If Turkey invades northern Iraq, what will happen next?

[roamer65]

Regional ME war? World War III? What a mess. I'd like to hear your opinions.

Here's agood article on the current tensions.

http://article.wn.com/view/2007/05/30/Turkish_army_buildup_triggers_Iraq_tension/

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. I'd love to give my opinion.

:hi: MKJ

[babylonsister]

2. More questions: do they have a huge military, what's their beef, and

who would they be fighting?

[The Magistrate]

7. Short Answers, Ma'am

A sizeable and efficient army. Though its equipment is not too modern, it is quite sufficient for its purposes.

Their 'beef' is Kurdish irridentism, which an independent Kurdistan, whether de jure or de facto, would tend to foster. A large portion of the populace of eastern Turkey, old Anatolia, is not Turkish but Kurdish, and there has been a good deal of fighting and repression by the Turkish army there for many years.

The immediate target would be a secular Kurdish independence movement, the exact name of which eludes my memory at this moment, that has spear-headed the Kurdish resistance in Anatolia, and has now established 'safe haven' enclaves in the Kurdish area of Iraq, from which it has launched some cross-border raids recently.

[roamer65]

8. The PKK?

Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan (aka Kurdistan Workers Party).

[The Magistrate]

9. That Sounds Right, Sir: Thank You

[babylonsister]

11. OK, first off, I had to look up irridentism:

irridenta

noun
a region that is related ethnically or historically to one country but is controlled politically by another

So the Turks with the beef feel they belong there (sounds similar to I/P) and think this might be an opportune time to get their land and history back.

And here I thought the Kurdish part of Iraq was the MOST peaceful.

Sigh.

[DireStrike]

12. Nah you've not quite got it

The turks with the beef are the non-kurdish ones. They'd be repressing turkish kurds and trying to stamp out kurd rebels, raiders, and other "insurgent" type groups across the border in Iraq.

[babylonsister]

16. So the Turks who want the land have nothing to do with the Kurds, but feel

they were driven out of (Kurdish/northern) Iraq unjustly?

[uppityperson]

20. They don't want the Kurds to have the land and control it.

No one, except the Kurds, want an independent Kurdistan. They all want the land and control of it. Kurds can live there, but not control it.

[babylonsister]

21. Whadayaknow-sounds like the...wait for it... Middle East! Again,

we are there for what reason, trying to reason with people who've had these turf and religious wars for thousands of years?

[The Magistrate]

39. For The Turks, Ma'am

The Kurds of Anatolia are the last subject people remaining to them from the old Ottoman empire. They want to hang onto them, and certainly do not want them inspired to more general rebellion by the example of a Kurdish state, or even just a Kurdish 'autonomous area' nearby. Turks in Turkey do not feel 'driven out' of anywhere by anybody; they swept in from outside long ago and took over the whole show, and ran it for centuries as overlords.

[roamer65]

40. It is interesting how this all plays into *'s disruption of Churchill's 1921

partition plan that carved Iraq out of the Ottoman Empire. An imploding Iraq is going to rearrange a good part of the ME boundaries. Each neighbor of Iraq is going to grab their piece. Turkey's piece will be Iraqi Kurdistan, in order to save the last vestiges of the Ottoman Empire. Saudi Arabia and perhaps Jordan will occupy Sunni western Iraq. That leaves Shi'a Iraq for you know who...

[The Magistrate]

48. Indeed, Sir: the Yugoslavia of The Near East

In my view, a partition into the three main constituent segments is the only way out, though such actions have gone decidedly out of fashion nowadays. But young men with guns seem to be arranging it themselves in any case. The place can only be held together by an autocrat at the center, and no such figure seems in the offing just now.

[roamer65]

13. If one watches the Turkish movie "Kurtlar Vadisi Irak"

(aka Valley of the Wolves, Iraq) an actor in the movie makes a nostalgic reference how the Iraqis were better off under the Ottoman Empire than they are now. When the guy said it in the movie, I just about crapped my pants. Yikes.

[nealmhughes]

26. Yep, it merely means "unredeemed." It comes from the phrase "Italia Irrendeta" when Italian

unification was underway from the foundation of the Kingdom of Sardinia onwards. The culmination was the capture of the Papal States last stronghold, Rome proper in 1870 with the Italian Kingdom's forces.

The example of Italian and German unification are the models for many nationalistic groups who are spread out across political borders.

Once an area becomes "redeemed," however, the former state which then had control, traditionally becomes enamoured with "revanche" which is just French for "revenge," such as Germany over Alcase and Lorraine and France the same.

Usually, only a rump state with a very strong international backer can ensure that a program of irrendetism can be successful, such as the "liberation" of Transylvania from Hungary and control given to Romania by the Allies at the end of WW I. Romania was then the victim of Hungarian envy in the form of desiring "revanche," which Hitler gave them when he split the region between the two. Causing Romania to then renew the cycle, until the USSR gave all of Transylvania to Romania as a war prize, even though they had fought alongside the Axis Powers in the Second World War, but had surrendered in 1943.

