Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Europe

Turkey Assesses Large Pkk Presence In South

2005-03-28

Turkey continues to assess a large Kurdish insurgency presence along the border with Iraq. Officials said the Kurdish Workers Party has been bolstering its presence in southeast Turkey near the Iraqi border. They said the presence has grown over the last year amid the migration of thousands of PKK fighters from northern Iraq. [Ret.] Gen. Osman Pamukoglu placed the number of PKK operatives in the Anatolia region at 7,000. At a conference on March 24 at Sakarya University, Pamukoglu said the PKK fighters have been hiding in the mountains in the southeast. "They have received military training in the mountain regions," Pamukoglu said. "They have also been indoctrinated."

No masks. They're wearing uniforms. They're guerrillas, not terrorists. That's why I can't get to wrought up about them.

Posted by:Fred

#11 The USA's need for Irclik has decreased because equivalent bases can be brought online in Iraq. What the USA does need is overflight rights. Look at a map. The shortest and often the only route to a lot of important places goes through Turkey. I hope those rights are in place for a long time.

Posted by: Crerert Ebbeting3481 2005-03-28 5:04:03 AM

#10 The Turks are still important to us and I think they know it.
The war we're in is only partly military. Part of it is a war of ideas--a religious war in fact. I've no good source for hard numbers, but the estimates I've seen for the Islamist/jihadist crowd suggests that they appeal to hundreds of millions of Muslims.
We're best off if the Muslims repudiate the jihadists themselves. We can offer models of liberal democracy, but don't underestimate the appeal and demands of religion--and in this case the jihadists claim there's no compromise with liberal democracy.
That's why we're praying that the Iranians get rid of the mullahs themselves and repudiate the Khomeinism that has so long been such a beacon to radical Muslims. And why we hope that Turkey can become an example of a secular Muslim state. (It became a secular state by suppressing some "expressions of Muslim identity". Islamist groups are in power now: will the resurgent radical Muslim forces win, or will they compromise on a secular democracy? Beats me. The struggle's not done yet.)
The more successful examples of democratic Muslim states there are, the less will be the appeal of the Wahhabists. Even if Turkey remains unreliable, if it can be a liberal democracy it can be a useful example to Muslims asking: "Why can't we be Muslim and modern at the same time? _They_ are."
I agree that Turkey isn't what I'd call an ally. Neither is France. But both can be useful in the War on Jihadism. (I've heard that the French intelligence and police services have been working well with us, for example.) I have hopes for them both, though obviously I'm much more worried about Turkey's future.

Posted by: James 2005-03-28 2:10:54 PM

#9 On his last day Richard III had alot of half-hearted and opportunistic allies. Protestations of loyalty shouldn't be confused with true loyalty. I can't imagine Turkey going to bat for us when it counts, unless of course, the payoff for them is clear and immense.

Posted by: BigAllButFlightlessBirdie 2005-03-28 11:01:35 AM

#8 It has been 30 years since I took psychology, but I vaguely remember a few things about behavioral modification and positive and negative reinforcement. I guess consequences are out of fashion. Go ahead, gromky, boost Turkey's self-esteem now that they've proven to be unreliable as an ally.

Personally, I have little use for old boundaries that were set up arbitrarily by colonial powers for the explicit purpose of dividing and dominating the local peoples. And little use for "allies" like France and Turkey who would sell their souls for 30 Euros.

Posted by: Tom 2005-03-28 10:52:39 AM

#7 .com Somewhat off-topic: correct.

Posted by: .not 2005-03-28 10:25:57 AM

#6 ROFL! Wotta load, lol!

Well, I know better than to buy any of that shit - you laid it on way too thick. Entertaining, but utterly unbelievable, lol! I can think of several regulars who will roll eyes over it, heh.

I've never wavered, not even a scintilla, regards the damage done to us in Iraq when Turkey betrayed us. It's in the RB archive - 2 years back. It's as clear now as the instant it happened: a hammer without an anvil. No northern front = a pass for the Ba'athists. The damage in lives from Ba'athist activity staging out of the Sunni Triangle has, without a doubt, cost many US lives. The entire relationship with Turkey is not worth one US soldier. Not one. Period. Full stop. It is beyond obvious and beyond refutation. I am amazed that you take it so lightly, in fact.

I guess, in other words, I don't buy glib. I once thought of the Turks as one of our best allies, due every consideration - and was very happy that they were, indeed, shown every consideration by the US. We backed them in trade, in their relations with Europe, in protecting them from the Soviet Bear, across the board. Unfortunately, the election of the Islamists put an end to the Kamalists - and stopped Turkey dead in its tracks. It has been back-peddling ever since and we just happened to be the first bitten by the new Turkey.

I have no doubt you were referring to the FUCK TURKEY posters, of which I am a charter member among the RB posters.

