliament approval would be good for one year, but the mountain passes leading to PKK camps along the Turkish-Iraqi border are snowed under for much of the winter.
The measure in the Turkish parliament follows a spate of attacks in Turkey in recent weeks by the PKK, leading to growing public pressure in Turkey to go after the group. The U.S. has labeled the PKK a terrorist organization.
Turkish officials have demanded that U.S. and Kurdish officials in Iraq take steps themselves to control the rebels, so the threat of an incursion could be an effort to force them to take action.
PKK rebels have been fighting for autonomy in Turkey's southeast since 1984. Turkey launched a series of failed cross-border raids in the 1990s to try to flush out their mountain strongholds. A cease-fire called in 1999 held until 2 1/2 years ago, but this year, an election year in Turkey, both the violence and the level of rhetoric have spiked.
Iraq's interior minister signed a joint security agreement with Ankara last month that said the Turks needed permission from the Iraqi government to cross the border.
State Department spokesman Tom Casey warned against military action. "Unilateral military action isn't the way to deal with the threat posed by the PKK. We've counseled our friends in Turkey to exercise restraint," he said Tuesday.
The Kurds, who preside over the most stable region of Iraq, said they have sent a strong message to the PKK in Iraq to stand down, but that if the Turkish military indeed invaded, they would send their own fighters to defend against an attack.
"The peshmerga [Kurdish security forces] haven't been given any instructions either way right now," said Qubad Talabany, the representative of the Kurdish Regional Government to the U.S. "But in the end, their job is to defend the population of Iraqi Kurdistan. We will be in a very awkward position if Turkey invades."
The increased tensions could also put the U.S. military in a complicated situation. On one hand, the U.S. has an interest in protecting the fledgling Iraqi government, but given that it is a NATO ally, it is unclear if the U.S. has an obligation to help Turkey stamp out PKK incursions.
At the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that commanders are hoping that the situation is resolved diplomatically, but he acknowledged that contingency plans are being examined if Turkey cuts off supply routes into Iraq.
Currently, 70 percent of the American military's air cargo headed to Iraq is shipped through an American air base in southern Turkey. The Iraqis also would suffer if supply routes were cut off to Turkey.
"There is essentially a single major port of entry through the Habur gate ... through which traffic flows from Turkey to Iraq and from Iraq into Turkey," Ham said. "If the flow of those materials were to be disrupted, it would have not only a significant effect on the U.S. military operating in Iraq, but it would have a significant effect commercially to Iraq as well."
The U.S. House's proposed Armenia resolution may have also diminished the influence of any potential allies of the U.S. in that country.
"Those who say let's wait and see on the PKK issue will be told to shut up," said Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute. Favorable views of the U.S. among the Turkish people are at a record low of 9 percent.
President Bush called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Tuesday and asked her not to bring the resolution to the House floor, but her spokesman said Pelosi's position has not changed.
Though Pelosi has long been a supporter of the measure, her colleagues' support appears to be eroding. Thus far, 17 of the original 235 co-sponsors have withdrawn their names.
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), chairman of the House Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, sent a letter Tuesday to Pelosi, saying the resolution "would have serious consequences for the United States' important relationship with modern-day Turkey, a strong NATO ally; and threaten our operations and our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Here is just another dimension to the disaster in Iraq.
The U.S. is being brought into conflict with a traditional and important ally.
The damage throughout the world done by Bush in Iraq will take many years to repair.
But the first certified moron to serve as President wants to leave office by damaging things even further with an attack on Iran. Simply insane.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | October 17, 2007 9:01 AM
Just an example of our future nieve, Pelosi lead, Democratic party running our country on Jimmy Carter era and San Francisco prinipals. You think Bush is Bad? Wait! Russia, Iran and Venezuela will become the Superpower that America will fear under the next liberal, far left administration.
Posted by: Bob Hindes | October 17, 2007 9:05 AM
So, what will the US reaction be when our Ally Turkey, starts fighting our other ally, the Iraqi Kurds, within the border of the nation of Iraq, a country who's government we are deperately trying to prop up? Knowing this Administrations track record, I'm sure they haven't even considered a response yet.