Now, there is little concern over the issue, as both are in the EU. It would take something like the EU in the Middle East to stop the cycle of irrenditism and revanche in Kurdish regions, and several wars might be fought over the area, like there were in the Balkan Wars in the early 1900s.

The fact that the Turkish Republic is a member of NATO vastly complicates matters, because if a large scale attatck were somehow issued from Kurdistan on Turkey, the US and all the allies would be treaty bound to come to Turkey's aid.

However, given that Kurdistan is an idea and a small autonomous zone and not a state, and that Turkey is immense and very powerful in a population and military sense, it would be suicide were Iraqi Kurdistan declare independence and then mount an offense in Anatolia.

They tried it before several times, under Russian tutelage, especially, and it failed every time.

[mmonk]

3. Not much.

We'd insure Turkey did not face too many consequences. Many of our members of congress are on their payroll.

[uppityperson]

4. Kurdistan is still up for grabs. Will it remain Iraqi, Turkey, or Kurdistan.

No, not WW3, just more fighting in the area. It will contribute to the hell mrbush has done, but in and of itself, just another act with deaths and destruction.

[roamer65]

6. Sadly more death and destruction, I agree.

:cry:

[karlrschneider]

5. It might jeopardize their NATO membership.

But they might invoke the "bush doctrine"....I have no idea how that will play with the UN or our own government.
:eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

10. Best commentary available....

http://www.juancole.com/

[roamer65]

35. I'm gonna have to go listen to Juan Cole speak at the Univ of Mich when he does...

since he is a professor there and I'm from that area. I'd love to bring up a discussion with him of Winston Churchill's 1921 partitioning plan that carved Iraq out of the Ottoman Empire and how the current disruption of that partitioning will now play out.

[Malikshah]

14. Have to agree that Juan Cole has a great bit of info on topic, but Kurdistan

is a pipe dream-- there never has been an independent "Kurdistan"--either in the pre-modern or modern eras that includes lands that are predominantly Kurdish.

To create such a Kurdistan--see below.




Yup-- if one goes-- then what happens?

BTW-- this map is not based upon any static borders, but rather is of the snapshot variety.

Do a google search w/ Kurdistan and see what comes up...

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

22. What do you think of Juan Cole's deconstruction of Bush's comparison to S. Korea?

Since you mentioned him and all. :shrug: MKJ

[Malikshah]

23. Spot on--He refers to Gaddis, a Cold War Historian, who's apparently

still living in that era. I've seen this before. The devil is in the details and sometimes scholars get so caught up in the idea of placing their own research/experiences on other areas, thinking that the solutions will somehow be the same. They rarely if ever are.

In this case--I'd listen to Cole over Gaddis.

Nothing against Gaddis, who is a truly eminent scholar...of the Cold War.

It is like having a Secretary of State who is a Soviet specialis...oh snap!!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

27. Gaddis is mentioned in passing. How about Cole's analysis of the root causes between Iraq and

S. Korea? MKJ

[Malikshah]

29. Spot on--again

[roamer65]

25. Too bad Juan Cole wasn't a ME advisor to *, but * wouldn't be able to understand anyway.

* is like a light switch...ON/OFF..."you're either with us or the terrorists". Multi-dimensional thinking is impossible for him.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

28. OK, so I guess discussion about the actual content of the article won't occur.

MKJ

[roamer65]

33. Sure it will.

It is insane for anyone to compare Iraq to North/South Korea. The Koreas are ethnically the same, primarily divided by political ideology. Iraq is divided by political ideology, religious ideology and ethnicity. I see more similarities between the former Yugoslavia and Iraq. Both had numerous ethnic, religious and political differences all bound together by a strong arm dictator.

My point on * is that he cannot comprehend all of the intertwining (sp?) relationships in Iraq and that region in general. His dad understood them and that is why US support for the Iraqi Shi'a evaporated so quickly after the 1st Gulf War. Daddy Bush knew the consequences of removing the strong arm dictator. Now the fun part is getting all the demons back inside the box.

I agree, get me a beer.
;-)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

34. Your conclusion that Bush is insane is one with which I fully agree.

:toast: MKJ

[Cults4Bush]

47. BHP what is troubling you about the article?

You seem to have a contention? I am off to read it now and see if I can figure out what has you wanting to discuss it in more detail. Post back if you are still wanting to kick it around some :)

[roamer65]

38. Interesting map...isn't that little sliver of Iran by the Persian gulf and

not in greater Kurdistan, Iran's Khuzestan province? That province contains 90% of Iran's oil. Makes me still wonder if one of the goals is the "Khuzestan gambit".

[necso]

15. A great deal depends on the nature of the event:

what their objectives are; what they attempt; what resources they devote; whether they enjoy success; how the US reacts; how the Kurds react; etc.

Although any invasion/incursion may well have some common consequences.

But make no mistake, the Turks have a capable, tough military -- when well led, anyway.

As for their leadership, I don't know enough to write at length.

