quote:

---

ANKARA, Turkey -- Turkish officials signaled Tuesday they are prepared to send the army into northern Iraq if U.S. and Iraqi forces do not take steps to combat Turkish Kurdish guerrillas there _ a move that could put Turkey on a collision course with the United States.

Turkey is facing increasing domestic pressure to act after 15 soldiers, police and guards were killed fighting the guerrillas in southeastern Turkey in the past week.

---

quote:

---

The Turkish Kurdish guerrillas are mostly based in the Qandil mountains, an area 50 miles from the Turkish border with Iran. From Iraq, the guerrillas infiltrate southeastern Turkey to stage attacks.

---

I also expect that US war planes will begin to bomb the infrastructure of Pakistan since that govenment can't keep the Taliban in cheek and are "allowing" them to carry out terrorist attacks inside Afghanistan.

More seriously, there is no way Turkey will invade Iraq. They are bold and serious, but nobody is daft enough to piss off the US as much as that move would.

Not to mention it would be a very effective way of turning their relatively minor Kurdish resistance movement into a major guerilla & conventional war against the Iraqi and Turkish Kurds. And the Iraqi Kurds are well armed and organized. Not to mention the fact that they've grown used to a decade or so of de facto autonomy.

We all know how well occupations go when the population is hostile. On the other hand, we all know how blindingly stupid and overconfident invaders and occupiers seem to be when they calculate their chances. Maybe they think the Kurds will welcome them with open arms and throw flowers?

Joke at the ICTY

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Turkey, a valuable ally in Bush's War on Terror, is putting pressure on the US to take military action against PKK bases. Iraqi authorities have so far ignored repeated calls from Turkey for permission to attack.

---

web page

quote:

---

Turkey — with many Kurds living within its borders — has long been considered the chief obstacle to Kurdish dreams for an independent state. Turkish attitudes have evolved significantly, however. Some Turkish strategic thinkers, including those within the so-called “deep state” comprising the military and intelligence establishments, see a secular, pro-western and non-Arab Kurdistan as a buffer to an Islamic Arab state to the south.

---

quote:

---

"The way they look at terror there (in Israel) and in Turkey is not the same. They show tolerance towards country A (fighting terrorism) and show a different approach to country B. This is unacceptable," Erdogan said.

He did not mention the United States or Israel by name but it was clear to whom he was referring. Erdogan, whose roots are in political Islam, has previously criticised Israel's actions.

---

quote:

---

"Turkey knows how to take care of itself. The relevant security institutions are working on this matter," Erdogan told a meeting of the foreign economic relations council.

---

From the article excerpted below,it appears that Turkish courts also know how to "take care of" those pesky relevant security institutions.

quote:

---

Two Turkish paramilitary officers have been jailed for nearly 40 years each for trying to kill a supporter of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party.

---

quote:

---

"If they can do it why not us."

---

Because the survival of the Turkish people is not threatened by the formation of a separate Kurdistan.

The Kurds want a Kurdish nation,preferably by peaceful means and are not advocating the annihilation and destruction of Turkey.

quote:

---

Because the survival of the Turkish people is not threatened by the formation of a separate Kurdistan

---

This is exactly the point. Right on Jester! Neither is Israel threatened by a Palestinian country but sadly there are elements and that region that want to continue on fighting.

It is also important to note the Lebanon is a sovereign country another sovereign country was attacked from group with in the Lebanese border. The Palestinian situation is a bit more complex.

A true fair comparison would be to Chechnya.

quote:

---

More seriously, there is no way Turkey will invade Iraq. They are bold and serious, but nobody is daft enough to piss off the US as much as that move would.

---

I think it depnds on what the Kurds do. If their incursions into Turkey threaten to break off Turkish Kurdistan and make it part of the new Iraqi Kurdistan, or even if they gain control of the oil reserves in Kirkuk, Turkey might invade.

This should not necessarily be understood as an invasion by a wave of tanks across the border. No,
one could imagine Turkish special forces crossing the border, blowing up stuff, etc, as a first step.

