Juan Cole: Who Lost Turkey?

[babylonsister]

Friday, October 12, 2007
Who Lost Turkey?

Turkey has been the strongest ally that the United States has had in the Middle East since the end of WW II. The Marshall Plan started with Northern tier states like Turkey and Greece. Turkey joined NATO and was a key player in the American victory in the Cold War. As a secular government, Turkey stood against the rising tide of Muslim radicalism. To the extent that Turkey is moderating its long-term secular militancy, and moving toward fair elections, it may be providing a model for a moderate, democratic Middle East. Its economy is growing rapidly, foreign investment is in the billions. Turkey is in short, almost everything the US could have asked for in the Middle East.

But the Bush administration has, during the past five years, increasingly thrown away this asset, and now is in danger of losing a close and valued ally altogether. It is unclear what US interests are served by this repeated and profound damage inflicted by Washington on Turkey, or what Ankara ever did to us that we are treating them so horribly. (The dismissive treatment in some ways began when the US promised Turkey $1 bn in aid to offset the damage to its economy of the Gulf War in 1990-1991, but then Congress formally decided by the mid-1990s to renege on the pledge. No one has ever explained why we stiffed them.)

The threat of a Turkish hot pursuit of PKK guerrillas into Iraqi Kurdistan is starting to have an effect on Kurdistan's economy and stability. Inflation is high and some Turkish businesses that had won bids to operate in the Kurdistan Regional Authority (KRG) are going back home in fear of trouble. Getting banks to underwrite economic enterprises is getting harder, which could result in a slowdown for Iraqi Kurdistan. This area was the last in Iraq not to be hit hard by instability, but tensions are growing.

Imagine what things look like from a Turkish point of view. Remember that Turkey is a NATO ally, that it stood with the US during the Korean War (in which its troops fought), during the Cold War, and during Bush's war on terror. Turkey gives the US military facilities, including the Incirlik Air Force base, through which large amounts of materiel for the US forces in northern Iraq flows.

First, the Bush administration insisted on invading Iraq and overthrowing the secular Iraqi government. It thereby let the Salafi Sunni and the Shiite fundamentalist genies out of the bottle and created vast instability on the southeastern border. It would be as though a US ally had invaded Mexico and inadvertently unleashed a Marxist peasant rebellion against San Diego. Secular Turkey already felt itself menaced by the Shiite ayatollahs of Iran and by the rising Salafi and al-Qaeda trends, and the US made everything far worse.

more...

http://www.juancole.com/2007/10/who-lost-turkey.html

[screembloodymurder]

1. Only an arrogant fool takes his friends for granted.

Bush is both. He alienates our friends and strengthens our enemies. We're fucked.

[babylonsister]

2. Boy, that's spot on. Just imagine your own personal relationships.

For a man who's supposedly so loyal to his friends, he sure has a funny way of showing it.

[seafan]

3. We all shuddder to think where these ignorant, arrogant fools are taking us.....

Who Lost Turkey?

By Juan Cole
October 12, 2007

.....

But the Bush administration has, during the past five years, increasingly thrown away this asset, and now is in danger of losing a close and valued ally altogether. It is unclear what US interests are served by this repeated and profound damage inflicted by Washington on Turkey, or what Ankara ever did to us that we are treating them so horribly. (The dismissive treatment in some ways began when the US promised Turkey $1 bn in aid to offset the damage to its economy of the Gulf War in 1990-1991, but then Congress formally decided by the mid-1990s to renege on the pledge. No one has ever explained why we stiffed them.)

.....

The the US Congress abruptly condemned modern Kemalist Turkey for the Armenian genocide, committed by the Ottoman Empire, provoking Ankara to withdraw its ambassador from Washington. I have long held that Turkey should acknowledge the genocide, which killed hundreds of thousands and displaced more hundreds of thousands. The Turkish government could then point out that it was committed by a tyrannical and oppressive government-- the Ottoman Empire-- against which the Kemalists also fought a long and determined war to establish a modern republic. I can't understand Ankara's unwillingness to distance itself from a predecessor it doesn't even think well of--the junta of Enver Pasha and the later pusillanimity of the sultan (the capital is in Ankara and not Istanbul in part for this very reason!)

But no dispassionate observer could avoid the conclusion that the Congressional vote condemning Turkey came at a most inopportune time for US-Turkish diplomacy, at a time when Turks were already raw from watching the US upset all the apple carts in their neighborhood, unleash existential threats against them, cause the rise of Salafi radicalism next door, coddle terrorists killing them, coddle the separatist KRG, and strengthen the Shiite ayatollahs on their borders.