However, I suspect that this leadership lacks clarity of vision, being blinded by what they view as insults, outrages -- and a unforgivable lack of effective action on our part.

[roamer65]

17. Delete.

[roamer65]

18. Turkish Chief of Staff: Turk troops ready for Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053100549.html

[ContraBass Black]

19. Hell will break loose.

Again.

[Yukari Yakumo]

24. If the Turks invade the north...

Iran will invade the east,
Syria may invade the west,
The Saudis will invade the south,
And we'll be caught in the middle of it all.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

30. Hypotheticals.

Worst case seem to be the most popular. MKJ

[Yukari Yakumo]

31. Given this administration's track record...

Should be expect anything less?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

32. Thankfully, the Turks have not invaded. It's a good thing that Bush isn't in charge.

edited to add: in Turkey.

MKJ

[lovuian]

36. been watching the Turkey thing for months

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AH-IjStfVBs

[Selatius]

37. The Turks and the Kurds will demand the US to choose a side when it comes to war and bloodshed.

Depending on how Bush will react to opposite pulling forces, he could make it better or worse. Given Bush's track record, the prognosis is not good.

[Swamp Rat]

41. Remember Armenia?... Goodbye Kurds.

[sanskritwarrior]

42. The Turks must have a deathwish

After the US military, the Peshmerga is the premiers fighting force in Iraq, and after the US and Israel probably the 3rd best army in the region. People seem to think the way the Turks have dealt with the Kurds in Turkey is indicative of the success they might have if they invade Iraqi Kurdistan. This is sheer folly and madness, in fact IMHO a Turkish incursion into Iraqi Kurdistan would be more of a miscalculation than us going into Iraq. The Peshmerga has changed in the last 4 years, they are as heavily armed as the Turks (minus air power) and would have the advantage of terrain knowledge as well as esprit de corps. The Kurds are highly motivated and well armed. The last time I personally saw a Peshmerga unit was in October 2005, I was doing a Blackhawk run into Sulimaniyah and we stopped at a Kurdish army base to drop off some Blackwater guys, I was working in the Brigade S-2 shop and in conjunction with dropping off the mercs, we were checking on our small MITT team embedded with the Peshmerga. I saw a Kurdish Mechanized Infantry battalion conducting manuevers, they had Iraqi BMP's and Chinese YW-531 APC's for infantry taxis, they had T-72 tanks for Armored support, American made M109 Howitzers for artillery and get this: EVERY KURDISH SOLDIER HAD AN ISRAELI MADE GALIL ASSAULT RIFLE. The Pesh guys had digital BDU's, new Israeli made body armor, and all new kit. So after the bird landed and was refueling I was talking to a Kurdish officer that was the LNO for our Brigade and the Pesh in Suli. His name was Hejar and I knew him pretty well from other trips out to Suli. He was telling me that all the enemies of the Turks were selling weapons to the Kurds faster than you could blink. The Greeks were sending Artillery pieces and ammo, the Armenians were sending BMP's and maybe some Attack Helicopters, and the Bulgarians were sending the uniforms and a few of the Tanks. He also said that the battalion I was looking at was one of 50 the Kurds hoped to have fielded by 2008 when they EXPECTED THE TURKS TO COME AFTER THEM.

Anyway that's just one little anectdote from almost two years ago, what I saw that day made me think the Turks had no idea what the Kurds were doing. If Hejar's claim is true and the Kurds have 40,000 men outfitted and trained that way and the Turks go in there with less than the standard 3:1 odds an attacker needs, then the Turks are gonna get creamed. The Kurds in Iraq are a fully trained heavy mechanized army, the Kurds in Turkey are lightly armed rebels, I think the Turks are about to make another mistake like they did in front of the gates of Vienna.............

[babylonsister]

43. Wow. Thanks for sharing that, I think. I suppose this

might be a spot where I can implore, "Can't we all just get along?" Sadly, this is another area of the world where I don't see that ever happening.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. That story, if true (BIG if), brings the possibility of the other way around

i.e., the Iraqi Kurds getting uppity and getting the idea to "liberate" the Turkish Kurds.

Now THAT would create an even bigger mess.

[Ganja Ninja]

44. We'll bomb Iran.

And if Turkey doesn't invade northern Iraq we'll bomb Iran. See how that works?

[Cults4Bush]

46. These are dark dark days... so why

am I LMAO at that comment? The truthiness perhaps... dont know... but it made me giggles and that troubles me.

more coffee I think.:hi:

[Cults4Bush]

45. Roamer as you can now see... no one knows.

The situation is about as fluid as these things get. The situation is more chaotic than a hockey puck on chipped melting ice in triple overtime. Anyone who acts like they know exactly what will happen is full of shit, take your wisdom from the ones that are wagering guesses and say so.. combine them see what floats to the top over the next week and then you have your answer.

Im gonna go read Juan Cole as he is usually the most spot on (rarely wrong oin the larger issues and happily admits his mistakes). Good luck on your research with this, lot sof us have made this particular niche of the war and occupation our specialty and there is no consensus yet on a likely outcome.

Take care!