Then the Kurds kill a few of them, then the Turks respond, etc, etc.

The relationship between Turkey and Kurdistan is just another element of the Middle East powder keg whose fuse was lit by the invasion of Iraq. Right now, there are ongoing hostilities in Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, with serious potential to envelop Syria and Iran, as well as Israel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

I think it depnds on what the Kurds do. If their incursions into Turkey threaten to break off Turkish Kurdistan and make it part of the new Iraqi Kurdistan, or even if they gain control of the oil reserves in Kirkuk, Turkey might invade.

This should not necessarily be understood as an invasion by a wave of tanks across the border. No,
one could imagine Turkish special forces crossing the border, blowing up stuff, etc, as a first step.

---

My understanding of the capacity of the PKK is that they are strictly a guerrilla force, without that kind of influence. I've also been led to understand (perhaps incorrectly) that Turkish Kurds are by no means unitary in their goals either.

There is little doubt that the Iraqi Kurds' ultimate goal is an independent Kurdistan - something that becomes more likely as the Shiites and Sunni keep ripping each other apart in the rest of Iraq. If it happens, they may well start looking at the other Kurdish populations on their borders - Armeina, Turkey and Iran all have Kurdish areas. In the right mix of chaos - which seems to be brewing at the moment - all the borders might be subject to change.

Worst case: Iran and the US start shooting at each other. Iraq goes (more) bananas - the Shiites start attacking US and other forces - something they could do very effectively. Pakistan has a coup, and begins overtly (as opposed to covertly) supporting the Taliban and others.

India gets militarized to counter Pakistan, and fighting starts (expands) in the Kashmir.

Iran sends forces into Afghanistan to mix things up and complicate things for the US, as well as prevent a Taliban victory (they were very hostile to each other before).

Syria, Egypt and others stand up to Israel. Lebanon collapses into another civil war. The Saud monarchy is overthrown, and possibly Mubarak in Egypt as well.

And the Kurds declare independence - surrounded by chaos, why wouldn't they? Who would stop them? Turkey might then invade, but they would be bogged down, and come into conflict with the Kurds, the rest of Iraq.

Then, I have no idea what will come of it all, aside from a lot of pain and suffering. Probably some new borders, and some new countries. Definitely the end of US predominance, as their oil dependency becomes a massive weakness.

quote:

---

My understanding of the capacity of the PKK is that they are strictly a guerrilla force, without that kind of influence. I've also been led to understand (perhaps incorrectly) that Turkish Kurds are by no means unitary in their goals either.

---

I think the threat to Turkey comes from the peshmerga, which is Kurdistan's all but independent military force.

Kurdistan wants to be independent, and has largely achieved that within Iraq. So thyen the question is whether they are going to let their "brothers suffering under Turkish oppression" continue to do so, or will they start to destabilize that area, too.

quote:

---

My understanding of the capacity of the PKK is that they are strictly a guerrilla force, without that kind of influence

---

Kurdistan Worker's Party

Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan
The Kurdistan Worker's Party was born out of the leftist student organizations in Turkey in the 1960s. It's main goal is the setting up of an independent Kurdish state in southeastern Turkey. In keeping with its Marxist ideology, the PKK initially saw itself as part of the world-wide Marxist revolution. It's founding and ideological base was primarily the work of one man, Abdullah Ocalan. It was he who established the group and laid down its goals, strategy, and structure.

Although the PKK was born in Turkey, it operated out of the Bek'a valley in Lebanon under Syrian control from 1980. Today the majority of its activities are carried out from the Kurdish regions of Northern Iraq. This came about in the wake of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when Iraqi Kurds established a de facto state in northern Iraq. This allowed the Turkish Kurdish rebels to set up semi-permanent bases there.

quote:

---

Syria, on the basis of the principle of reciprocity, will not permit any activity which emanates from its territory aimed at jeopardizing the security and stability of Turkey. Syria will not allow the supply of weapons, logistic material, financial support to, and propaganda activities of, the PKK on its territory.