The Congressional vote came despite the discomfort of elements of the Israel lobby with recognizing the mass killing of Armenians as a genocide. Andrew E. Mathis explains Abraham Foxman's intellectually bankrupt vacillations on this issue. Foxman and others of his ideological orientation have been forced grudgingly to back off their genocide denial in the case of the Armenians by a general shift in opinion among the American public, and his change of position may have removed any fears among congressional representatives that the Israel lobby would punish them for their vote. (Turkey and Israel have long had a strong military and diplomatic relationship, which the Israel lobby had earlier attempted to preserve by lobbying congress on Turkey's behalf with regard to some issues. But the Israel lobby is now split between pro-Kurdish factions and pro-Turkish factions, and the pro-Kurdish ones appear to be winning out. Richard Perle & Michael Rubin of AEI are examples of the pro-Turkish Neoconservative strain in the Israel lobby. They are losing.)

In 2000, 56% of Turks reported in polls that they had a favorable view of the United States. In 2005 that statistic had fallen to 12%. I shudder to think what it is now.

[Demeter]

4. Bush Will Blame It On the Democratic Congress

since they passed a resolution condemning the Armenian Genocide of 100 YEARS AGO.

[seemslikeadream]

5. Thanks

:hi:

[Flabbergasted]

6. Combined with the fact that we've given weapons to the PKK recently....

and haven't seemed to care what Turkey thought about it, it almost seems we are working to antagonize them.

I'd say this indicates what has been said all along: "The Bushies are working to destabilize the ENTIRE region in order to remake it in our image."

Turkey also refuses to stop the pipeline coming from Iran.

Could be a combination of both or just horrible timing. Bush doesn't support the bill.

[unhappycamper]

7. Who Lost Turkey?

Who Lost Turkey?
Juan Cole
Friday, October 12, 2007


Turkey has been the strongest ally that the United States has had in the Middle East since the end of WW II. The Marshall Plan started with Northern tier states like Turkey and Greece. Turkey joined NATO and was a key player in the American victory in the Cold War. As a secular government, Turkey stood against the rising tide of Muslim radicalism. To the extent that Turkey is moderating its long-term secular militancy, and moving toward fair elections, it may be providing a model for a moderate, democratic Middle East. Its economy is growing rapidly, foreign investment is in the billions. Turkey is in short, almost everything the US could have asked for in the Middle East.

But the Bush administration has, during the past five years, increasingly thrown away this asset, and now is in danger of losing a close and valued ally altogether. It is unclear what US interests are served by this repeated and profound damage inflicted by Washington on Turkey, or what Ankara ever did to us that we are treating them so horribly. (The dismissive treatment in some ways began when the US promised Turkey $1 bn in aid to offset the damage to its economy of the Gulf War in 1990-1991, but then Congress formally decided by the mid-1990s to renege on the pledge. No one has ever explained why we stiffed them.)

The threat of a Turkish hot pursuit of PKK guerrillas into Iraqi Kurdistan is starting to have an effect on Kurdistan's economy and stability. Inflation is high and some Turkish businesses that had won bids to operate in the Kurdistan Regional Authority (KRG) are going back home in fear of trouble. Getting banks to underwrite economic enterprises is getting harder, which could result in a slowdown for Iraqi Kurdistan. This area was the last in Iraq not to be hit hard by instability, but tensions are growing.

Imagine what things look like from a Turkish point of view. Remember that Turkey is a NATO ally, that it stood with the US during the Korean War (in which its troops fought), during the Cold War, and during Bush's war on terror. Turkey gives the US military facilities, including the Incirlik Air Force base, through which large amounts of materiel for the US forces in northern Iraq flows.

First, the Bush administration insisted on invading Iraq and overthrowing the secular Iraqi government. It thereby let the Salafi Sunni and the Shiite fundamentalist genies out of the bottle and created vast instability on the southeastern border. It would be as though a US ally had invaded Mexico and inadvertently unleashed a Marxist peasant rebellion against San Diego. Secular Turkey already felt itself menaced by the Shiite ayatollahs of Iran and by the rising Salafi and al-Qaeda trends, and the US made everything far worse.

Then, the US gave the Kurdistan Regional Authority control over the Kirkuk police force and unleashed Kurdish troops on the Turkmen city of Tal Afar. (The Turks look on Iraq's 800,000 Turkmen as little brethren, over whom they feel protective, and don't want them dominated by Kurds).


Rest of article at: http://www.juancole.com/

[MADem]

8. Turkey is in short, almost everything the US could have asked for in the Middle East.

So says Juan.

No, not really. So sez I.

This administration prizes stability over democracy--and the Turkish government is a bit too Islamic to be trusted nowadays. The US liked it better when it was easier for the Turkish Army to just take over every time the gubmint got outta hand.

And while this comment is surely true (The Turks look on Iraq's 800,000 Turkmen as little brethren, over whom they feel protective) that's really just TFB (too fucking bad) as those Turkmen aren't living in Turkey, they're living in Iraq. Maybe the Turks could work out a trade, hectare for hectare, and send their Kurds (but...but...there are NO KURDS in Turkey!! They are all TURKS!! Yes, I have heard this BS from Turks) to Iraq in exchange for Turkmen...but I think those Turkmen wouldn't be thrilled at that idea, either.

The PKK aren't saints, in fact, they can be pretty volatile, but they have been provoked over the years. To put it gently.

