"Conflict" with Turkey?

[Guest ATB]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/12/us.turkey/index.html

The Turks are about to cross into Iraq to fight the Kurds, who have been fighting them. We oppose Turkey's doing so. In the midst of this really serious potential conflict, given that things in Northern Iraq have been going pretty well, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a not-so-serious (or helpful) measure labeling the killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turkish forces during WWI "genocide" by 27-21 vote. The Turks oppose us doing so and have pulled their ambassador, and are thinking about kicking us out of Turkey (where most of our supplies and vehicles come into Iraq by), and are also considering prohibiting flyovers into Turk airspace.

We're going to leave Turkey someday anyway, and the Kurds vs. the Turks is turning into a bad situation (although it'd make for a GREAT sudden death cage match!). But is it really worthwhile to stir up something that happened 90 years ago and re-label it "genocide?" We've had almost a century to do this...why start now? Go have a beer or hit up a bathhouse or something.

Edited October 13, 2007 by ATB

[Toro]

Welcome to the ongoing stupidity of (at least) 10 years.

Military Definition of Irony: US Forces stationed out of Incirlik AB, Turkey to conduct Operation Northern Watch in an effort to prevent Saddam Hussein from crossing the 36th parallel in an effort to bomb and commit genocide on the Kurds. But at any given time, the Turks had the power to shut down ONW...and fly into Northern Iraq to bomb the Kurds.

[Cappy70]

ATB,

I'll ask my 90 something year old grandfather if he considers the Armenian Genocide "not-so-serious". I doubt he'll agree though since he and his parents barely made it out of Turkey alive. It hasn't been relabeled genocide by the resolution either, it has been called that since it happened. President Bush called in that in 2000 after he got elected. The majority of the world calls it that with the exception of the Turks, which is understandable. All I'm saying is that with a subject like this different issues have been brought up for nearly a century and it's a touchy subject. I'm just a young dude and I don't have any personal issues with any Turkish people. People can't be blamed for something their ancestors did. I have flown plenty of times with a Turkish F-16 exchange pilot and think he's a great dude. But to people like my grandfather this resolution is very important.

Unfortunately the resolution will have an impact on our operations in the Middle East, but Turkey has been pissed at us for a while anyway. Mostly about how we don't support them defending themselves from the PKK, which they call their Al-Qaeda. Who really knows what Turkey will do, but they will lose lots of money if they kick us out of their country.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Cappy70

[Herk Driver]

ATB,

I'll ask my 90 something year old grandfather if he considers the Armenian Genocide "not-so-serious". I doubt he'll agree though since he and his parents barely made it out of Turkey alive. It hasn't been relabeled genocide by the resolution either, it has been called that since it happened. President Bush called in that in 2000 after he got elected. The majority of the world calls it that with the exception of the Turks, which is understandable. All I'm saying is that with a subject like this different issues have been brought up for nearly a century and it's a touchy subject. I'm just a young dude and I don't have any personal issues with any Turkish people. People can't be blamed for something their ancestors did. I have flown plenty of times with a Turkish F-16 exchange pilot and think he's a great dude. But to people like my grandfather this resolution is very important.

Unfortunately the resolution will have an impact on our operations in the Middle East, but Turkey has been pissed at us for a while anyway. Mostly about how we don't support them defending themselves from the PKK, which they call their Al-Qaeda. Who really knows what Turkey will do, but they will lose lots of money if they kick us out of their country.

Unfortunately the resolution will have an impact on our operations in the Middle East.

That's quite an understatement. Losing that LOC will not be inexpensive to overcome. If we keep working at it, maybe we can piss off a couple of the Stan's and be out of Afghanistan by the middle of next year.

Can't wait for the Turkish parliament to label our killing of the Indians..err, Native Americans, genocide. Wow, genocide or not, we have no real need to go around throwing rocks in our glass house.

[fueL2Fight]

The Armenian genocide bill is not out of nowhere. Fans of System of a Down know that there's been an ongoing effort to get this genocide recognized in congress for some time. It's too bad we waited this long. Damn the Turks. Fly through Romania/Black Sea/Georgia, the RONs would be way more fun.

[pawnman]

The Armenian genocide bill is not out of nowhere. Fans of System of a Down know that there's been an ongoing effort to get this genocide recognized in congress for some time. It's too bad we waited this long. Damn the Turks. Fly through Romania/Black Sea/Georgia, the RONs would be way more fun.

