Turkish Speaker Nullifies U.S. Troop Vote By SUZAN FRASER, Associated Press Writer ANKARA, Turkey - In a serious blow to U.S. plans for a possible war with Iraq Turkey's parliament speaker nullified the legislature's vote Saturday to allow deployment of 62,000 U.S. combat troops to open a northern front against Iraq. Speaker Bulent Arinc voided the vote on constitutional grounds, ruling that a majority of legislators present had not voted in favor. Arinc then closed parliament until Tuesday. The vote was 264-250 with 19 abstentions, four short of a simple majority. The bill's rejection is likely to seriously increase tensions with the United States which had been expecting a positive vote. The motion would have empowered the government to authorize the basing of up to 62,000 troops, 255 warplanes and 65 helicopters. Washington has been looking to use bases in Turkey to open a northern front against Iraq, which would have divided Saddam Hussein's army if there is a war. Turkish and U.S. generals said the strategy would lead to a quicker and less bloody war. Washington had been offering Turkey some $15 billion in loans and grants if the troops were allowed in to cushion the Turkish economy from the impact of any war. A signing of that agreement had been expected after the vote. But there was strong resistance in the governing Justice and Development Party to any vote. An overwhelming majority of the Turkish public - polls show as high as 94 percent - oppose a war and deputies were under strong domestic pressure to reject any U.S. troop basing. Hours before the vote, the party's leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, met with his party legislators, trying to persuade them to back the U.S. troop deployment. A mile from parliament, 50,000 Turks held a rally to protest the war. "No to War," and "We don't want to be America's soldiers'," they shouted as some 4,000 police stood guard. Some carried banners that read: "The people will stop this war," and "Budget for education not war." Party leaders had called for a Thursday vote, but that was put off until Saturday amid signs that some legislators would vote against the motion. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/ap/20030301/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_us_iraq While I'm sure our resident peacenik fanatics here will be pleased at this news, this is not good for anyone involved: 1) It is going to be much more difficult to protect the Kurds. Expect many of them to die. 2) It will be much more difficult to secure the Mosul and Kirkuk oilfields before Saddam blows them up, meaning that the reconstruction will be much more costly. 3) It will take longer to secure the north, which means that more Iraqi and American soldiers are likely to die. 4) The Turks will not have a financial cushion to fall back on after the war, and have dealt a serious blow to US-Turk relations that could have long-term consequences. This will in no way stop the war (sorry glynch); it will merely force the 4 ID, 101st AA, and 1 ID elements to travel to and then go through Kuwait (although the 101st might go thru Jordan instead - but they fan out and move rapidly anyway). This will only prolong the war by several days and increase the number of casualties on both sides. An all around pisspoor decision by the Turkish Parliament.
This will only prolong the war by several days and increase the number of casualties on both sides. An all around pisspoor decision by the Turkish Parliament. Turkish Parliament is there to represent the views and interests of the Turkish people, who are massively against the war. This was (another) failure by the administration to secure international support for war both with foreign governments and their populations.
I understand that the Turkish population is overwhelmingly against this war - that's fine, whatever floats their boat. But that leaves the Turkish government with a stark dilemma: do what their constituents want them to do, or do what is in the best interests of the nation; they cannot do both. This vote may endear some of the legislators to their constituency, but it is a severely bad move for the nation that could have some quite bad long-term side effects. Very bad. I suppose it depends on what you view the primary responsibility of the government as being: to protect the country, or to obey their constituency. The two do not always match up... I won't go either way on that, and I don't really care to get into a philosophical debate over it right now; I'm just pointing out that this is a very bad move for all parties involved. Everyone.
i wonder why the turks are so against it. i am just guessing because they fear that if the kurds are given a stronger voice once saddam is ousted then they would have to deal more with the possibility of kurdistan occupying part of their country and iraq. even though i don't believe it would happen or should happen i wonder if this plays into their anti-war sentiments.
robbie380: There are a number of reasons for it. As you said, there is the Kurdish question (very disturbing to them, as they have fought with the Kurds sporadically for quite some time). They also want access to the EU, and guess who the gatekeeper to the EU is? (Hint: Their leader just threatened to block Eastern European countries applications for EU membership). There is also a rising tide of Islamicism within Turkish internal politics, some of it even militant; this tide is currently opposed mainly by the military (who was not happy with today's decision). They are also caught in the general global tide of anti-Americanism that recent polls have found...
THE TURKS. Look at this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030301/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_us_iraq_28 Their people spilled into the streets to celebrate after the vote, saying **** like this: "We are all Iraqis ... We will not kill, we will not die," they chanted. They also accused the Islamic-rooted Justice party of "collaborating" with Washington." This now becomes a single-front war. More costly, more time-consuming, maybe more of our own dead than would have been if these pieces of crap had repaid our years of overlooking their human rights abuses & support w/ a single f-ing vote. These turds have fought against us more times in the last 100 years than they fought with us. We overlook their horrid human rights abuses & this is how they respond? Time to cast them off. I'm pissed.
