Turkey and the Kurds

I'll take the path of consistency and say that for the sake of the United States, and the sake of the Kurds, but also for Turkey's sake as well, I hope Turkey doesn't respond to PKK provocations with cross-border military actions that will ultimately fail to solve anything. That said, I do wonder what the apostles of "toughness" and willpower on the right will say about this. Don't they think that the Turks must cross the border in force and show the Kurds what's what? Won't weakness only invite further aggression?

Meanwhile, I recognize that the Kurds are a popular cause in bien pensant Washington while maintaining the viability of the Turkish alliance in the fact of the Armenian Lobby was also a popular cause, but while I think it makes a lot of sense for US diplomats to try to mediate here, I really don't think our troops should be stuck in the crossfire.

Comments

Please you guys, the "Armenian lobby"???? If they had any power, the US would have a good relationship with Armenia. As it stands, the US has a better relationship with that backwoods country AZERBAIJAN than it does with Armenia.
If there is an Armenian lobby, it's power lies with the 1.2 million Armenian-Americans, whose accomplishments pervade every part of American life, from rock music (System of a Down) to foreign service (Edward Djerjian). The Turkish lobby on the other hand, is not dependent on Americans, because there are very few Turkish-Americans. Think about it.

Posted by America, fuck yeah | October 22, 2007 11:30 AM

Not too long ago when Israel launched a cross-border raid into Lebanon because two of its soldiers were seized the American administration urged it on. Many were heard to say, "what would we do in America if Canada or Mexico had terror groups come onto our land and capture or kill Americans?" Of course, we would strike back.

Now the Turks have suffered a worse attack than that which prompted the US urging of Israel. But we want them to respond differently. In the US's eyes Turkey does not have the same right to defend itself as Israel. (Even the UN would have to accept Turkey's right to respond in self-defense.)

The PKK roam freely in Kurdish Iraq because they represent the hopes of the Kurdish people in Turkey (and Iraq) for an eventual unification of these lands. The PKK (and their Kurd buddies) have the idea that if Turkey attacks, then the Americans will have to come in on the side of the Kurds in the north which will open up south eastern Turkey as a battlefield with the eventual outcome of a peace talk that will include the US overseeing elections in the Kurdish territories.

It is the PKK's intent to provoke Turkey into an attack. By shilly-shallying around, Turkey invites more attacks. It is only a matter of time before Turkey defends itself from PKK attacks. Then the fun will begin.

Posted by Llyonnoc | October 22, 2007 11:43 AM

You are right, Matt, when you say that raids would fail to solve anything, if by that you mean bring some permanent closure to Turkish-Kurdish violence.

However, previous cross border raids have devastated the PKK. The group fighting now is a shell of its former self, and there's every reason to believe that attacks would help to break the PKK's ability to launch raids in Turkey in the short term. That's a non-trivial outcome.

Furthermore, unless you live there, it's very difficult to understand how emotional this issue is to Turks, and how much pressure there is on Erdogan to do something. Him not hitting the PKK would have pretty serious political consquences, and insofar as one backs AK/Erdogan, that's' a bad thing.

Of course, this is a conflict that demands non-military solutions in the long run.

Posted by Andrew | October 22, 2007 12:03 PM

Turkey has little choice but to invade. Of course, it's Not A Good Thing. War never is.

Of course, Americans shouldn't be caught in the crossfire. But there is no alternative to the use of American troops. Yes, it is a desperate, Hail Mary kind of strategy with very little chance of succeeding in preventing an invasion. But it is the only thing that can be done to prevent an invasion.

And of course, once Turkey invades, the potential for all hell to break loose, far worse than we've already seen, exponentially increase.

The other issue here is that if Ahmadinejad so much as breathes during this crisis, Cheney could very well declare it a casus belli.

We haven't seen nothing yet.

Posted by tristero | October 22, 2007 12:04 PM

Turkey has little choice but to invade. Of course, it's Not A Good Thing. War never is.

Of course, Americans shouldn't be caught in the crossfire. But Bush thinks there is no alternative. It is a desperate, Hail Mary kind of strategy with no chance of preventing an invasion, although it may postpone it or create a DMZ that will not last terribly long.

Aside from not wanting people to be killed, I have no opinion whatsoever on who is right or wrong here. I truly don't care because determining who is right or wrong won't stop the killing. It will merely enable one side to claim they have a moral right to murder the other. And the killing will go on.

Regarding American troops, I certainly don't want them killed any more than anyone else. They should be nowhere near Iraq in the first place.