---

Turkey/Syria Treaty-1998

I don't know if the Syrians are still using the PKK to poke Turkey in the eye or if they are enforcing their treaty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

When wars start, everyone thinks that now is the time to get a bigger piece of the pie.

---

Definitely. And the Kurds have been treated pretty poorly by just about everyone (including Turkey) - their desire for autonomy is pretty understandable.

That doesn't mean it won't get ugly when they try.

I'm well aware of the history of the PKK, I just don't think their capacity is particularly huge beyond occasional guerrilla strikes. And a pretty large proportion of Turkey's water supply is in the Kurdish areas - I can't see them giving it up without a very nasty fight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

Because the survival of the Turkish people is not threatened by the formation of a separate Kurdistan.

---

Of course, the West doesn't really care about Iran and Syria (other than having a justification for invading them, if they stop the Kurds).

However, Turkey has shown that they are willing to play ball with the West. They are cooperating militarily, buying Western goods, implementing the all important free market reforms etc.

So, the West does not want to piss them off, because that would threaten corporate profits.

Now, the reason Turkey does not want them to go is because that is where the oil is. It's the same reason we don't want Alberta to go - it's certainly not because we like Albertans.

And fair enough. That oil belongs to the country - not to the little greedy group who wants to seperate so that they don't have to share the oil wealth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Obivously the head of state of Israel's only confirmed Muslim ally disagrees with your analysis. Since he believes that the accepatance of an indpendent Kurdistan will only lead to a war that rip Turkey in half, and would likely end in Turkey having to give up 1/3 of its national territory.

---

Maybe, but didn't Ataturk steal that third of Turkey from the Kurds in the first place? In the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after WW1,the Kurds were given their homeland by the Treaty of Whatever and then Ataturk rose to power and negotiated it away with the connivance of the usual imperialist suspects.

So,to turn thing around a bit,according to you,why is Israel obligated to return occupied territories but Turkey is not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pearson:
Well, the smart thing to do, would have been do seperate Kurdistan from Iraq. The problem then is that the Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran would want to join.

Of course, the West doesn't really care about Iran and Syria (other than having a justification for invading them, if they stop the Kurds).

However, Turkey has shown that they are willing to play ball with the West. They are cooperating militarily, buying Western goods, implementing the all important free market reforms etc.

So, the West does not want to piss them off, because that would threaten corporate profits.

Now, the reason Turkey does not want them to go is because that is where the oil is. It's the same reason we don't want Alberta to go - it's certainly not because we like Albertans.

And fair enough. That oil belongs to the country - not to the little greedy group who wants to seperate so that they don't have to share the oil wealth.

So, what needs to happen is that the parties need to sit down and determine a fair way of sharing that oil and giving independence to Kurdistan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Obivously the head of state of Israel's only confirmed Muslim ally disagrees with your analysis. Since he believes that the accepatance of an indpendent Kurdistan will only lead to a war that rip Turkey in half, and would likely end in Turkey having to give up 1/3 of its national territory.

---

quote:

---

but didn't Ataturk steal that third of Turkey from the Kurds in the first place?

---

It is a cardinal principle of middle eastern geopolitics that there is no such thing as a "first place".

Yes, there is the status quo of 1918, and 1914, and 1814, and 1534, and so on, ad infinitem. Everyone has irridenta, lands which are "historically theirs."

History should not be used as a justification for invading others. Then everyone has to fight with everyone. Instead, everyone should be aided in obtaining a decent life, and fair access to the wealth of the region. that may involve internationally-overseen transfers of assets from the wealthier to the poorer countries and peoples.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

The obvious difference is that the Kurds are not committed to the destruction of the Turkish people while Israel's enemies are.

---

quote:

---

mean really Jeff... 1914 and 1918 are hardly significant dates for the Ottomans and the Turks

---

Well, the Ottoman Turks were defeated in 1918, and their former empire taken over by the Western powers.

For example, the British General, Allenby,took control of Egypt in September 1918. Baghdad was occupied in mid-1917, and Syria was taken by the French in 1918.

