http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003958267_turkey18.html - The vote from a few days ago allowing Turkey to pursue Kurdish rebels into Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21399932/ - And things instantly get even worse
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=5701106 - And also, this is happening.
Ok, so Turkey has been a pretty important US ally in recent history. Their support was pretty huge in the first Gulf War, and they were initially very supportive of what used to be called "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Or maybe it was "Operation Enduring Freedom". I don't remember what they called it then, I don't know what they call it now, but it doesn't make a difference. The point is Turkish support is a huge lynch pin to our strategic capabilities in the middle east. As such we have always rewarded the Turkish government generously, to the tune of several billion dollars.
The Iraq war changed everything though. The war brought our interests into conflict with Turkish interests regarding the ethnic minority in the north of Iraq, the Kurds. Kurdistan, the semi-independent in the north of Iraq, has been the most peaceful area of Iraq throughout the US occupation. The Kurds have worked with the US to fight insurgents and Al Qaeda, and Kurdistan is a pretty well functioning "country" of it's own. The only problem is that they fucking hate the Turkish. The Kurds aren't contained only to the north of Iraq, they are also a minority in parts of Turkey. The conflict between the Kurds and Turkey has been going on for a long, long time, and has a Northern Ireland feel to it, to put it in a context of something you're probably more familiar with. The largest group working against the Turkish government, the PKK, is worth reading up on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKK
We've put ourselves into a situation where we are beholden to both sides of a conflict that predates our interests in the area, and which until recently had nothing to do with us. Man, that's a familiar feeling isn't it? And of course, rather than handle the situation delicately our congress is working on a resolution which would condemn the treatment of Armenians in Turkey during the first world war as genocide. Here's two obvious points: Yes, it was genocide. Secondly, how is this relevant enough to merit doing this now?
To sum up, we're in a position now where two important allies are basically in a war which has done nothing but escalate recently. Our efforts to soothe the conflict have so far been in vain, but how much diplomatic success can you really expect from this administration? If we lose Turkey, we lose a powerful ally in the middle east whose help could be invaluable if a larger conflict does break out. If we lose the Kurds, we lose our most successful area of Iraq, leading to a further destabilization that is probably beyond any hope. Of course, you could argue that it's already at that point, but I digress. I wish I could say that if we pulled out of Iraq we would be enough removed from this conflict that we wouldn't have to worry about it. In truth, the best we can do is pull out and hope that we can resolve the situation diplomatically. This specific conflict isn't something that is going to be affected much by our actions, but the results of how we handle this still has wide-ranging implications on the stability of the middle east, and the safety of our armed forces stationed there.
Ok, this post was late, but hopefully tomorrow will see part III, which will deal with deteriorating US relations with Russia, and what it means for our presence in the middle east. As always, stay informed!
EDIT - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21417605/ - thank God, it seems that for now, this might be avoided. I sincerely hope so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am anxiously awaiting part III of this shocking expose, but it certainly begs the question that even if we do leave, is some of this stuff still going to happen? I have absolutely felt that it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place, that this administration has done such a poor job of maintaining at least civil diplomatic discourse with a number of our (former) allies, and that our continued presence in Iraq exacerbates the situation.
Even if we leave, will that be enough to cool relations between Turkey and the Kurds sufficiently so that no one there does anything rash? I would have to say no, especially since, as you mentioned, the Kurds operate fairly autonomously. With a lack of a strong central government in Iraq, Turkey sees an opportunity to "take care" of a problem that has been bothering it for years, and I can hardly believe that the Iraqis are in any condition to stop them.
This leads to the last question - what do you now that the situation is virtually unsalvageable and there is a serious lack of cooler heads prevailing? An article that I found particularly fitting was:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21364048/
"Ex-top envoy calls Iraqi government a failure"
The article goes on, but I find it ironic that we have succeeded in some ways of bringing American democracy to the Iraq and the Middle East, if you count political cronyism as an American export. From the article: "You've got patently incompetent men appointed to important positions." Sounds familiar...
Well, it comes down to, how much of this is going to happen whether we are there or not, and is our presence there affecting whether or not it will occur? You can ask that question about a bunch of the different conflicts in the middle east, which I'll try to sum up when I finish writing about this. However, the Kurdish-Turkish conflict isn't one that is likely to be improved by our leaving Iraq. What we do benefit from leaving in regards to it though is getting our troops out of they way of something that they don't need to be involved in. This is undoubtedly the least clear-cut of the conflicts though.
Post a Comment