And of course, once Turkey invades, the potential for all hell to break loose, far worse than we've already seen, exponentially increases.

The other issue here is that if Ahmadinejad so much as breathes during this crisis, Cheney could very well declare it a casus belli with Iran.

We ain't seen nothing yet.

Posted by tristero | October 22, 2007 12:11 PM

Sorry about the double post. I didn't even realize the first one was posted. The second version represents my thoughts better than the first.

Again, sorry.

Posted by tristero | October 22, 2007 12:13 PM

I'm surprised they haven't invaded yet. When I was in Turkey two years ago, everyone thought that action against the PKK was imminent. And most Turks thought an invasion was necessary, even if they would have to fight the Americans. They will invade at some point, but they might wait until Spring for better weather.

Posted by fostert | October 22, 2007 12:17 PM

That said, I do wonder what the apostles of "toughness" and willpower on the right will say about this. Don't they think that the Turks must cross the border in force and show the Kurds what's what? Won't weakness only invite further aggression?

I hope the Turks show some restraint before they distabilize the whole of Iraq. Look, US and Iraqi officials know Iran and Syria are allowing Al Queda and Iranian agents respectively to cross their borders to Iraq and kill US soldiers and bomb Iraqi civilians. The US and Iraqi government knows this but they restrain themselves from using military force to go into Iran or Syria and attack those countries for fear that direct confrontation might cause more destabilization in the region.

I hope our Turkey can show similar restraint.

Posted by john marzan | October 22, 2007 12:18 PM

That's a remarkable progression between those two posts, tristero. We go from:

Of course, Americans shouldn't be caught in the crossfire. But there is no alternative to the use of American troops. Yes, it is a desperate, Hail Mary kind of strategy with very little chance of succeeding in preventing an invasion. But it is the only thing that can be done to prevent an invasion.

To:

Of course, Americans shouldn't be caught in the crossfire. But Bush thinks there is no alternative. It is a desperate, Hail Mary kind of strategy with no chance of preventing an invasion, although it may postpone it or create a DMZ that will not last terribly long.

Things got a lot darker and gloomier between 12:04 and 12:11, huh?

Posted by southpaw | October 22, 2007 12:19 PM

You're reaching, Matt. There's no actual crossfire here. We're the best and darn near only friend both the Kurds and the Turks have. Neither of them would dare shoot at anything a US soldier was standing near.

I have to say, especially considering that Andrew is right about the PKK probably baiting American intervention, the situation needs US troops - albeit not used in the way the PKK expects Very much unlike Iraq, both sides like us and neither side would be willing to attack us, because we have a lot of leverage over both of them.

I'm more pro-Kurd than I am pro-Turk, but the PKK needs to be forced to stop its campaign, and it requires military pressure. I suggest, for starters, a very large, knock-on-doors saturation in Kurdish Iraq, with US troops saying, "you need to send people over to get the Turkish Kurds to stop what you're doing, or we're going to have to do it ourselves.

Who do you trust to de-escalate the PKK? The Turkish military? Fat chance.

Posted by glasnost | October 22, 2007 12:44 PM

Hrmm. That the Turks and the Kurds are going to fight has always been in the cards. A unified independent Kurdish nation demands it. That's been hovering in the background since 1991. And the Turks already threatened to go to war with Syria in 1998 over the PKK. The Turks, in one sense, have been incredibly patient with us and the Kurds.

If they actually occupy Kurdish areas that used to be part of Iraq, they're going to have problems like we have, but they're a lot meaner and closer to home. The Iranians are totally going to back the Turks because they'd like their Kurds to play nice. Same with the Syrians at this point.

So the only question is what is the US going to do? As a practical matter, there isn't much we can do except get our guys out of the way. Shit, it might reduce arms smuggling to the Sunnis through Kurdistan. Basically, we're going to stand around looking useless, and the usual suspects will have a hissy and nothing much will happen. Except an increase in the number of dead Kurds.

Shit, it doesn't seem to have occurred to anybody that the Turks might very well have a nuke, and they've certainly got as good army. As a practical matter, most of our guys are in Baghdad and out of range, so there's space to collide in anyways.

max
['People in DC are strange.']

Posted by max | October 22, 2007 1:00 PM

"That the Turks and the Kurds are going to fight has always been in the cards. A unified independent Kurdish nation demands it. "

It is not necessary.

During the years when there was no official Kurdish entity on an international level, there was no way for Iraqi Kurds to negotiate with Turkey. Now, it is possible for the Kurds to invest genuine leaders with the capacity to negotiate.