It is true that these conquests were not formalized until Versailles, in 1919, and Sykes-Picot, which I think was even later, maybe 1920.

Also of consequence was the Italian invasion of Lybia, something which Attaturk personally participated in as a young officer, by trying to raise the north African Arab tribes against the invaders:

quote:

---

Although minor, the war was an important precursor of the First World War as it sparked nationalism in the Balkan states. Seeing how easily the Italians had defeated the disorganized Ottomans, the members of the Balkan League attacked the Empire before the war with Italy had ended.

---

Our assertion that the critical act of the conflict was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, seems sometimes merely to be a matter of poltical propoganda convenience, which conveniently side-steps the the root causes of the assassination, the carving off of the Balkan states from the Ottoman Empire the role the British and French played in backing anti-Ottoman forces.

So, from an Ottoman, or Turkish perspective active fighting against the future allies of the United Kingdom and France actually began two years before August 1914.

Mustafa Kemal and the young Turks cut their teeth in these wars, and they were fundamental to creating the movement to creating a revised modern Turkish state.

Further, while we like to assert that the war ended in 1918, the reality is that active resitance to the British, French and Greeks persisted after the the armistice, and even past the signing of the treaty of Versaille, a document that Attaturk was actively ignoring by prosecuting his campaign against the Greek army in Smyrna, which ultimately resulted in the British evacuation of Istanbul after the Turks made it clear that the British force there was to be expelled next.

Therefore, our europcentrism aside, I think it is fair to say that as far as the Turks were concerned WW1 began in 1912, and ended in 1922:

quote:

---

The British still expected Ankara, Grand National Assembly, to make concessions. From the first speech, Brits were startled as Ankara demanded fulfillment of the National Pact. During the conference the British troops in Constantinople were preparing for a Kemalist attack. There was never any fighting in Thrace, as Greek units withdrew before the Turks crossed the straits, remaining in Asia Minor. The Greeks were willing to give up Eastern Thrace as it's population was mostly Turks, Bulgarians and Muslim Slavs, and it's only use served as a corridor to Constantinople, and it was now clear that the city would remain in Turkish hands. The only concession that Ismet made to the British was an agreement that his troops would not advance any farther toward the Dardanelles, which gave a safe haven for the British troops as long as the conference continued. The conference dragged on far beyond the original expectations. In the end it was the British who had to yield, with the Ankara's advances

---

Turkish War of Independence

It is pretty fair to say that the Turkish participation in WW1 began in 1912, and continued until 1922, when they finally defeated the allies, given that the Turks (aside from the loss of the Arab territories) actually gained territory for the central Turkic region, through treaties with the Greeks, British and Russians.

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

Because the survival of the Turkish people is not threatened by the formation of a separate Kurdistan.

---

Holy hyperbole batman!

The survival of the jewish people isn't threatened by anything now occurring in the middle east. Especially Lebanon. The only thing threatened is the state of Israel
s 'right' to wage war in peace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
mean really Jeff... 1914 and 1918 are hardly significant dates for the Ottomans and the Turks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

It is a cardinal principle of middle eastern geopolitics that there is no such thing as a "first place".

Yes, there is the status quo of 1918, and 1914, and 1814, and 1534, and so on, ad infinitem. Everyone has irridenta, lands which are "historically theirs."

History should not be used as a justification for invading others. Then everyone has to fight with everyone. Instead, everyone should be aided in obtaining a decent life, and fair access to the wealth of the region. that may involve internationally-overseen transfers of assets from the wealthier to the poorer countries and peoples.

But it can't involve invasions.

---

I agree but do you mean that the many treaties negotiated by the imperial powers to arbitrarily divide the lands of peoples who had no representation at the negotiations should be adhered to?

Specifically the Treaty of Lausanne (which does not mention a separate Kurdistan),the Treaty of Sevres,(which does not create a separate Kurdistan) or even the Afghan/Pakistan/Baluchistan border dispute.

quote:

---

ARTICLE 64.