Does this actually DO anything for anyone alive? No. Does it hurt our efforts in Iraq? Yes.

Sure, it's nice to recognize history for what it is...but you don't need a congressional resolution on a touchy subject to do that.

[Herk Driver]

The Armenian genocide bill is not out of nowhere.

If you are referring to my post, I'm not sure that I said the bill was out of nowhere.

Fly through Romania/Black Sea/Georgia, the RONs would be way more fun.

The RONs would be more fun, but that still doesn't quite get you to Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Guest Redraider]

The Turks in the "alley" will definitely miss us. I'm all for staging airlift out of Ramstein instead of Incirlik

BTW, every Turk I've run into has no beef (giggity) with us, as long as we don't publicly criticize "Attaturk" and do drink their beer and buy rugs.

[M2]

Fans of System of a Down...

Are you fucking shitting me? This is an issue because some spolied musicians spew about it? Who do they think they are...Bono??

I prefer my music by guys who get drunk, screw roadies, destroy hotel rooms and drive their Rolls Royces into swimming pools. I was pretty much put off of musicians with a cause when I was sitting in RFK stadium in the pouring rain listening to Bono rant on about how we need to feed the poor. Fucking hypocrite, first they charge me $75 a ticket for seats where I was closer to God than the stage, then the guy that has more money than a majority of third world nation's GNP says I have to do something to feed the hungry? Fuck him, The Who kick U2's ass any day of the week!

Cheers! M2

[busdriver]

How badly does this hurt our image with the general populace of Turkey? My understanding of the country is limited, but I've been told that the military plays a fairly large part in keeping the government there secular. Does this move add to the credibility of the portion of Turkish society that wants to pull away from the west? A theocratic Turkey would not be a good thing.

I don't think basing is as much of a concern as overflight rights.

[D-ron]

Are you ######ing shitting me? This is an issue because some spolied musicians spew about it? Who do they think they are...Bono??

I prefer my music by guys who get drunk, screw roadies, destroy hotel rooms and drive their Rolls Royces into swimming pools. I was pretty much put off of musicians with a cause when I was sitting in RFK stadium in the pouring rain listening to Bono rant on about how we need to feed the poor. ######ing hypocrite, first they charge me $75 a ticket for seats where I was closer to God than the stage, then the guy that has more money than a majority of third world nation's GNP says I have to do something to feed the hungry? ###### him, The Who kick U2's ass any day of the week!

Cheers! M2

Damn straight!

[fueL2Fight]

###### him, The Who kick U2's ass any day of the week!

Cheers! M2

Not sure who "The Who" is, but I know U2....

As for new routing.. check it: From Ramstein, go AUSTRIA, HUNGARY, ROMANIA, BLACK SEA, GEORGIA, ARMENIA, IRAQ.... BAM! PRoblem solved. Hope the thought of RON'ing in those awesome countries didn't completely rock your faceoff. ###### Turkey and their must-be-signed-in-blue-ink NATO orders....

[fueL2Fight]

Not sure who "The Who" is, but I know U2....

As for new routing.. check it: From Ramstein, go AUSTRIA, HUNGARY, ROMANIA, BLACK SEA, GEORGIA, ARMENIA, IRAQ.... BAM! PRoblem solved. Hope the thought of RON'ing in those awesome countries didn't completely rock your faceoff. ###### Turkey and their must-be-signed-in-blue-ink NATO orders....

...pending PKK dips....

[Guest JorryFright21]

Are you ing shitting me? This is an issue because some spolied musicians spew about it? Who do they think they are...Bono??I prefer my music by guys who get drunk, screw roadies, destroy hotel rooms and drive their Rolls Royces into swimming pools. I was pretty much put off of musicians with a cause when I was sitting in RFK stadium in the pouring rain listening to Bono rant on about how we need to feed the poor. ing hypocrite, first they charge me $75 a ticket for seats where I was closer to God than the stage, then the guy that has more money than a majority of third world nation's GNP says I have to do something to feed the hungry? him, The Who kick U2's ass any day of the week!Cheers! M2

One of the greatest posts ever!

Not sure who "The Who" is...

Dude, you're just giving people more reason to ignore everything you said.

[herkbum]

Not sure who "The Who" is, but I know U2....

SNAP's!!

[Herk Driver]

Not sure who "The Who" is, but I know U2....

