Up North

Since I last checked on developments in Iraq, it seems that Turkey's invaded and folks aren't so happy about it:

In Baghdad, the Iraqi government demanded that Turkish forces withdraw from northern Iraq, where they have been fighting Kurdish guerrillas who use the area as a base to mount attacks in Turkey. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraq's cabinet condemned the incursion and called it a "violation of Iraq's sovereignty."

"The cabinet calls on Turkey to withdraw its troops immediately and stop the military interventions, and stresses that the military action by one side is unacceptable and threatens the good relations between the two neighboring countries," Dabbagh said.

But of course these protests are going to be ineffectual. Given the Iraqi government's dependence on the U.S. military, a Turkish invasion of Iraq that the United States approves of isn't something the Iraqi government can or will do anything about. Thus this incident becomes one more case where U.S.-supported Iraqi leaders see their credibility as national leaders leeched away. If you think of the goal in Iraq as helping to prop up a government that'll be able to stand up on its own, this sort of thing is a disaster. If, by contrast, the idea is to ensure that the authorities governing Iraq are permanently dependent on external American support to maintain their grip on power, it's actually pretty good. But once again, it all comes down to a question of what do you think the right strategic priority are for the United States, not to any question as simplistic as whether or not green-lighting a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq is "working."

Comments

Let's hope the Turks are better at "invading to root out terrorists" than the U.S. military is.

The pro-surge crowd seems to think they are.

Posted by alphie | February 27, 2008 10:26 AM

This seems wrong. If we followed Matthew's preferred policy and withdrew completely immediately, Iraq still wouldn't have the ability to do anything about Turkey's incursion. So the presence of the US in Iraq has nothing at all to do with the Iraqi leaders' "credibility".

Moreover, it isn't even clear that Iraqi leaders would even want to do anything about Turkey's incursion. The fact that there was a pro forma protest against the incursion says nothing at all about what the Iraqi leaders really want to do about it.

In short, basically, everything about this post seems wrong.

Posted by Al | February 27, 2008 10:30 AM

The pro-surge crowd knows that the Turks will be less squeamish about killing people. To that crowd, this means they will be more effective. Isn't the world great?

Posted by mpowell | February 27, 2008 10:39 AM

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraq's cabinet condemned the incursion and called it a "violation of Iraq's sovereignty."

Really? Then sovereign Iraq should deal with the Kurdish raiders itself. And if it doesn't, then either it won't, in which case it's effectively tolerating a state of war with Turkey, or it can't, in which case it's not actually the sovereign.

A similar logic governs whether we should be launching attacks in Pakistan's NW Province. I don't think we're in a good position to tell the Turks they're doing anything wrong.

Posted by Anderson | February 27, 2008 10:41 AM

The great Irony of Matt Yglesias is that he constantly argues for imperialistic economic policies, but he refuses to see how military imperialism must always go hand in hand with that economic imperialism.

To put it bluntly: IF you are in favor of deregulation, free trade, IMF policies and the rest; you are in support of the Iraq war by default. You can not have the former without the later. You don't get to split the imperialist baby and hope everyone ends up satisfied.

Posted by soullite | February 27, 2008 10:51 AM

soullite: "To put it bluntly: IF you are in favor of deregulation, free trade, IMF policies and the rest; you are in support of the Iraq war by default. You can not have the former without the later."

Wow, that is certainly not an overly broad statement

Remember all those wars free-trader Bill Clinton started.

Posted by Andruw | February 27, 2008 11:42 AM

The KRG has little cause to complain about the US; instead of using this genuine chance of a Kurdish homeland the US has given them, they chose to host a listed terrorist group.

At best, they gave the PKK total freedom to attack Turkey almost daily for years and even hold press conferences to gloat about it - at worst, they were providing logistical support to the PKK.

The KRG should to be kissing US ass that Turkey is attacking only the PKK and not the KRG for harbouring them, because Turkey would be well within its rights to do so and it is probably only the US that is restraining Turkey.