This was a wholly forseeable consequence of our adventure in Iraq. It was openly discussed during the run up to the war that any increase in the power an autonomy of the Iraqi Kurds would be viewed as a grave threat by Turkey. It's taken 4 and a half years, but now here we are, just where everyone predicted we would be.
Posted by: AJF | October 17, 2007 9:12 AM
Russia & China, by definition, are already superpowers & they got stronger over the last several years, as well as Iran, Venezuela, & North Korea. Weird how some blame an administration that doesn't exist yet.
So now, Trukey is poised to invade Iraq. Just another example of how ignorant it was for Bush to invade Iraq. & there's still neo-con talk about striking Iran.
Seems like the "war on terror" is about to spread. Ironic, since invading Iraq had nothing to do with combating terrorism.
Posted by: RomanB | October 17, 2007 9:36 AM
This is the NEW Domino Theory. Invade a non-threatening country, in the Middle East, and watch them all fall into chaos. How many American soldiers will die in this war? It's OK. We'll get all those "terrorists". We will prevail. STUPID! STUPID! STUPID! That's all I can think, when I think of George W. Bush! STUPID!
Posted by: San Miguel | October 17, 2007 10:09 AM
And so, another lesson in partisan politics.
Republican haters, please note that the hated Bushman has been saying quite often that serious consequences will arise from passage of the resolution.
Democrat haters, please point your finger at Nancy Pelosi and ask "Why can't she hear what the president is saying"??
Well, its obvious why she can't hear or understand the wisdom comming her way, for her partisan head is wedged sooo far up her partisan loyalty that she can't tell her partisan forest from her partisan trees.
There is no hope of extracting her wedged partisan head. I think we should simply remove her and start thinking about issues and not partisan politics!!!
Posted by: Bob Lastick | October 17, 2007 10:37 AM
So we drop a tactical nuke on the border and make it hard for Turkey to come over, and while we are at it why not drop a few in Iran. That way they can claim we we not neglecting them. What is it going to take for George to say I made a mistake, or do something much better and act like a few other presidents and either reverse their decision or step down when they discover that what they have been doing was a horrendous mistake?
Posted by: WOW | October 17, 2007 10:48 AM
Bob Lastick-
The Turkish Resolution supporting military action against the Kurds was going to happen even if the Arnmenian Genocide was never brought up.
This is a serious consequence of Bush deciding to destabilize the region.
Nice try to shift blame away from him.
Posted by: AJF | October 17, 2007 11:13 AM
Bush went into Iraq uninvited and unprovoked. I'm thinking that Turkey has the right- as a bordering neighbor- to go in over border security. A low tech approach would be the smart thing here- and we should start getting out now. No WMDs ever found. Hussein is hanged for being convicted of killing 148 people. What a return on our 650,000,000,000 dollars. And all the deaths, and kids left with out a mother or father. And all the amputees and brain injured soldiers. The only thing that makes sense for a 650,000,000,000 dollar return in Iraq would be private-buddy oil deals.
Posted by: Vivian | October 17, 2007 2:56 PM
Turkey is no doubt using this little border skirmish to hold up the US for more billions in bribes, uh, foreign aid. Ditto Iraq, where corruption and blackmail run rampant and we have enriched untold numbers of shrewd Iraqi pols of all persuasions.
Bush and clueless Condi will likely give out any number of our billions to keep the Turks and Iraqis quiet---and they know it.
Look for this lucrative almost-war to continue on our dime for a long time.
And dont look to Hill/Bill or Obambi to stop it.
Americans are SO bird-brained when it comes to the spending of their money.
Posted by: Helena | October 17, 2007 4:01 PM
Turkey has a legitimate reason for going into Iraq. Kurds in Iraq are trying to take territory from them. The U.S. had no legitimate reason for going into Iraq. We simply went there to take their oil.
Posted by: San Miguel | October 17, 2007 4:05 PM
"Russia & China, by definition, are already superpowers & they got stronger over the last several years, as well as Iran, Venezuela, & North Korea. Weird how some blame an administration that doesn't exist yet."
Roman
This is Hindes' new way of blaming the Once and Future Clinton.
The direction of their agit-prop must now be reversed from the past to the future as the reign of George Tiberius winds down.