As for new routing.. check it: From Ramstein, go AUSTRIA, HUNGARY, ROMANIA, BLACK SEA, GEORGIA, ARMENIA, IRAQ.... BAM! PRoblem solved. Hope the thought of RON'ing in those awesome countries didn't completely rock your faceoff. ###### Turkey and their must-be-signed-in-blue-ink NATO orders....

No, I've RON'd in many of those places...but last I checked, Armenia was bordered on the North by Georgia, the East by Azerbaijan, the West by Turkey and the South by Iran. They don't share a border with Iraq. If you're trying to give me a geography lesson, then I need to see your re-drawn global borders. If you are saying that the Turks won't shut off their airspace then that is possible, but I wouldn't put it past them. The current political crisis, IMHO, is more about saving face than much else and they will do whatever it takes to make their point.

That being said, having worked pol-mil issues for the last nearly 2 years in this AOR, nothing would surprise me and flatly assuming that any of the countries that are in your routing would welcome or be able to handle such a surge in operations is a little presumptuous. All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for. Turkey now, next a few of the Stans... you do the math.

[Guest ATB]

"I'll ask my 90 something year old grandfather if he considers the Armenian Genocide "not-so-serious"."

Who were you quoting here? Glad your grandfather made it out, but do you think you saw that quote in my post?

"It hasn't been relabeled genocide by the resolution either, it has been called that since it happened."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110...p/~c110cZiuHg::

Here's the link to the text of the resolution. It's called Genocide.

"But to people like my grandfather this resolution is very important."

Not disputing that. What my post was REALLY about however, was the larger issue of whether it's good timing for the House to press this particular issue, at this particular point in time, on an allied country of ours which may now expedite our losing airspace and an air base which are currently strategically vital to our supplying equipment, vehicles and supplies to our forces fighting a war.

"Unfortunately the resolution will have an impact on our operations in the Middle East..."

No argument there.

No offense to your grandfather, we're all glad he's alive - really, but this isn't the right time for this resolution.

On a side note, does anyone think it'd be funny if SNL revived the skit where Rob Schneider is behind the counter in the convenience store, and John Goodman busts his window - only this time he tells him to go back to Turkey and Rob Schneider says "I'm not from Tur.....oh wait..." - ?? (tried to end this post with a little light hearted humor).

[Steve Davies]

Military Definition of Irony: US Forces stationed out of Incirlik AB, Turkey to conduct Operation Northern Watch in an effort to prevent Saddam Hussein from crossing the 36th parallel in an effort to bomb and commit genocide on the Kurds. But at any given time, the Turks had the power to shut down ONW...and fly into Northern Iraq to bomb the Kurds.

No kidding. And it was happening in Operation Provide Comfort I and II in the immediate aftermath of ODS. The Turks halted all activity from the 'Lik while they bombed the Kurds first thing in the morning, and when they were done they lifted the ban and allowed the Yanks and Brits to fly in and drop the same people aid.

It is incredible that it has taken some people so long to realise how fucked up that is.

[Guest Grizzly]

The whole situation with Turkey is something to not overlook.

The issue with the Armenian Genocide isn't something new and has been brought up before. Currently most US states have passed bills recognizing the genocide. When Clinton was in office he had Speaker of the House Hastert to pull the resolution back then because Turkey had made threats and American security was a concern. In Turkey it is illegal to discuss the Armenian Genocide issue. Nobel Peace Prize recipient Orhan Pamuk (a Turk) was tried for making a reference to it. Turkey claims there was killing on both sides, but what can't be denied was that there was indeed a systematic state sponsored plan to eradicate the Armenians, through execution and deportations. And really, this issue involved the Ottoman Government and not modern day Turkey, but since Turkey is very nationalistic they deny their forefathers ever had committed such crimes. Millions of dollars are spent each year by Turkey in denial propaganda.

Many people don't know that the term "genocide" (genos=race, cida=kill) was created in the 1940s, a Jewish Holocaust survivor who came up with the word to describe specifically what happened to the Armenians and the Jews.

Why is this resolution brought up? Because if you don't learn from the past history tends to repeat itself. In 1939, Hitler was quoted saying "After all, who remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?" During Rwanda, the Clinton administration as well as other world leaders hesitated to refer to it as Genocide, until the damage was done.

I'm not a bleeding heart lib, but there is a difference between what's right and wrong, even if it isn't popular, the threats from the Turks are uncalled for.