There have been many difficult situations since the end of the cold war with large minorities in other countries facing potential unfair treatment. Not all of them result in violence. While there was violence in Yugoslavia, Chechnya, and Azerbaijan/Armenia, violence was avoided in Romania where there is a large Hungarian population, in the Czech/Slovak split, and in Bulgaria where there is a large Turkish population.

Peace is possible.

Posted by Njorl | October 22, 2007 1:26 PM

I hope the Turks show some restraint before they distabilize the whole of Iraq.

Ha! If only Bush and Cheney followed that advice, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now, eh?

Posted by Joe | October 22, 2007 1:39 PM

There is really only one way for the US to "mediate" in this matter.

The Army needs to come down on the PKK and its supporters and come down hard. This will pull troops away from other areas of Iraq and will cost us goodwill with the Kurds. However, if we do not take action, we may as well declare that Turkey cannot trust us to secure its eastern border. (Not to mention the fact that we have a legally mandated responsibility to do so.) At that point, they will need to either increase pressure on us to help, probably by blocking our ability to resupply on Turkish soil, or take military action themselves. It is simply unthinkable that they could leave a terrorist haven to operate undisturbed on their border. Either way, that becomes an unholy mess.

More to the point, terrorism is even more unacceptable in our allies than it is in our enemies. (Even more so when the target is another ally) This is the sort of moral rule that you can't ignore just because it would be difficult.

Posted by heedless | October 22, 2007 1:48 PM

I really don't think our troops should be stuck in the crossfire.

Are you talking about the crossfire between the PKK and the Turks? Or the Kurds and the Turks? They aren't the same thing you know.

The U.S. recognizes the PKK as a terrorist organization. In that battle we'd certainly be on the side of our NATO ally - not in the middle.

Turkey is trying to get the Bush administration to take a threat seriously. They've been assured that we would not allow the PKK to set up a safe haven in Iraq. So far they've been fairly restrained waiting for us to keep our side of the bargain. It is entirely in our own interests to do so since northern Iraq is our only success story right now. Turkey is much less likely to care about the difference between Kurdish civilians and militants than we are.

The Turks had maintained a cease fire with the Kurds for years until we liberated Iraq. If they see chaos in Iraq as the price for peace in Turkey, they'll pay it - and then we'll really be in a crossfire.

Posted by Jinchi | October 22, 2007 2:41 PM

It's important to recognize that the PKK do NOT have a popular base in Turkish Kurdistan. There is a growing consensus among Kurds in Turkey that a Kurdish region within Turkey is a more viable political setting than an independent, isolated Kurdistan. Also, the PKK's anachronistic Marxist imagery does not sit well with the vast majority of Kurds, who are more effectively targeted by the soft Islamism of the AKP. It's worth mentioning that in the recent Turkish elections the AKP vote completely swamped the DHP/independent vote in all of the Kurdish provinces, even in Diyarbakir. There is a recognition that the PKK hampers the economic well-being of the Kurdish region. I've spoken to many Turkish Kurds, of various socioeconomic classes, who all share this opinion.

So it bothers me when people say they are "pro-Kurd" and equate this with the PKK. The PKK are more like ETA in Spain or the IRA: they represent the views of a fringe of university-politicized types and have limited popular appeal.

I also don't think hell will break loose when Turkey invades (as I think it should). Hasn't hell already broken loose? Jalal Talabani isn't gonna compromise everything he's worked for to defend the deeply unpopular PKK.

Posted by XY | October 22, 2007 3:14 PM

And to the first poster: it's not very plausible to say that Azerbaijan is a backwoods and Armenia is not. Azerbaijan is far richer per capita, more urbanized, more educated, more populous, full of oil, on the Caspian, and so on. Baku is much more important than Yerevan, it was the cultural capital of the Caucasus in the late Tsarist period and continued to be the most important city in the region during Soviet times.

I am saying nothing about Armenians as an ethnic group. If 1915 hadn't happened, and Armenians acquired a territorial base in eastern Ottoman alnds, there is no doubt that it would be a major regional power. But the former SSR of Armenia, a mere corner of the Armenian-populated regions, is not in a good state. Also, interestingly enough, Armenia is the recipient of large amounts of military funding from Iran. No one really seems to know this, for some reason.

So it makes a good amount of sense for the US to be buying more of Azerbaijan's stock than Armenia's.

Posted by XY | October 22, 2007 3:27 PM

I would second XY's comments. My experiences in Turkey gave me same impression. I even met two Kurds who had joined the Turkish army specifically to fight the PKK.

