Turks send troops to Iraq: Is this going to lead to trouble?

From the online edition of Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1008/p01s02-woiq.htm):

Am I the only one who thinks this is a really bad idea? All right, we’re stretched thin, we need the manpower on the ground. But the Iraqi Kurds have been on the side of the U.S. since before the war started. How are they going to react when they see Turkish troops occupying their country – and their own region, too, no doubt – with U.S. approval? It is putting it midly to say that Kurds do not like Turks.

I was under the impression that the Iraqi counsel rejected the offer.

Posted by 2thick:

Cite?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3178286.stm

http://www.dailystar.com/star/today/31012iUSIRAQ.html

“Iraq’s ruling council opposes Turkish troops”

Iraq’s Governing Council on Saturday expressed adamant opposition to Turkish troops’ joining U.S.-led coalition forces policing Iraq - an indication that council members are trying to wrest independence from the U.S. officials who appointed them.

Washington’s decision to invite Turkish troops to serve as part of the multinational force in Iraq has stirred up tension between the council and the U.S. administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, Iraqi officials say. "

Who knew? Not us.

The only reason the Turks are considering this (seeing that 2/3 of the populations is against it) is to control the Kurds. Plus, the US payoff.

I couldn’t believe that we even entertained the idea. Talk about alienating an entire faction. I’ve been relatively neutral about the competence of the US in handling the situation in Iraq both past and present, but this story really made we question the judgement of Bush and his aides.

It is no surprise that after Turkey successfully negotiated an $8.5 billion loan from the U.S. (cite - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3130504.stm) on the sidelines of the same IMF meeting in which the INC 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 (cite - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3172228.stm). The rest of this is pure speculation, so I cannot offer any cites to confirm or deny. In order to keep the relative peace in northern Iraq, these troops will be deployed somewhere else. However, it is unlikely that anyone will keep them from taking a passing swipe at the PKK on their way through. The apparent capitulation of a predominantly Muslim country to the West is likely to make it less difficult for other countries in the region to make similar concessions. It may even be enough to put pressure on Syria (or Iran) to send their own troops to help “secure” Iraq. The rationale would not be power or profit sharing but protection of their sovereignty. Syria (or Iran) could claim that the troops are deployed to “harden” Iraq’s borders to prevent “Baath loyalist”/”Iraqi terrorist” from crossing into their territory, thus demonstrating to the international community that they do not support or sponsor terrorism. (In the case of Syria, this could serve to counter recent Israeli claims that they give material and financial support to terrorist groups).

…talk about a stretch…

This also sounds like a bad idea to me.

Agreed. Why don’t they just send Iranian or Israeli troops, for Gawds sake? That’s the only way we could piss these people off more.

Iranians have zero interest in going to Iraq. Plus, I am pretty sure that a middle finger would be the response to America’s pleas for help.

Israel might as well send a bodybag per soldier if they send troops.

Yes, I understand that you were being sarcastic.