REGARDLESS if the resolution goes through or not, you have to ask if Turkey is really a true "ALLIE" of the US, after making threats to the US, blocking our airspace when we first entered the war, and potentially adding to instability in Iraq. Are they in it for the money, or would they really stick their neck out there for us?

[Herk Driver]

blocking our airspace when we first entered the war

Freudian slip??

[Cappy70]

"I'll ask my 90 something year old grandfather if he considers the Armenian Genocide "not-so-serious"."

Who were you quoting here? Glad your grandfather made it out, but do you think you saw that quote in my post?

Well I'm quoting you - "the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a not-so-serious (or helpful) measure labeling the killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turkish forces during WWI "genocide" by 27-21 vote."

Oh wait, you're not saying the Armenian Genocide is not so serious, just the resolution that looks to recognize it as genocide? Okay sorry, I don't know how I might misinterpret that as the same thing.

Not disputing that. What my post was REALLY about however, was the larger issue of whether it's good timing for the House to press this particular issue, at this particular point in time, on an allied country of ours which may now expedite our losing airspace and an air base which are currently strategically vital to our supplying equipment, vehicles and supplies to our forces fighting a war.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think this is an issue of a right or wrong time for this resolution. I do, however, think it is an issue of a right or wrong decision that acknowledges the fact that 1.5 million people were murdered. 40 states have legislation recognizing it. There is genocide taking place right now it Darfur and not to long ago in Rwanda. Like Grizzly said, just because it isn't the most popular thing to do doesn't change the fact that it is the right thing to do.

Turkey is an ally because of the $11 billion dollars that we give them every year, not because they support our mission in Iraq. The chance of the resolution actually going to the House and getting passed is very small anyway, as many supporters have already changed their minds in the last week. The same thing has been happening in Washington with this issue for decades. It's all politics and money in the end as usual.

[busdriver]

How does this qualify under "doing the right thing?" Recognizing that it happened? Do we need to pass a resolution recognizing the holocaust? This doesn't do anything. It's political hogwash. If they want to deny historical fact, let them. You don't debate holocaust deniers because it's pointless and gets you no where. This is stupid, and needlessly endangers American lives for no gain anywhere.

[M2]

Great analysis from STRATFOR...

Cheers! M2

Turkey as a Regional Power

By George Friedman

Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) guerrillas based in northern Iraq ambushed Turkish troops near the border Oct. 21, killing 12 soldiers and suffering 23 casualties in the ensuing firefight, according to the Turkish government. For its part, the PKK said it captured eight Turkish troops, though Ankara has not confirmed the claim.

Based on prior PKK attacks, the Turkish parliament last week authorized the use of force in Iraq. This latest attack, therefore, was clearly designed to challenge that decision. Even before the dust had settled Oct. 21, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, rejected an earlier demand from Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Baghdad shut down all PKK camps in Iraqi territory and hand over PKK leaders. Talabani said Iraq cannot solve Turkey's problem, given that PKK leaders hide out in rugged mountains and even the "mighty" Turkish military has failed to kill or capture them. Specifically, he said, "The handing over of PKK leaders to Turkey is a dream that will never be realized."

If that position holds, it is difficult to imagine that the Turks won't move into northern Iraq and re-establish the sphere of influence and security they had during the Saddam Hussein era. The United States is working furiously to satisfy Turkey by taking responsibility for controlling the PKK. It is not clear whether the United States can deliver, nor is it clear whether the Turks are prepared to rely on the United States. Some move into Iraq is likely, in our mind, but even if it doesn't happen in this particular case, tensions between Turkey and the United States will remain. More important, Turkey's willingness to play a secondary role in the region is declining.

This is not really new. The Turks refused to allow the United States to invade Iraq from Turkish territory, even though Washington offered them free room to maneuver in northern Iraq in exchange for their cooperation. The Turks, however, were not unhappy with the status quo in Iraq. They also were concerned about the consequences of an American invasion and were not eager to be seen as a tool of the United States in the Islamic world.

At the same time, the Turks did not want a rupture with the United States -- given that the relationship has been the foundation of Turkish foreign policy since World War II. The refusal of the European Union to admit Turkey in particular made it necessary for Ankara to preserve its relationship with Washington. Therefore, although the invasion was problematic for the Turks, they have cooperated with the United States, allowing a large portion of the supplies for U.S. troops in Iraq to come through Turkey.