Posted by fostert | October 22, 2007 5:52 PM

Right now Ahmedinejad is on the state visit in Erevan. Some expect him to say something about the massacre of Armenians. The pile-up of ironies of epic proportions. Including "serious voices" in USA to avoid acknowledging this massacre.

Traditionally, in a triangle Iraq-Turkey-Iran, Kurdish separatists could could on support in one of the two other states. Iran is patiently cultivating Iraqi Kurds, and it may well offer PKK sanctuary for a little while. But if they will do it, they will be discreet.

I would be more sympathetic to Turkey if they were more accomodating concerning cultural and political rights of Kurds. For example, Turkish parlamentary system is manipulated in such a way that it is next to impossible for a Kurdish party to enter. Normally, ethnic minorities are accomodated, not excluded. Political accomodation worked in Northern Ireland, in time, in Basque region, not so much. In Turkish Kurdistan, it was never tried.

Cynically, it is not in the interest of Iran to have a very vigorous Kurdish guerilla next door, but it meshes perfectly with their interests to have a periodic flare up between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey. How so: they probably think about the comming "end game" in Iraq, where they would like to have more or less unitary, and friendly, government. So Kurds in Iraq should see how perilous it would be for them to "go alone".

Pehaps not so perilous -- there exists the Armenian model of existence: blocaded by Turkey, sustained by Iran. And how to reminded it better than by visiting Armenia?

And what about Turkey and PKK? PKK was in its "last throws" a number of times. Repressions are the lifeblood of militancy. A military action may help, or not, but in the long run Turkey has a choice of conducting a political reform or not.

Posted by piotr | October 22, 2007 6:24 PM

Dear XY,
Azerbaijan is more educated???? This azerbaijan???
I'm not Armenian, but I have respect for their people's longevity. I have never met any azeris and am sure they are nice people, but come on, the place has no history except as a piece of land the persians, ottomans, and russians fought over. Also, I have no doubt Armenians, around 10% of whom are American citizens, are far more pro-America than Azeris are.

Posted by America, fuck yeah | October 22, 2007 7:52 PM

Dear XY,
Azerbaijan is more educated???? This azerbaijan???
I'm not Armenian, but I have respect for their people's longevity. I have never met any azeris and am sure they are nice people, but come on, the place has no history except as a piece of land the persians, ottomans, and russians fought over. Also, I have no doubt Armenians, around 10% of whom are American citizens, are far more pro-America than Azeris are.
Btw it was Armenians in both Turkey and Iran that brought both of those countries their first constitutions, only problem was in Turkey they got genocided for it and in Iran, the Islamic government is trying to make people forget about the old consitution.

Posted by America, fuck yeah | October 22, 2007 7:54 PM

That said, I do wonder what the apostles of "toughness" and willpower on the right will say about this. Don't they think that the Turks must cross the border in force and show the Kurds what's what? Won't weakness only invite further aggression?

My head has been turning over the exact same thoughts lately.

The PKK/Turkey fued does expose a lot of inconsistency. If Iraqhawks want to be consistent with their War on Terror philosophy -namely, that terrorist attacks must be confronted with a quick, serious show of military force - they have to authorize a Turkish invasion.

Conversely, if Iraqhawks want to be consistent with the best interests of their mission in Iraq, they must use as much diplomatic skill as they can summon - namely, little - to avoid more troubles coming to Iraq.

As troubling as this development is, you have to admit it creates an interesting political dynamic.

Posted by Neal Murray | October 22, 2007 8:29 PM

"Iran is patiently cultivating Iraqi Kurds, and it may well offer PKK sanctuary for a little while."

Say what?

Iran has been shelling Iraqi Kurdish villages because of the Kurdish PJAK insurgents attacking Iran border posts and the like.

I doubt they're prepared to offer any Kurds "sanctuary". Rumors have it that the PKK and the PJAK - the group targeting Iran - have some connections with each other, although the PJAK leader denies it.

Iran may indeed be cultivating Kurds in other ways in an attempt to get the main Kurdish parties to restrain the Kurdish insurgents in Iran, but I doubt that extends to any other Kurdish groups.

The relations between Kurdistan and Iran have been on and off apparently. The Kurds approved of the overthrow of the Shah by the Revolution, but Khomeini denied the Kurds had any right to an independent Kurdistan on the grounds of keeping Iran united. Things loosened up under Khatami, then tightened up again under Khamenei - probably because the US and Israel have been using PJAK to foment problems in Iran for their own purposes.

