The way in which the land operation in northern Iraq was terminated and the debate that ensued are perfect examples of mismanagement of an otherwise successful political and military endeavor.
The emerging picture of misunderstandings between American and Turkish statesmen goes against the cooperation between the two countries seen post-Nov. 5, which was expected to repair the damage in the strategic alliance over the Iraq war. A new era of understanding had developed after the November meeting in which President Bush declared the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) as the enemy of the US. Built on this understanding the US apparently shared intelligence with the Turkish authorities on the PKK and cleared airspace in northern Iraq to enable Turkish jets to conduct an air operation in the region. Even further the Turks and Americans continued to cooperate during the land operation of Turkish troops in northern Iraq between Feb. 21 and Feb. 29 against the PKK through intelligence sharing and the opening of airspace.
As everyone spoke of a return to a strategic partnership between the two countries, something happened toward the end of the Turkish land operation. Understandably the US side, acknowledging Turkey's right to fight against terrorism and endorsing the Turkish incursion into northern Iraq, asked Turkish troops to leave northern Iraq soon, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put it, "within weeks." On Feb. 28 President Bush wanted the withdrawal to take place "as soon as possible." The Turkish side responded by insisting that the troops will stay as long as it takes to eliminate the PKK's presence in the region. Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt said "one day or one year." Anyhow, the "quick withdrawal" demanded by the Americans did not mean within hours. But within hours after Gates left Ankara Turkish troops were back to their bases in Turkey. The chief of General Staff declared that the decision to withdraw on Feb. 29 had been made even before Gates' arrival in Ankara.
Does this story explain why Turkey appears to have withdrawn its troops from northern Iraq under pressure from the American administration? Or who is responsible for the appearance that Turkey submitted to the demands of the US? Was such a diplomatic and political disaster not avoidable?
I think the day of Gates' visit to Ankara should be explained in detail. On the same day, two top-level warnings were shot from the American side. Why? Did the Americans not get any signal that the Turks were preparing to withdraw? If the two sides were cooperating in the operation, it would not look strange to exchange information on the withdrawal process. Did the Turkish side not hint at a quick withdrawal so that Gates and Bush would not go public in their call for a "quick withdrawal"?
Some in Ankara, including Speaker of Parliament Köksal Toptan, believe that the Americans deliberately announced their demand to make the Turkish appear as having acted under American pressure. This was assumed to serve American strength in the region and de-emphasize Turkish capabilities, military and political, to engage in unilateral action in its region.
In any case, a new element of misunderstanding has emerged between the two sides as many expected a new period of cooperation between Turkey and the US.
The whole affair has been reduced to the question of whether Turkey received an "order" from the US or not. I can understand two allies making decisions together, but to present Turkey as submitting to the will of the US will have serious implications on Turkish politics as well as on Turkey-US relations. It will only contribute to the growth of anti-Americanism in Turkey and be used by radical nationalists to discredit not only the government this time but also the command chain of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK).
10.03.2008
The emerging picture of misunderstandings between American and Turkish statesmen goes against the cooperation between the two countries seen post-Nov. 5, which was expected to repair the damage in the strategic alliance over the Iraq war. A new era of understanding had developed after the November meeting in which President Bush declared the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) as the enemy of the US. Built on this understanding the US apparently shared intelligence with the Turkish authorities on the PKK and cleared airspace in northern Iraq to enable Turkish jets to conduct an air operation in the region. Even further the Turks and Americans continued to cooperate during the land operation of Turkish troops in northern Iraq between Feb. 21 and Feb. 29 against the PKK through intelligence sharing and the opening of airspace.
As everyone spoke of a return to a strategic partnership between the two countries, something happened toward the end of the Turkish land operation. Understandably the US side, acknowledging Turkey's right to fight against terrorism and endorsing the Turkish incursion into northern Iraq, asked Turkish troops to leave northern Iraq soon, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put it, "within weeks." On Feb. 28 President Bush wanted the withdrawal to take place "as soon as possible." The Turkish side responded by insisting that the troops will stay as long as it takes to eliminate the PKK's presence in the region. Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt said "one day or one year." Anyhow, the "quick withdrawal" demanded by the Americans did not mean within hours. But within hours after Gates left Ankara Turkish troops were back to their bases in Turkey. The chief of General Staff declared that the decision to withdraw on Feb. 29 had been made even before Gates' arrival in Ankara.
Does this story explain why Turkey appears to have withdrawn its troops from northern Iraq under pressure from the American administration? Or who is responsible for the appearance that Turkey submitted to the demands of the US? Was such a diplomatic and political disaster not avoidable?
I think the day of Gates' visit to Ankara should be explained in detail. On the same day, two top-level warnings were shot from the American side. Why? Did the Americans not get any signal that the Turks were preparing to withdraw? If the two sides were cooperating in the operation, it would not look strange to exchange information on the withdrawal process. Did the Turkish side not hint at a quick withdrawal so that Gates and Bush would not go public in their call for a "quick withdrawal"?
Some in Ankara, including Speaker of Parliament Köksal Toptan, believe that the Americans deliberately announced their demand to make the Turkish appear as having acted under American pressure. This was assumed to serve American strength in the region and de-emphasize Turkish capabilities, military and political, to engage in unilateral action in its region.
In any case, a new element of misunderstanding has emerged between the two sides as many expected a new period of cooperation between Turkey and the US.
The whole affair has been reduced to the question of whether Turkey received an "order" from the US or not. I can understand two allies making decisions together, but to present Turkey as submitting to the will of the US will have serious implications on Turkish politics as well as on Turkey-US relations. It will only contribute to the growth of anti-Americanism in Turkey and be used by radical nationalists to discredit not only the government this time but also the command chain of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK).
10.03.2008
No comments:
Post a Comment