Your argument would be easily supportable were it not founded upon the ( admitedly unexpected ) assumption that the US's position is automatically 'what is best for Turkey'... Has it occured to you that their might be two perspectives on this, and given that AND the overwhelming feelings of the people, this might have been the best decision...for everyone...except Bush et al?
Perhaps an invasion of Turkey is in order... Thus, countries will be hesitant to oppose the will of our newly-forming Empire. "What I am eliminating? The bourgeois infatuation with peaceful conservation of the past. This is a binding force, a thing which holds humankind into one vulnerable unit in spite of illusionary separations across parsecs of space. If I can find the scattered bits, others can find them. When you are together, you can share a common catastrophe. You can be exterminated together. Thus, I demonstrate the terrible danger of a gliding, passionless mediocrity, a movement without ambitions or aims. I show you that entire civilizations can do this thing. I give you eons of life which slips gently toward death without fuss or stirring, without even asking 'Why?' I show you the false happiness and the shadow-catastrophe called Leto, the God Emperor. Now, will you learn the real happiness? --The Stolen Journals"
This is ridiculous. This decision will either turn out to be good for the Turks, or it will be bad for the Turks. I did not say anything about the US's position automatically being 'what is best for Turkey' (where did you pull that from???), I merely pointed out some of the likely consequences of this decision. They are all bad. For both the Turks and the US. I did, however, say this: "I suppose it depends on what you view the primary responsibility of the government as being: to protect the country, or to obey their constituency. The two do not always match up... I won't go either way on that..." How do you infer an assumption of the superiority of the US position from that? But let's look at this from the Turks' perspective: A) They maintain a true democratic function in having the Parliament express the wishes of the people by vote. This is always good. B) They will now stay out of the war - sort of. I suppose that is also good, as it reduces the chances that they will be attacked (reduces - not eliminates - we are still going to fly combat missions out of Incirlik, so they're still in it...). These may seem like positives for them, and they are. But do they outweigh the negatives? A) They will stay out of the war, and consequently out of the peace equation. They have abdicated any leverage they would have had over the Kurdish issue after the war. B) They will recieve no economic cushion now. Their economy - already hurting - is going to take a serious nose-dive because of this. Their markets are nervous as hell - expect them to crash tomorrow. C) Many Kurds may die because of this decision. They will not forget who caused it. D) More US and Iraqi soldiers will probably die because of it. They/we will not forget either. E) The northern oilfields are probably lost now - Saddam will probably blow them before we can get there. The result will be a severe economic blow to the area - not just Iraq. Turkey will feel the pain from it. F) US-Turk relations have taken a severe blow. The damage may be reparable - and it may not. We are probably not going to push so hard for Turkish admittance into the EU now, and until now we were about all that was keeping them in the game. From the average Turk's perspective, this might seem like a victory of democracy right now. The right move. But the government knows that this is a seriously negative development that could hurt the nation for many years to come. Their government knows what is best for the country in this case, and is shattered over this vote. But whose perspective do you want to use, anyway?
I seriously doubt that Macbeth cares what our guys think about this issue. Can't you just sense the Europhilic vibes here?
A one-front war is a minor setback for our troops. Whatever defense they have in the North will be oblitherated through "UN enforcement" of the no-fly zone. The main concern is the oil fields situated there that are ripe for Saddam's supposed scorched earth policy. A lesser concern is Iran doing something unpredictable in that region. They're politicians. They look after short term gains to help keep them in office (i.e. Shroeder). The irony is that authoritarian regimes such as Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are our deepest supporters in the region. Democracy is a double edged sword. Sounds great for everyone, but you can't expect the will of the people to coincide with our wishes. You might as well call MacBeth French.
The Turks are smarter than we think. They deny the US, thus putting them in the good with Saddam and burning that bridge with the US. Percentage wise, this is a smart move. By the time their country drops into a sh!tfest, we'll have a Democrat in office, and he'll use our money to rebuild that bridge and bend over backwards helping them out. Then again, I could be wrong.
'Minor setback'? Let's suppose that it sets back the timetable for US troops by three days. This is reasonable, as much of the 101st - the only unit that could get there on day 1 - will be busy securinmg WMD sites and the like - higher value targets. Do you think that Saddam will be able to blow the oilfields in 3 days' time? I do. How many Kurds do you think that he will be able to slaughter during that time? Halibja (sp?) only took a day. How much more expensive do you think that reconstruction will be if the northern oil infrastructure is destroyed? I understand that. I just think that a politician's real job should be to look after his nation's best interests, not his own. Although I agree that that is usually not the way it works... I understand that also (I have pretty much said the same thing in previous posts in this thread). But in this case, strictly speaking, it was not the 'will of the people' that prevailed, it was the 'will of Turkish politicians to be reelected' at the expense of their nation's interests that bugs me. While the 'will of the people' may have been served, many Turks are terribly anxious about the decision now - only one day later - and some are starting to question whether a huge mistake was made. Their markets are particularly nervous, and I wasn't kidding when I said that they may crash when they open tomorrow. I guess if it is the 'will of the people' to A) get a bunch of Kurds killed, B) potentially shatter their own economy, and C) abandon and anger their greatest ally, then I suppose they have ample reason to be happy. The war to their south is going to happen anyway, they just won't have any influence over its outcome and aftermath now.
