It is no surprise that after Turkey successfully negotiated an $8.5 billion loan from the U.S. (coincidentally on the sidelines of the same IMF meeting in which Iraq’s new U.S. appointed administration announced that all of Iraq’s local markets, except natural resources, were open to foreign ownership - cite: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3126522.stm) that they would agree to send troops to Iraq above the protestations of well over 60% of their citizens. Does the apparent capitualation of a predominantly Muslim country in the region change the dynamic of the Iraqi occupation? If so, in what way? How will these changes become manifest in the policies of the neighboring countries in the region.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3130504.stm - (Turkey negotiates $8.5B loan from U.S.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3172228.stm - (Turkey agrees to send troops to Iraq)
It would depend upon their actual deloyment.
Kurdush areas of Iraq seem fairly stable, and the administration is effectively a local government.
Turkey has long been concerned at having a Kurudsh state on its borders as it might provoke a secessionist movement withn its own territory.
The Northern Iraq Kurds have taken trouble to make noises about not wanting independance from the rest of Iraq for just this reason.
If Turkish troops were deployed in these Kurdish regions, I would be surprised if they could resist the temptation to go after those PPK elements operating in Turkey and taking refuge in Iraq, this would very likely lead to Kurdish resentment and unrest.
I would expect the US would like a Moslem nation to work in Iraq, it would have some symbolic importance, however this is only second best to having an Arab nation use its troops as peacekeepers.
I do see Turkish investment as being an important element of reconstruction, it would help the business ethic in Turkey to develop for starters and is a progression from an Arabic business model, with its heavy reliance on family ties, to a more westernised business model.