If within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty the Kurdish peoples within the areas defined in Article 62 shall address themselves to the Council of the League of Nations in such a manner as to show that a majority of the population of these areas desires independence from Turkey, and if the Council then considers that these peoples are capable of such independence and recommends that it should be granted to them, Turkey hereby agrees to execute such a recommendation, and to renounce all rights and title over these areas.

The detailed provisions for such renunciation will form the subject of a separate agreement between the Principal Allied Powers and Turkey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

Holy hyperbole batman!

The survival of the jewish people isn't threatened by anything now occurring in the middle east. Especially Lebanon. The only thing threatened is the state of Israel
s 'right' to wage war in peace.

God forbid, but the entire nations of Israel could be nuked to ashes and the 'survival of the jewish people' wouldn't have been threatened.

---

Holy conniption fits,simon.Allow me to rephrase:

Because the Kurds do not advocate the destruction of all Turks while the enemies of Israel advocate the destruction of all Israelis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heavy Sharper:
Kurdish parties seem to be social democratic and secular...Turkey's ruling party is considered centre-right and Islamist-leaning.

Gee, I wonder who the good guys are?

---

quote:

---

I agree but do you mean that the many treaties negotiated by the imperial powers to arbitrarily divide the lands of peoples who had no representation at the negotiations should be adhered to?

---

Well, given the alternative, yes.

But here's a question for you: do you think the boundaries Canada's provinces should remain the same, or does Saskatchewan have a claim to Alberta's oil?

Or take the case of Labrador....

There was no serious democratic input to the border-drawing of the Provinces. And women didn't have the vote then, either!

quote:

---

Turkey is Islamist-leaning? Perhaps you can expand on your view.

---

I'd really like to know what an "Islamist" is. It sounds like a buzz word concoted by mid-night talk show hosts who don't know anything about Islam, or Muslim people, and just a way boxing together a wide array of not very well understood militant muslim people.

Convenient way to package together Sheik Ahmed Yassin (a Sufi,) Nasrallah (a Shia) and OBL (A Sunni-salafists,) as if they are one sort of enemy-alien-glob that can be dealt with in more or less the same way, as if they all have similar views and the same agenda.

And now the governing party of Turkey is one of THEM!

[ 24 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Gee, I wonder who the good guys are?

---

I wonder why theres insistance that good and evil actually exist... Like theres a good hero out to fight the evil villian in every last conflict. Bleh, Christian mythology at work ^^

Unfortunately this entire conflict is being completely overshadowed (kinda like the N.Korean missile launches) and the mass media and peoples atention have been drawn to the new flavor of the week. Has anyone seen or heard any new information regarding this? To the news worlds that I follow, it's almost like it's been put on hold pending Lebanon (which I know it hasn't...) Anyone mange to find decent articles on the recent happenings with ths?

Addit:

quote:

---

Convenient way to package together Sheik Ahmed Yassin (a Sufi,) Nasrallah (a Shia) and OBL (A Sunni-salafists,) as if they are one sort of enemy-alien-glob that can be dealt with in more or less the same way, as if they all have similar views and the same agenda.

---

CNN of all places did a huge peice on this and how the average Westerner (by which I assume they meant American) groups Hizbollah and Al-Qaeda in the same group, when the full truth includes Nasrallah coming out and condeming AQ's tactics and the 9/11 attacks (yes, official Hizabollah policy is condeming the 9/11 attacks)... Infact Hizbollah flat out denies any conflict directly with the US (and flat out challenges sources to find where they've attacked American targets). This doesn't mean they don't attribute America to being the number one supplier of the weapons used by Israel mind you.

Osama Bin Laden and Nasrallah are sworn enemies with agendas that kinda (barely) have the same goals in mind... Something that few seem to realize and instead group them in the same generalist 'islamic = evil' category.

[ 24 July 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Well, given the alternative, yes.

But here's a question for you: do you think the boundaries Canada's provinces should remain the same, or does Saskatchewan have a claim to Alberta's oil?