What prevents the Turks from hurting the Kurds. I am very ignorant of the history there. There's a Turkish student living on my floor and even though he is extremely moderate for a muslim from Turkey who doesn't plan on staying here, he acts like some club hopping euro. Anyway, I asked him about the Kurds once and he absolutely hated them. He basically went on and on about how they are a menace. I bring this up because this guy seems pretty moderate, so what do non moderate people in Turkey think of the Kurds.
It is a minor setback in terms of American casualties. The importance of two fronts in any war is usually for that goal. This decision by their Congress is hopefually a temporary setback until they reconvene, but Pentagon officials have already drawn up contingency plans. It never was a cakewalk to begin with but I don't think our soldiers will put too much thought on it. The majority of Iraq's oil fields are already in disprepair since the last Gulf War and the UN imposed sanctions. The working oil fields are important for our economic reconstruction strategy, but if destroyed I think its importance is overstated in terms of the temporary burden (until they are rebuilt) on the American economy. OPEC nations have already pledged to increase their production to alleviate the price hike supposedly caused by Iraq reducing its oil output. An attack on Kuwait or Saudi Arabia is more important in terms of public opinion and morale. If it took one day for Saddam to massacre the Kurds, he'd still do it even if we had two fronts. And realistically, do you think our millitary considers the Kurdish population a "higher value target"? They weren't in the last war. Good. IMO, the neighboring countries to Iraq will be vying for some land grab-what's in it for me- policy in the aftermath. Turkey eyes Iraqi oil fields in midst of war rumbling To help Turkey in the matter of supressing the Kurds independence movement would seriously undermine the voice of the ethnic Kurds living in Northern Iraq. If we're aiming for a "true Democracy" then stiffling that population to appease some friendship commitment with Turkey would be counterproductive to our interests in reparing that region. I'm tired of bribing countries with a check. They're merely conscripts and not our true allies.
Kurds are fairly secular (the Ansar Islam group is an exception) and probably have Persian ancestry. Kurds are split amongst: Iran Syria Iraq Turkey Armenia They also have a diaspora scattered in other parts of the world. Saladin is probably the most famous Kurd. For there to be a Kurdistan, the countries listed above would have to give up territory and that idea is not appealing. There is a militant/terrorist Kurd named Ocalan that Turkey captured a few years ago. Seems like his prison sentence was changed recently so that Turkey would be more in line with EU guidelines and thus, more acceptable to the EU. <a HREF="http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/ocalan/bitterend.html">A Terrorist's Bitter End</a>
In terms of US casualties, I guess you could call it minor. Saddam will now be able to throw most of his military weight towards the southern approach, but that probably won't make a whole lot of difference. It's still going to be like a hot knife thru butter... But I don't want a single more soldier to die than is necessary, and more will be lost because of this. Maybe only 10 or 20, but I'm not happy with even 1 more. Their parliamentary speaker said today that there would not be another vote. It's final. And we don't have time anyway... We either send the troops & ships waiting off the Turkish coast to Kuwait now, or we turn them around and bring them home. We are out of time. I can only say that we are very disturbed by this. We really did need a second front. Yes, we'll get by, but... I am not worried about global output or how it will affect our economy - I think we're safe there. But if the northern fields go, somewhere around 60% of their output is gone. That is cash that they need immediately, plus loss of money for the time it takes to rebuild them. You don't just decide to build an extensive oil infrastructure and then go plop it down the next day; it can take years to build it up. We're talking about money that the Iraqis will need now, not 5 years from now. What, SCUDs? Didn't have a noticeable impact last time, and they'll have even less this time. It is possible that Israel might get hit (likely); that is a greater fear. They will respond if attacked with WMD. Incidentally, the PAC-III Improved Patriot actually can knock SCUDs down, so such attacks should be different this time around. In addition the Israelis have the Arrow ABM and the THEL laser to knock down missiles... We are far better prepared this time. Not if the 4th Infantry Division is standing in the Iraqi army's way. But that isn't going to happen now... You misread my post. I said that WMD sites and the like are higher value targets for us. Meaning it is more important that we take out his WMD capabilities - absolutely vital to take those out first - than it is to protect the oilfields or Kurds. Although I would put the Kurds as #2 or #3 on the list - this time around we're not going to abandon them. I agree that they will probably try to. But they will find us protecting Iraq's territorial integrity. The Turks will be as welcome in northern Iraq as the Iranians would be in southern Iraq. I am too. It seems as though the Brits and Australians are the only ones we can really trust, and even their populations are against us... or at least Cowboy Bush. All we really wanted was passage, though... couldn't even buy that. Oh well, we just adapt and move on.
I am too. It seems as though the Brits and Australians are the only ones we can really trust, and even their populations are against us... Treeman, glad to see you're finally getting it. Now you might question whether America has the right policies to find real security if everyone is against us but a couple of leaders who are going against their populations.