What I find amusing in all this is that no one factored in the Kurds at all, save as obedient allies and step-n-fetchit helpmates when they drew up their grand designs on the region, and now they're turning out to be the touchstones in all this mess. And we've barely heard from the Iranian ones yet!

He goes on, in interesting fashion:

The Kurds promptly announced their aspiration of annexing 3 further provinces, or at least big swathes of them, including the oil province of Kirkuk, and including substantial Turkmen populations. Not only was that guaranteed to cause violence with the Arabs and Turkmen, but it would give Kurdistan a source of fabulous wealth with which it could hope to attract Kurds in neighboring countries to join it, a la German Unification after the fall of the Berlin Wall - except that this unification would dismember several other countries.

Then the Kurdistan Regional Authority gave safe haven to 3,000 to 5,000 Kurdish guerrillas from eastern Anatolia in Turkey who have been killing Turks and blowing up things, reviving violence that had subsided in the early zeroes. Despite the US military occupation of Iraq, Washington has done nothing to stop what Turkey sees as terrorists from going over the border into Turkey and killing Turks. Turkish intelligence is convinced that the camps in Iraqi Kurdistan are key to weapons provision for the PKK, and that funding is coming from Kurdish small businessmen in Western Europe.

PKK guerrillas have just killed 13 Turkish troops on Sunday and in the past few weeks have killed 28 altogether. If guerrillas were raiding over the border into the United States and had killed 28 US troops I think I know what Washington's response would be.

The the US Congress abruptly condemned modern Kemalist Turkey for the Armenian genocide, committed by the Ottoman Empire, provoking Ankara to withdraw its ambassador from Washington. I have long held that Turkey should acknowledge the genocide, which killed hundreds of thousands and displaced more hundreds of thousands. The Turkish government could then point out that it was committed by a tyrannical and oppressive government-- the Ottoman Empire-- against which the Kemalists also fought a long and determined war to establish a modern republic. I can't understand Ankara's unwillingness to distance itself from a predecessor it doesn't even think well of--the junta of Enver Pasha and the later pusillanimity of the sultan (the capital is in Ankara and not Istanbul in part for this very reason!)

The Turks are MARRIED to that "NO GENOCIDE!" BS. They'll NEVER distance themselves, because then they'd have to say they were wrong for all those years. I have a fascinating, full-color, very expensive book that their government put out, specifically to DENY that any genocide took place. It's a masterful piece of hideous propaganda.

I also can't understand why Juan doesn't also note that Kurdish unification would right a wrong that was created by Western powers when they carved up that region in the first place. I mean, really--the Kurds never acknowledged those bullshit lines that those fat white men drew on maps. Instead, he's worried about 'dismembering' nations that the West created. His argument is very "America-centric" in the big scheme. And it also glosses over some of the hard, historical facts of the PKK offensive that is taking place now--I suppose if one wanted to give it a title, a good one might be "Payback's a Real Bitch, Assholes!"

The Turks have other controllers on them--like the EU, for example. They aren't gonna go totally half cocked for their own economic good. They'll take counsel if it comes to that. They may be forced into 'autonomous region-land' like Saddam was--for starters. That's what the PKK might like, I would guess...for STARTERS.

And he's gotta drag some Israeli elements in (just to rile the factions, I suppose, though he finally acknowledges that that 'monolithic' lobby is actually SPLIT on this issue), AND finish up by fretting how the Turks don't love us anymore:

The Congressional vote came despite the discomfort of elements of the Israel lobby with recognizing the mass killing of Armenians as a genocide. Andrew E. Mathis explains Abraham Foxman's intellectually bankrupt vacillations on this issue. Foxman and others of his ideological orientation have been forced grudgingly to back off their genocide denial in the case of the Armenians by a general shift in opinion among the American public, and his change of position may have removed any fears among congressional representatives that the Israel lobby would punish them for their vote. (Turkey and Israel have long had a strong military and diplomatic relationship, which the Israel lobby had earlier attempted to preserve by lobbying congress on Turkey's behalf with regard to some issues. But the Israel lobby is now split between pro-Kurdish factions and pro-Turkish factions, and the pro-Kurdish ones appear to be winning out. Richard Perle & Michael Rubin of AEI are examples of the pro-Turkish Neoconservative strain in the Israel lobby. They are losing.)

In 2000, 56% of Turks reported in polls that they had a favorable view of the United States. In 2005 that statistic had fallen to 12%. I shudder to think what it is now.

I mean, really. What would he have us do? Ignore the shit that the Turks have done over the years to the Kurds? Push the PKK into that "Oh, they're just TERRISTS" camp? Human Rights Watch does differ on that. Gloss over that pesky Armenian genocide?

The regional boat has already been rocked. There's not much we can do at this stage to calm things down, and no matter what we do, the Turks aren't gonna love us.

Of course, since seventy percent of our goods that go to Iraq go by air via Turkey, getting into a pissing contest with the Turks just might have the effect of ending our Iraqi misadventure a bit sooner than BushCo anticipated....and that might not be a bad thing.

I found his analysis rather disappointing and pedestrian this time around. And I usually don't.