The Turkish balancing act on Iraq has pivoted on one fundamental national security consideration: that the autonomy given to Iraq's Kurds remains limited. The Kurdish nationality crosses existing borders -- into Iraq, Turkey, Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria -- and represents a geographically coherent, self-aware nation without a state. Historically, the Kurds generally were compelled to be part of larger empires, including the Ottoman Empire. When that empire collapsed -- leaving Turkey as its successor -- these other countries contained Kurdish lands, with more than half of the Kurds living in Turkey. The Turks, dealing with the collapse of their empire and the building of a new nation-state, feared that Kurdish independence would lead to the disintegration of that nation-state. Therefore, they had -- and continue to maintain -- a fixed policy to suppress Kurdish nationalism.

From the Turkish point of view, the greatest danger is that an independent Kurdistan will be created in Iran or Iraq, and that the homeland will be used to base and support Kurds seeking independence from Turkey. In fact, each of these countries -- and outside powers such as the United States, Soviet Union and United Kingdom -- have used the Kurds as a tool to apply pressure on Turkey, Iran or Iraq at various times. They have used Kurdish separatism as a threat, and then normally double-crossed the Kurds, making a broader deal with the nation-state in question.

The evolution of events in Iraq is particularly alarming to the Turks. Hussein was not necessarily to the Turks' liking, but he did pursue one policy that was identical to that of the Turks: He opposed Kurdish independence. The U.S. policy after Desert Storm was to use the Iraqi Kurds against Hussein -- and the United States helped carve out an area of Iraqi Kurdistan that he could not reach. The Turks, uneasy with this arrangement, entered Iraq in the 1990s to create a buffer zone against the Kurds. The United States did not object to this move because it increased the pressure on Hussein.

In looking at current U.S. strategy in Iraq, the Turks have drawn two conclusions. The first is that the United States, focused on Iraq's Sunni and Shiite areas, has little interest in controlling the Kurdish region -- the one area that is fairly unambiguously pro-American. The second is that the Iranians and Shia want an Iraq divided into three regions -- or even independent states -- and that a U.S. policy designed to create a federal state with a strong central government will fail.

Therefore, Turkey's perception is that it already is dealing with the post-war world, one in which an increasingly bold Iraqi Kurdistan is pursuing a policy of expanding Kurdish autonomy by facilitating a guerrilla war in Turkey. The PKK's actions in recent weeks confirm this view in their mind. They also believe they cannot deal with the Kurdish challenge defensively, and therefore they must defend by attacking. Hence, the creation of a security zone in Iraq.

From the Kurds' point of view, if there ever was a moment to assert their national rights, this is it. However, their highly risky gamble is that the United States will not chance an anti-American uprising in Iraq's Kurdish areas and so will limit the extent to which Turkey can intervene. Moreover, with the United States at odds with Iran, it might support a Kurdish uprising there. Hence, though the stakes are high, the Kurdish gamble is not irrational.

The Kurds in Iraq are correct in their view that the United States does not want conflict in the one area in Iraq that is not anti-American. They also are correct that this is a unique moment for them. But they are betting that the Turks don't recognize the danger and thus will place their interests second to those of the United States -- which is more concerned with stability in Iraqi Kurdistan than with suppressing attacks in Turkey's Kurdish areas. Although this might have been true of Turkey 10 years ago, it no longer is true today. The U.S.-Turkish relationship has flipped. The United States needs Turkey more than Turkey needs the United States -- for reasons beyond getting supplies to Iraq.

Al Qaeda's geopolitical threat has subsided, no uprising capable of effecting regime change has occurred in the Islamic world and the threat of a unified Islamic world has vastly decreased. Meanwhile, the grand strategy of the United States has remained the same. It played Hitler against Stalin, Mao against Brezhnev and is now playing Sunni against Shi'i. The Sunni threat having subsided, the Shiite and Iranian threats remain. The current U.S. task is to build an anti-Iranian coalition. Regardless of whether the Europeans approve sanctions against Iran, its neighbors are important -- and one of the most important is Turkey. However, given that Turkey and Iran have a common interest in preventing an independent Kurdish nation anywhere, the more the United States supports the Iraqi Kurds, the greater the danger of an Iranian-Turkish alliance. At the moment, that is the last thing the United States wants to see, which is why the resolution on Turkish responsibility for Armenian genocide in the U.S. Congress could not possibly have come at a worse moment.