Turkey is no ally. They are not worth any further effort. Everything I said in my post is dead-solid-perfect-true. You have not said anything to convince me they're worth warm spit, nor have you assuaged my taking exception to the extreme label. I'd suggest you hold the extreme view, in fact, since they left you nothing to argue with. Sorry, but everyone who's keeping the faith has been screwed - and it wasn't by me, but by Yippie and Co.

Posted by: .com 2005-03-28 5:04:56 AM

#5 Screw pragmatism

C'mon .com, we all love you here. You've got great insights. But you go a bit over the top at times, and are easily trolled.

I did not refer to anyone by name as an extremist. Don't take it personally. We're not banding together against you (although the grom-x alliance does have a certain pleasing ring to the ear :P). I don't even like using the word "you" in postings.

To stay on-topic, I think that Turkey has a long way to go as an ally before it gets to the level of Malaysia or Indonesia, much less Syria or Iran. Stick with 'em, and things may smooth over.

Posted by: gromky 2005-03-28 4:40:41 AM

#4 gromgoru - None of the points I made have been addressed and you seem to be saying it's not really an alliance...

...that it sort of comes and goes - as interests converge and diverge. Gee - that sounds like any two nations - even without some sort of bilateral agreement - just the winds of change to align them at times. So who needs treaties with those pesky obligations written down and gentleman's agreements presumed, attested to by signatories, eh? Nah, not necessary, huh? Ok. Sounds good.

We can drop our attempts to help Turkey into the EU, end the favorable trade deals, blast Incirlik into a bazillion pieces, withdraw and leave them to their Islamists. Their military has failed to meet their constitutional duty - certainly an internal matter, but with undeniable external ramifications.

NATO has served its purpose and that is our real alliance tie to Turkey, now - a piece of paper which does not suit their short-term interests, it seems. So let's be rid of the gentleman's agreement - they've chosen to be Eastern, not Western, in their relations with us. We should reciprocate and be rid of the dangerous illusion that they are allies, as I said.

In fact, it appears we have an ad hoc grom-x "alliance" right here...

And my post stands - unanswered.

As for his post, well, gromky can speak for himself, methinks.

Posted by: .com 2005-03-28 4:12:34 AM

#3 .com
It's not an either or, situation. Turkey will be an ally, if shown that "non-ally" behavior has, sufficiently high, costs.

Posted by: gromgoru 2005-03-28 3:45:37 AM

#2 On-topic: So why isn't Turkey doing anything to take them on? They're so tough they want to send commandos to Iraq - seems they don't need to go so far as Iraq for a tussle -- the PKK seems to be mustering in their territory... So where's the response?

Somewhat off-topic: Gromky. You posted a late response yesterday in this thread. You referred to me, and others here, as extremist.

Please justify the assertion. In the last 2.5 yrs I recall only 3 events between the US and Turkey, other than whatever happens at NATO meetings that doesn't make the press. Those events were:

1) Pre-Iraq War: Turkey requests NATO provide Patriot batteries cuz Saddam might fire on Turkey for allowing "right of passage", a customary request of an ally in a time of war. France vetoes the request, so the US takes it to a committee where France has no vote and provides the Patriot systems to Turkey.

2) The infamous prevarication and delay at the Iraq War's start -- before denial of "right of passage" - abrogating the customary assistance shown to allies, preventing the 4th ID from getting into theater for over a month and eliminating the Northern front - leaving the Sunni Triangle untouched. And I could write a fucking book about the ramifications of that fact.

3) Bush, pretending that Turkey is still a valued ally, goes on a state visit last year - Spring time, IIRC, and is booed and jeered by a hand-picked pseudo-pro-US crowd of elites. The event is played up big in the Turkish press as a diplomatic slap in the face - and the Turkish Govt does not deny nor play down the event or the press spin.

If anything else has occurred of major note, it failed to register either pro or con, to my mind.

So, pray-tell, explain this post:

"Better to have the Turk on our side, however unreliable, than against us. Some of you extremists seem to forget that."

I see no benefit worth warm spit to having an unreliable ally, by definition - they are NOT on our side, nor do I see the realization of such a fact as extreme.

Posted by: .com 2005-03-28 1:45:21 AM

#1 Fred, I have to remind you that 30.000 people, mainly kurds, have died since 1984 as a consequence of the PKK's struggle for a marxist homestate. Back in 1993 the PKK pioneered suicide attacks against the turkish state and people. They're behind narcotics smuggling, extortion and murders on their own followers in Europe. With or without the use of uniforms in the field, PKK is a terrorist organisation and the largest part of PKK are not wearing uniforms, they operate under civil cover in Europe.

Posted by: Lars Villemoes 2005-03-28 1:06:21 AM

00:00