Re. Turk vs Kurd
What will happen? We don't, of course, know yet, but this is one of the complications and outcomes that had been warned of before GWB's intervention in Iraq.
But it calls for a slight revision of the old adage;
'One man's terrorists is another man's freedom fighter. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist?'
repeat, repeat...
Posted by: C.Morris | October 17, 2007 4:58 PM
So where do our loyalties lie? Do we help the Kurds? Do we help the Turkeys?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | October 17, 2007 6:20 PM
Let me add some talking points for Bruce, John D, Paulo, etc., re Turkey, the new enemy and greatest threat to freedom since Nazi Germany!
1. Turkey must be stopped. After all, they are almost French!
2. In protest, I will not have turkey for T-Giving dinner! (Or do you say 'supper'.)
3. Turkey has stuck in my craw since the Armenian Genocide of 1915!
4. Turkey! The Sick Man of a sick Europe!
5. The Turks! They murdered Mel Gibson at Gallipoli, with Churchill's help! Get the Britt's too!
6. Turkey? Bird flu! Get it?
7. Turkey, the Left Wing of the Moslem world! Enough said! Get em, boys!!
8. Ya like your 'Kurds' and whey? Nuke em!!
9. We need the Dardanelles to preserve family 'movement' Christian values!
10. Byzantium? Constantinople? Istanbul? It makes no difference to 9-megaton device.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 17, 2007 6:52 PM
The Turkish government continues to play up their status as one of our vital "allies" in the Middle East. They then hang it over our heads and threaten to pull their "friendship" if we dare pass a resolution that acknowledges the Armenian Genocide. However, it is clear that the Turks pursue their own interests independent of our policy on the Armenian Genocide.
Look back to 2003 when Turkey blocked US military operations from entering Iraq through their borders. This action was taken at a time when the Genocide Resolution was not on the table and helped contribute to the strengthening of the insurgency. Where were our supposed allies when we needed them most?
Now, Turkey is threatening to enter Northern Iraq and their Parliament has just given the ok for the invasion. However, it is interesting to note that Turkey says that they have no plans for imminent acton. So the plan is to hold this over Congress' heads in the hope that they will kill the Genocide Resolution.
What a coincidence that the Turkish vote authorizing intervention into Northern Iraq was taken so soon after the Genocide Resolution passed through committee. What type of ally makes these types of threats to their friends? Clearly they have no concern for the best interests of the United States (if they enter Iraq to fight the Kurds it will only complicate the mess in Iraq), yet we are supposed to help them cover their disgraceful past? It is amusing how Turkey speaks as if they are in a position of dominance over the United States. It's as if they get nothing from us while going out of their way to give us so much. The reality is that Turkey benefits much more from their relationship with us than we do with them. Since when can Turkey hold us hostage????
Posted by: A. Abrahms | October 18, 2007 2:32 AM
The Turkish government continues to play up their status as one of our vital "allies" in the Middle East. They then hang it over our heads and threaten to pull their "friendship" if we dare pass a resolution that acknowledges the Armenian Genocide. However, it is clear that the Turks pursue their own interests independent of our policy on the Armenian Genocide.
Look back to 2003 when Turkey blocked US military operations from entering Iraq through their borders. This action was taken at a time when the Genocide Resolution was not on the table and helped contribute to the strengthening of the insurgency. Where were our supposed allies when we needed them most?
Now, Turkey is threatening to enter Northern Iraq and their Parliament has just given the ok for the invasion. However, it is interesting to note that Turkey says that they have no plans for imminent action. So the plan is to hold this over Congress' heads in the hope that they will kill the Genocide Resolution.
What a coincidence that the Turkish vote authorizing intervention into Northern Iraq was taken so soon after the Genocide Resolution passed through committee. What type of ally makes these types of threats to their friends? Clearly they have no concern for the best interests of the United States (if they enter Iraq to fight the Kurds it will only complicate the mess in Iraq), yet we are supposed to help them cover their disgraceful past? It is amusing how Turkey speaks as if they are in a position of dominance over the United States. It's as if they get nothing from us while going out of their way to give us so much. The reality is that Turkey benefits much more from their relationship with us than we do with them. Since when can Turkey hold us hostage????
Posted by: A. Abrahms | October 19, 2007 12:17 AM