But that is atmospherics. When we look beyond al Qaeda and beyond Iran -- a country that has been unable to create substantial spheres of influence for many centuries -- we see a single country that is likely to begin bringing order to the region: Turkey. Turkey is the heir to the Ottoman Empire, which at various points dominated the eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, the Caucasus and deep into Russia. Its collapse after World War I created an oddity -- an inward-looking state in Asia Minor. Cautious in World War II and strictly aligned with the United States during the Cold War, Turkey played a passive role: It either sat things out or allowed its strategic territory to be used.

The situation has changed dramatically. In 2006, Turkey had the 18th largest economy in the world -- larger than that of any other Muslim country, including Saudi Arabia -- and the economy has been growing at a rate of between 5 percent and 7 percent a year for five years. Most important, Turkey is not a purely export-oriented country. It has developed a substantial middle class that buys the products it produces. It has a substantial and competent military and is handling the stresses between institutions and ideologies well.

It also is surrounded by chaos. Apart from Iraq to the south, there is profound instability in the Caucasus to the north and the Balkans to the northwest. The southern region from the Levant to the Persian Gulf is tremendously tense. The stability of Egypt -- and therefore the eastern Mediterranean -- after President Hosni Mubarak departs is in question. Turkey's longtime rival, Greece, no longer presents the challenge it once did. Moreover, the European Union's effective rejection of Turkey has freed the country from many of the constraints that its membership hopes might have imposed.

Turkey has a vested interest in stabilizing the region. It no longer regards the United States as a stabilizing force, and it sees Europe as a collective entity and individual nations as both hostile and impotent. It views the Russians as a long-term threat to its interests and sees Russia's potential return to Turkey's frontier as a long-term challenge. As did the Ottomans, it views Iran as a self-enclosed backwater. It is far more interested in the future of Syria and Iraq, its relationship with its ally, Israel, and ultimately the future of the Arabian Peninsula.

In other words, Turkey should be viewed as a rapidly emerging regional power -- or, in the broadest sense, as beginning the process of recreating a regional hegemon of enormous strategic power, based in Asia Minor but projecting political, economic and military forces in a full circle. Its willingness to rely on the United States to guarantee its national security ended in 2003. It is prepared to cooperate with the United States on issues of mutual interest, but not as a subordinate power.

This emergence, in our view, is in the very early stages. Just as Turkey's economy and its internal politics have undergone dramatic changes in the past five years, so have its foreign policies. The Turks are cautiously reaching out and influencing events throughout the region. In one sense, the intervention in Iraq would simply be a continuation of policies followed in the 1990s. But in the current context, it would represent more: a direct assertiveness of its natural interests independent of the United States.

Looked at broadly, three things have happened. First, the collapse of Yugoslavia drew Turkey into a region where it had traditional interest. Second, the collapse and resurrection of Russian power has made Turkey look northward to the Caucasus. Finally, the chaos in the Arab world has drawn Turkey southward. Limits on Turkish behavior from Europe and the United States have been dramatically reduced as a result of Western strategy. Turkey believes it needs to bring order to regions where the United States and Europe have proven either ineffective or hostile to Turkish interests.

Considering the future of the region, the only power in a position to assert its consistent presence is Turkey. Iran, its nearest competitor, is neither in competition with Turkey, nor does it have a fraction of its power -- nuclear weapons or not. Turkey has historically dominated the region, though not always to the delight of others there. Nevertheless, its historical role has been to pick up the pieces left by regional chaos. In our view, it is beginning to move down that road.

Its current stance on the Kurdish issue is merely a first step. What makes that position important is that Turkey is pursuing its interests indifferent to European or American views. Additionally, the reversal of dependency between the United States and Turkey is ultimately more important than whether Turkey goes into Iraq. The U.S. invasion of Iraq kicked off many processes in the world and created many windows of opportunity. Watching Turkey make its moves, we wonder less about the direction it is going than about the limits of its ambition.

[pawnman]

Maybe I'm being naive here, but...

We're losing allies in Iraq. Turkey is a US ally chomping at the bit to go into Iraq. Why don't we give Turkey a role to play in the coalition? Instead of either telling them to butt out entirely, or resigning ourselves to the idea that Turkey will ride into Iraq without us, why not include them in the work we are doing?

[Clayton Bigsby]

Because killing and eradicating the Kurds isn't the work we're doing. They're actually our friends.

The Turks will be going after the PKK, not Al-Qaeda or Shiite militias or Sunni insurgents.