US, Turkey discuss ridding Iraq of Kurd militants

[Nambe]

ANKARA (Reuters)

The United States and Turkey are discussing ways to get rid of Kurdish militants holed up in northern Iraq as the two NATO allies try to end a diplomatic crisis over Turkey's role in the troubled region.

U.S. ambassador to Turkey Robert Pearson said on Saturday a visit to Ankara by Washington's top soldiers in Iraq and Europe had bolstered their strong military ties which were severely shaken by the arrest of 11 Turkish soldiers in northern Iraq early this month.

''The two (generals) discussed with the General Staff further information about a coordinated approach to eliminating the PKK/ KADEK in northern Iraq,'' Pearson told reporters in Ankara after the departure of Central Command chief General John Abizaid. ---

Want a Paper Trail Send an E-Mail

[Bandit]

1. We are going to turn on our allies the Kurds and hand them over to the Tur

We are a despicable nation who's word is meaningless. We did the same thing to the South Vietnamese. How any country can trust the US is inconceivable to me.

[study_war_no_more]

5. More mass graves to use in the 2045 investigation of the invasion of Iraq

sorry to be so cynical but everytime they discover new mass graves I think of the 1991 bnetrayal of Iraq uprising.

[ze_dscherman]

8. The Turkish fight against PKK

has claimed about 30.000 lifes already. Official Turkish number, IIRC.

Never mind, they were just commie rebels threatening an NATO ally.

[Paschall]

23. This story is very strange

First, it says, "Turkey has stationed thousands of its soldiers just inside Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War in a controversial deployment it says is critical to stopping hundreds of PKK and KADEK guerrillas returning to mount attacks on Turkish targets."

This is the first time I've seen this information. I was under the impression that, in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion, the massing of Turkish forces on the Turkish side of the Iran-Turkey border was a big problem. I never heard then about any Turkish troops having being stationed in Iraq--in fact, such a possibility threatened to "spread" the conflict.

Second, this story fails to mention that the PKK renounced armed struggle for self-rule in 1999 and in 2002 changed its name to the Congress for Freedom and Democracy in Kurdistan (KADEK), although it was led by Abdullah Ocalan, who had been convicted by Turkey of treason. The PKK ceased to exist over a year ago.

After that policy change in 1999, the violence was pretty much quelled.

If I were to guess why this is a problem today, it is because, by dethroning Hussein, we have fueled Kurdish hopes of an independent homeland. In other words, another "unexpected" consequence of this war. The US's heavy hand here, if it were to mean further human rights abuses against the Kurds, might endanger the Turkish application for the EU membership. Which--who knows?--might be something this administration desires.

[aquart]

2. Can you say, "massacre"?

Ah, the payback for trusting a Bush.

[NNN0LHI]

3. I think most of us here seen this coming a long time ago?

Just like his daddy and Reagan did with Osama bin Laden and his crew. We never learn.

Don

[atreides1]

4. This Time Will Be Different I Think

I have a funny feeling that the Kurds were expecting a betrayal by the US, both of the Kurdish factions have become allies. And I think that right now they are preparing for something just like this.

The Kurds have not forgotten that it was the US that gave Saddam the chemical agents that he used against them, they also have not forgotten that the US betrayed them during their uprising after the
Gulf War.

Unlike the sheeple, the Kurdish people do not forget betrayal, and will take their time to get their revenge. The only problem is that
more US military personnel will die while George is taking time off
at his ranch, like he is this weekend.

And another soldier died today.

[indictrichardperle]

6. The same Kurds we used as a proxy force in Tikrit

The same Kurds Woolsey, Perle and Adelman claimed were our "allies".

Fine, this is just going to ignite guerrilla war in Northern Iraq, with frequent Turk incursions into Iraq. I wouldnt be suprised to see the Kurds turn right around and begin cooperating with the Iraqi resistance.........just like the Afghan war-lords who constantly change alliance.

[Julien Sorel]

7. Before everyone gets the entirely wrong idea, the PPK

is a communist party that supports the creation of a Kurdish state. There are several Kurdish groups, and they don't get along with each other all that well. The PPK was not among the groups that helped the U.S. during Bush's war afaik; one of the requirements of being part of the 'coalition' for the Kurds was that they renounce the idea of a Kurdish state.

