Article

2003-02-21 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Murat 2003-02-21 08:09 am|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I can sympathize with these views, however, there are operational and tactical concernes here that override. How many Iraqi spies are hiding amongst the Turkish population? How much intel does Iraq gleen from Turkey, whether Turkey knows it or not? That is the real reason to play this close to the vest.

No one knows what the final war plans are, except the generals who formulated them and their immediate superiors. It is not a matter of not trusting Turkey, who has been an ally for some time, and will bear a terrible burden when the war starts. It is a matter of keeping our men alive, and successfully accomplishing the mission.

YOu want to know more about what we plan? How much are you willing to pay for that knowledge, how many servicemen's lives are you willing to risk for it? If your knowing what the plan is reduced the chance for success, would that be worth it?

Posted by Ben 2003-02-21 04:35:40|| 2003-02-21 04:35:40|| Front Page Top

#2 Ben,
I am sure nobody expects to reveal plans to the population, be it the Turkish or US population. Besides when talking about war plans I donât think it is meant to know where bomb x is to be dropped. The meaning here is the after war plans, the structure of future Iraq and whether or not to disarm the militia who are armed to the teeth by the US as opposition forces etc.

There are a lot of things on which the US acts very shallow. One has to understand that Turkey got dished up with all the mishaps of US planning during Gulfwar I, in which the US armed all kind of opposition militias. Most of these arms landed in the hands of terrorists leading to more than 30.000 victims between 1991 and 1998 in Turkey. Turkey is extra concerned this time that such will not reoccur and want to have a firm say in the after war arrangements. A US war against terror must not lead to another flare up of terror in the region because of the wild handouts of weapons to militias. It would be worth very much to know what these plans are.

Posted by Murat 2003-02-21 05:51:38|| 2003-02-21 05:51:38|| Front Page Top

#3 "...US politicians donât seem to or donât want to understand the real meaning of the word âallyâ.

Alliances are built on trust. Money is obviously the overriding issue here, and I find it apalling that Turkey thinks it can hold the US to ransom in this way. If there are differences over the sharing of tactical information, it should be done behind closed doors. Generating another damaging rift like this is either: i) an untimely and clumsy money-grab which makes a mockery of NATO, yet again, or ii) a cynical attempt to demonstrate to the Turkish population (which is about 95% opposed to war) that the government in Ankara isn't simply towing the American line unquestioningly.

What does trying to extort money in this way actually achieve for Turkey in the long run, Murat?

Posted by Bulldog 2003-02-21 05:52:21|| 2003-02-21 05:52:21|| Front Page Top

#4 re Bulldog
The money issue is aired by the US media I guess as a kind pressurizing for a quick voting of the parliament. Meanwhile there are reports that there is only haggling over a remaining 5% of the total issues on which there have been no agreement reached as far as I have understand, and most of it are not money but political related issues according to the Turkish foreign ministry.

Posted by Murat 2003-02-21 06:33:35|| 2003-02-21 06:33:35|| Front Page Top

#5 Murat, I agree. Our retreat from Iraq last time was shameful and is now coming back to haunt us. In addition, Turkey suffered financial losses last time that our friends, the Soddis, did not make up. Stability in the region has a higher importance to Turkey than to us.

Another lesson to be learned from last time is not to assume that local forces can topple Saddam. I think many in Washington thought Saddam would be ousted by the locals and it didn't happen.

Posted by Chuck 2003-02-21 07:42:53|| [blog.simmins.org] 2003-02-21 07:42:53|| Front Page Top

#6 Turkey's national finances are in awful shape but this is not an outcome of the Gulf War. The previous two Turkish administrations were marked by outrageous corruption and waste. The new government has made a lot of noise about fighting corruption and waste. Unfortunately, there is a long history of American foreign aid being used to promote more corruption and waste.

Posted by mhw 2003-02-21 08:17:00|| 2003-02-21 08:17:00|| Front Page Top

#7 mhw,
Thatâs true, Turkeyâs national finances are in awful shape, as well as caused by corruption too, but the main cause are the international (mainly US) policies to embargo Iraq and Iran. Both unfortunately direct neighbours of Turkey and to the worst whilst biggest trading partners. I am not bashing the international policies of Iraq and Iran embargo, but the loss of that trade brought the Turkish economy to a near collapse (compare it for the US losing Canada and Mexico for trade and the impact of it).

Posted by Murat 2003-02-21 08:59:27|| 2003-02-21 08:59:27|| Front Page Top

#8 Our plans for Iraq look to me like they were drawn from MacArthur, sans Hirohito, with shades of Marshall. The big difference on this go-round is that the Iraqis have the capability to finance their own reconstruction. If we can leave the appropriate institutions in place, we should be able to do an even better job than we did in Japan.

Posted by Dishman 2003-02-21 09:03:50|| 2003-02-21 09:03:50|| Front Page Top

#9 Murat,
I doubt the embargo of Iran did much harm to the Turkish economy. With or without the embargo, the Turkish-Iranian trade is mostly indirect and minimal.
Iraq is another matter. Before the Gulf War, Turkey was getting lots of $$$$ on pipeline fees transporting Iraqi oil. Since the Gulf War the pipeline fees are gone. However, the cross border trade between northern Iraq and Eastern Turkey is pretty significant and has increased quite a bit since the Gulf War. The problem with this trade is that it is mostly black and grey market and difficult to tax. Turkey still gets pipeline fees from oil of non Iraqi origin. They also get transit fees from oil transported by sea from the Black Sea. I saw number once on this in a WTO booklet but generally, WTO numbers can be either accurate or totally hosed and it takes more time than I have to decipher it. In any event, the funds the US provides to Turkey this time will be a good test for the current govt. Will they squander it or will they use it constructively? I hope for the first, but hopes have been dashed before.

Posted by mhw 2003-02-21 09:57:05|| 2003-02-21 09:57:05|| Front Page Top

#10 Darn, bad editing by me. I hope they use it constructively not squander it. My bad.

Posted by mhw 2003-02-21 10:04:24|| 2003-02-21 10:04:24|| Front Page Top

#11 You know, I'm starting to wonder if this is about money at all. Might the delay in getting NATO help have contributed to the delay in getting the US troops in? Most of the NATO is defensive - it will protect Turkey, but you might also say that it is force protection.

Posted by Pete Stanley 2003-02-21 12:25:33|| 2003-02-21 12:25:33|| Front Page Top

#12 Sorry, Murat, but loose lips sink ships. France has had flapping lips in the past, and sold our technology, and plausible deniability sometimes is the way to go.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-02-21 12:52:46|| 2003-02-21 12:52:46|| Front Page Top

10:13 Tom Roberts
06:54 raptor
06:49 raptor
06:32 raptor
06:32 raptor
06:32 raptor
04:43 ISHMAIL
04:15 ISHMAIL
02:48 ISHMAIL
00:46 Rex Mundi
00:31 Rex Mundi
00:02 aa
23:15 efwest
22:55 Anon
22:22 John
22:20 Fred
22:02 Anon
21:46 Dishman
21:30 John
21:29 Alaska Paul
21:22 Alaska Paul
21:22 mojo
21:20 becky
21:18 Fred