Posted by Lee | February 27, 2008 12:04 PM

In Baghdad, the Iraqi government demanded that Turkish forces withdraw from northern Iraq... "The cabinet calls on Turkey to withdraw its troops immediately and stop the military interventions...", Dabbagh said.

Wow -- the Iraqi government is acting as if they actually weren't the creation of the United States and utterly dependent upon the a massive U.S. military presence for its continued existance. Like they, I don't know, had actual soverignty, or something, and could demand that a neighboring power not continue violating it's border.

But, c'mon -- Turkey has a government dominated now by an 'Islamic political party', who wants to joing the EU... Turkey has been America's ally (unless what Sibel Edmonds says is true), and we need to find a way to make sure they remain one... and, who cares about those Kurds, anyway?

Iraq can bark all it likes; crazy ol' Condi will spit out snippy phrases about Turkey being "unhelpful"; but at the end of the day the Turks will be allowed to do as they please. It's Kabuki theatre, Washington-style.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | February 27, 2008 12:27 PM

General agreement with posters pointing out the pro forma but necessary nature of Iraqi protests, the legitimacy of Turkey's actions, and the likely benefit to both nations and the US if the PKK is significantly reduced.

Those who imagine that the Iraqis in Baghdad, or even in Kurdistan, support the PKK in any meaningful way are wrong. The idea that anyone in Basra gives a damn about them is outright absurd. And anyone who thinks the PKK could have been, or can, be easily rooted out of their traditional turf needs to take a look at a good map of the region. This is genuinely forbidding country, and these folks have been fighting all comers there for several thousand years.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 27, 2008 12:48 PM

"…a Turkish invasion of Iraq that the United States approves of..." I don't think the US approves of the Turkish incursions. I seem to remember that we couldn't stop the Turkish government (under serious domestic pressure) from taking action.

Posted by MF | February 27, 2008 3:19 PM

As usual, Powell is pretty much wrong about whether the two main Kurdish parties care about the PKK. They do. They just won't get into a war with Turkey right now over it - although earlier on, they threatened to do that, mostly because they are precisely afraid that Turkey will expand the attacks to include them.

Turkey has repeatedly said it will not allow a northern Iraq independent Kurdish territory with access to Kirkuk's oil wealth. So the Kurdish parties have some legitimate concern over what Turkey's aims are here. But it's fairly clear that Turkey is targeting the PKK only at this point.

All that said, Turkey's not going to win this one any more than the US will win in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan if it comes to that. But it might put enough dent in the PKK to slow things down inside Turkey for a few more years.

The problem with that notion is precisely the question of what is going to happen to the Kurdish parties in northern Iraq.

And I don't see any particularly happy ending for that one, as far as Turkey goes. So a reasonable prediction would be:

1) Assuming an Iraqi nationalist coalition government doesn't take over next year, the Kurds will get a more or less "independent" province and access to Kirkuk's oil.

2) Result: war with Turkey sooner or later.

3) If a nationalist coalition does take power, it then depends on how it decides to deal with the Kurds. If it enforces the idea of Iraq being one undivided nation, then it will resist the Kurd's being independent of Baghdad.

4) Result: War between the Iraqi military and the Kurdish militias - which could turn into a three-way if Turkey decides to take advantage of that.

Bottom line: The US invasion has ruined things for Iraq, the Kurds and Turkey.

Nice work, George!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 28, 2008 2:26 AM

As usual, Hack offers his Nostradamus-like visions with no supporting data. That's because aside from links to anti-American websites, he doesn't have any.

Admittedly, I haven't been in Kurdistan for nearly eighteen months, but when I was there it was made extremely clear to me that both major Kurdish parties see the PKK as a major irritant, likely to create exactly the kind of embarassment it is now. As for the rest of the country, it's hard to see how they could be less concerned about the PKK. In the long run, US support for a stable and responsible Iraq will moderate both de jure Kurdish independence, and Turkish concerns about it.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 28, 2008 3:29 AM