So this isn't exactly a case of the U.S. turning on an ally, although I do think that helping Turkey in its ongoing war against the Kurds is morally atrocious. The Kurds should simply get their own state, which they were promised in the 1930s, as I recall, but the promise was never acted upon. It would save everyone a lot of trouble and bloodshed, although Turkey and Iraq would look smaller on a map, which I suppose is unacceptable to the nationalists in those countries. They'd rather die and shed blood. :/

[Blind Tiresias]

9. No way the Army wants to fight the Kurds

The Army brass knows that the Kurdish partisans are the most dangerous potential enemy they can face. These are people who have known nothing but war for 3 generations. They are the best trained, most hardened guerilla fighters in the world. They actually defeated Saddamn's modern army during the 1980s before the bastard turned poison gas against them. With the Turks, we could pacify them, but at an enormous cost to our fighting men. They would prove quite the match for our special forces, which are thin to begin with, but they will cause serious problems for the regular Army, which is already having difficulty thwarting Sunni partisans in central Iraq. The Kurdish fighers are several notches more clever, resourceful, organized and experienced than the enemy we currently face.

[NNN0LHI]

12. " the bastard turned poison gas against them"

Funny you didn't mention who facilitated the bastard gassing them? Wonder why? Don

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/88244_sean24.shtml

U.S. was a key supplier to Saddam

<snip>But whether or not we stopped sending Saddam this stuff just before or just after the Gulf War is really beside the point. The fact remains that even after Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, the Bush administration thought it proper to keep sending these materials until at least a year after what is now Saddam's most infamous atrocity (though not his most heinous act).

In 1982 President Reagan removed Iraq from the list of states that sponsor terrorism, despite U.S. intelligence reports that Iraq was pursuing a biochemical warfare program, making the rogue nation eligible for dual-use and military technology.

And even though Reagan's Secretary of State George Schultz admits in his book "Turmoil and Triumph" that reports of Iraq using chemical weapons against Iranian troops first began "drifting in" at the end of 1983, he still helped to convince the National Security Council to sell Iraq 10 Bell helicopters that same year.

The helicopters were supposedly for crop spraying though it's now known that Iraq used them in the 1988 chemical attacks against the Kurds at Halabja.

Last week, the American Gulf War Veterans Association reported "that on December 19, 1983, the Middle Eastern envoy who carried a handwritten note from President Reagan to Saddam Hussein to 'resume our diplomatic relations with Iraq' was none other than our present Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld." (See www.gulfwarvets.com/ news11.htm).

The AGWVA also points out: "Probably the most critical piece of information is that according to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 article, the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to 'calibrate' mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops" -- meaning that Rumsfeld and company not only knew about the chemical warfare attacks but helped Iraq target the victims!

more

[NNN0LHI]

14. US has no qualms about working with communists when it suits their needs

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0714IraqThumbnails14-ON.html

Iraq's new Governing Council

Associated Press
Jul. 14, 2003 06:50 AM

Thumbnail sketches of members of Iraq's newly named 25-member Governing Council:

<snip>
HAMID MAJID MOUSSA: A Shiite and secretary of the Iraqi Communist Party since 1993. He is an economist and petroleum researcher. He left Iraq in 1978 and returned in 1983 to continue his political activities against the Saddam regime.

<snip>JALAL TALABANI: A Sunni Kurd and leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. He and Massoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party led the Kurdish zone in northern Iraq that had near-autonomy from Saddam's regime since the 1991 Gulf War. Born in Kirkuk Province in 1934, Talabani joined the KDP at the age of 15 and rose to its politburo in 1953. But he broke with the KDP and founded the PUK in 1957.

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7845&TagID=2

US reaches out to communists in Iraq

Source: AFP

BAGHDAD, July 16: Promoting communists, doubling the salaries of the low-paid and banning the death penalty might not sound like the work of a US Republican administration, but then welcome to topsy-turvy post-war Iraq.

Among the more surprising choices made by the top US overseer in Iraq, Paul Bremer, known for his neo-conservative leanings, was to allow communist Hamid Majid Mussa to sit on Iraq's new Governing Council.

"He has two main concerns: preventing extremists taking the key positions among the Shias and keeping the economy going," explained one of the international advisors involved in the selection process.

"He hesitated at first but became convinced that the communists could prove a counterweight to the imams," he added, asking not to be named.