Or take the case of Labrador....

There was no serious democratic input to the border-drawing of the Provinces. And women didn't have the vote then, either!

So, we could go back and impose new standards on decisions made then, or we could leave well enough alone, understanding that sometimes reopening questions is a pandora's box.

---

Hmmm...The Brits sold Canada out to the US in regard to the border of the Alaska panhandle.They did not consider a useless piece of Canada worth fighting for.Now, Canada and the US are still agreeing to disagree in regard to the A/B line (the offshore boundary between BC and Alaska) and the angle of departure for the offshore boundary between Yukon and Alaska.

As technology for the extraction of resources,specifically oil and gas,underwater metal and mineral extraction and methane nodules improves,the issue will come to a head.The US has avoided ratifying the UN Law of the Sea convention along with every other international treaty it considers against its interests.

quote:

---

A Turkish military unit entered northern Iraq earlier this week, with the aim of launching an operation against members of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) who have found shelter in the mountainous region;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

If this remains an isolated incident, then it isn't important. But it may be evidence of something more important, the ever-widening nature of Bush's Middle East Disaster Plan.

---

Nothing new. The Turkish special forces routinely make forays across the border with Iraq.Most likely intelligence gathering.

A crisis may ensue if the Turks escalate the incursions to engaging the PPK on Iraqi soil.

Not to worry.Bush's Middle East Disaster Plan is firmly in the hands of Iran's mullahs.Iraqi Shi ites presently make use of the US to press the Sunnis.With the help of Iranian agents,they are positioned to cut off the US supply routes whenever they wish.

A German-born daughter of Turkish Kurds, she was elected to the European Parliament in 1999 at the age of 22, and has become a campaigner for human rights in Turkey.

Wikipedia says she was the world's only Yazidi parliamentarian, until the Iraqi legislature was elected in 2005. The majority of Kurds are Muslims, both in Iraq and in Turkey, but a substantial minority are Yezids, which seems to be a mixture of the Kurds' pre-Islamic Zoroastrian religion with some Islamic Sufi elements.

The youngest MEP (Member of the European Parliament) when she was elected, she's also the most unusual: a post-communist German-born Yezid woman dancer.

Her website is in German, Kurdish and Turkish. Her parents came from Anatolia in the late 1960s. She was born in West Germany in the town of Celle, northeast of Hannover, the fourth of eight children, and no doubt raised as a Marxist, since the leading pro-Kurdish group in southeast Turkey was Marxist. When she was 19 she became manager of a dance group, and also got a job as a doctor's receptionist.

Her father taught her "If you want to change something with your life, start by changing something in politics." When she was 21 in 1998 she joined the post-communist Party of Democratic Socialism, founded a PDS group in Celle, got onto the state party executive in Lower Saxony, and . . . the very next year she was elected to the European Parliament. Hmm, I think she skipped a couple of steps. Well, they put her fifth on their national list, and perhaps to their surprise, they elected six. In 2004 she slipped to 7th place on the list in the internal party election, but the PDS managed to win seven seats. She's back, still the youngest MEP even in her second term.

Cases have been filed in court against 73 people including the European Member of Parliament Feleknas Uca for "Speaking in a language other than Turkish" during the local elections in 2004.

"She maintained close links with far left groups in Turkey and, in particular, Kurdish nationalist groups" says Wikipedia. Of course.

She has "the face and elegance of a princess." "Today, I undergo an identity check each time I travel by train to go to Munich, or from Cologne to Brussels. I always answer the police officers: “You want to see my German passport or my diplomatic passport?” But despite Turkish persecution of Kurds she wants Turkey to be admitted to the EU: it will advance the cause of human rights, and Turkish minorities like the Kurds.

The Third International Conference on the EU, Turkey and the Kurds, 17 October 2006, Brussels:

quote:

---

Remarks by moderators:
Ms. Feleknas Uca, MEP.

---

She takes nice photos of her trips to Turkey, China, Iraq, Columbia and elsewhere.

[ 10 December 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]