I think Iran will see more advantage in maintaining good relations with Turkey, a major trading nation, than the Kurds. And Iran's interests in Iraq lie more with the Shia factions than the Kurds ever will.

So I don't see any Iranian support for the Kurds in Iraq materializing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 23, 2007 12:35 AM

In any event, the latest news is that the Kurdish PKK apparently is prepared to initiate a ceasefire, on condition that Turkey does not attack them in Iraq.

It remains to be seen whether Turkey, which may see this as merely a PKK attempt to delay matters until the winter, where they will be less vulnerable to attack, goes ahead anyway.

The point of a Turkey attack now was to prevent the PKK from getting to their winter quarters, clean out their bases close to the Turkish border and push them back fifty miles or so.

The problem for the Turks is that the PKK and the main Kurdish parties made this an international issue, so the Turks came under pressure from the US, and even from Iran and Syria, not to invade.

The other problem for the Turks is that an attack into Iraq may bring in the major Kurdish parties, or at least an estimated 100,000 "freelance" Kurdish fighters who could reinforce the mere 3-5,000 fighters the PKK has.

With this latest move, what may happen is that the Turks will postpone the invasion, then the PKK will resume attacks next spring. Turkey will have to decide whether to attack then. The PKK get a breather to rearm and regroup and perhaps recruit more fighters. Turkey gets nothing for this except a "ceasefire" which can be broken at any time the PKK wishes.

If Turkey is smart, they will ignore the ceasefire offer and do their incursion, achieve as much of their strategic goals as possible, then bail out again before they have to engage the larger Kurdish forces - unlike the US which should have done the same in 2003.

I have no support for anybody in this, but clearly from Turkey's point of view, moving now would be strategically and tactically, if not geopolitically, better rather than waiting.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 23, 2007 12:49 AM

The other problem for the Turks is that an attack into Iraq may bring in the major Kurdish parties, or at least an estimated 100,000 "freelance" Kurdish fighters who could reinforce the mere 3-5,000 fighters the PKK has.

One problem with that, is that those fighters are busy securing northern Iraq, particularly the major cities and the oil rich regions. Kurds want to claim that source of wealth for themselves (either as an autonomous region or as an independent state). They're fighting against the Shiites and Sunnis for territory right now. They can't simply redeploy 100,000 fighters to the Turkish border.

In any case, as long as the U.S. is occupying Iraq, it's in our best interests to shut down the PKK in Iraq - either by getting the Kurds to do so themselves, or by sending in our own forces to secure the region. The president has been foolish for ignoring this threat. One more bomb in Istanbul and its all over.

Posted by Jinchi | October 23, 2007 12:14 PM

I agree that the Kurds would find themselves in a problem with diverting 100,000 more fighters to fight Turkey.

OTOH, the Kurdish parties are worried that this incursion may not be just an attempt to derail the PKK, but also to derail the Kurdish parties themselves in setting up an independent Kurdistan.

I don't know if that's true, but it might be motivation for them to fight Turkey if Turkey invades northern Iraq.

Also, how long will it take for Turkish troops to piss off ALL the local Kurds, who will then call on the major Kurdish parties for help, who will then pretty much have to respond.

The real problem for this incursion is that it very well good end up being a major Turkey vs Kurdistan fight - and even draw in the Iraqi Shia government (although I suspect that will not happen, as the Shia have more important issues than defending the Kurds.)

As for US forces shutting down the PKK, they are even less likely to be able to do it than the Turks, since they have much less experience dealing with Kurdish insurgents.

And we can't afford to divert 50,000 troops north into Kurdistan either.

Maliki said they would close the PKK "offices" - which doesn't mean anything at all, without closing down their bases and requiring them to disarm and cease crossborder operations.

Which the PKK wouldn't listen to a Shia telling them that anyway.

Only if the major Kurdish parties force the PKK to shut down will it happen.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 23, 2007 7:03 PM

I just wish to correct most of you..... THERE IS NO TURKISH KURDISTAN... It does not exist and will not but you could ofcıurse use that sentence as "our hoped Turkish Kurdistand" or as "Our dream turkish Kurdistan" but if anyone here is saying that there is a Turkish Kurdistan there are only 3 possibilities 1-) He is a member of the terrorist group called PKK the cowards. 2-) He hates Turks more then Greeks and Armenians hates Turks 3-) he never looked at the map and he is out of his mind insanely at the same time.

Best regards
Ceko

Posted by Ceko | October 23, 2007 8:43 PM