Iraqi Communist Party official Numan Suhayel explains how the selection was made: "The Americans and the British sent a delegation to see us and then Hamid Majid met personally with Paul Bremer," he says.

He insists the party's seat on the council has nothing to do with power brokering but reflects the communists' standing in Iraq.

more

[NNN0LHI]

15. Why do some when you point out the BS they talk just disappear...

...and act like they can't respond for some reason? They can talk the the BS really good. But can't admit when they are misinformed. Anyone else notice that around here? WTF!

Don

[Julien Sorel]

16. On the off chance that you are referring to me...

I didn't respond because your post missed the point. I mentioned that the PPK was communist in passing; even a casual reading of my post should reveal that the U.S. and Turkey have a problem with the PPK because they want to establish a Kurdish state, not because they are communist -- although the fact that they are communist does have big ramifications on intra-Kurdish politics, and probably doesn't do a lot to endear them to the Americans or the Turks, either.

Sometimes I ignore people here out of politeness, in the same way you might, say, turn your head away when you see someone picking their nose, or otherwise making an ass of themselves in public.

[NNN0LHI]

17. Your words "So this isn't exactly a case of the U.S. turning on an ally"

Then why are the communists part of the new government the US has recently appointed if they aren't/weren't allies? Would it make sense to put an enemy into the government that the US appointed. Why now just appoint Saddam Hussien to a position in the new government too? This is exactly a case of the U.S. turning on an ally, whether you want to admit that or not.

Don

[Julien Sorel]

19. Are you even reading the same thread?

The U.S. is joining with Turkey to oppose the PPK/PKK, not communism. This is the third post in which I will have pointed this out. The PPK has been on the U.S. list of terrorist groups for several years. The PPK did not fight on the side of the U.S. in Gulf War II. The U.S. did not appoint any members of the PPK to this council. Why you continue to mumble incoherently about the U.S. turning on an ally, when the PPK is not, and has never been, an ally of the U.S., is a mystery to me, but so you do.

Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about 'admitting' anything -- U.S. foreign policy sucks and historically has sucked; had this been an example of backstabbing it would have been nothing compared to the many, far worse, examples of American foreign policy I can think of. The problem I had with the interpretation of this event by people such as yourself is that your interpretation was, and stubbornly remains, grossly incorrect, not that it criticizes the U.S.

By the way, there's another reason I stop responding to people after awhile: they have demonstrated that they are in way over their heads, and need to have the same thing repeated to them endlessly. That's the politest way I can think of to phrase it.

[NNN0LHI]

20. My point is terrorists did fight on the side of the US in Gulf Invasion II

The US seems to label someone a terrorist when it suits them and as rebels or freedom fighters when it suits our needs another day. You didn't forget about that great freedom fighter that we supported financially and militarily not too long ago in Afghanistan while he was fighting that evil empire the USSR named Osama bin Laden I hope? Don

http://164.109.48.86/topical/pol/terror/texts/03041005.htm

10 April 2003

State Department Daily Briefing, April 10

<snip>Question: Another question. I noticed with events in Kirkuk and Mosul that the U.S. media is talking now about "Turkish Kurdish rebels, who are cooperating with the U.S. forces," and not as "terrorist Turkish Kurdish rebel," as used to describe them prior to the work including your government. I am wondering, as a matter of policy, did you change the status from terrorists to rebels now?

Mr. Boucher: No, come on. Let's -- let's be serious here. There are many different groups operating in this area. We have never changed our view of the PKK. If that's what you're asking, PKK is a terrorist group. There are other groups of terrorists, and terrorists associated with terrorists, who have operated in Northern Iraq, including Ansar al-Islam.

One of the goals of U.S. policy is to make sure that Northern Iraq, or any part of Iraq, can't be used as a base for terrorism. That said, there are other groups that operate in these areas that have a legitimate function and role, who have provided for the people who live there, who have looked after their welfare for all of these years, who definitely have a role in the future of Iraq. And we're going to work with those groups.

Question: Do you still consider them, these Turkish Kurdish rebels as terrorists?

Mr. Boucher: We consider the Turkish -- we consider terrorists to be terrorists, and we still consider the terrorists to be terrorists. And we consider those who are not terrorists, not to be terrorists. And we still don't consider them terrorists. That's as clear as I can make it. (Boucher really explained this clearly. Didn't he?)

more

[htuttle]

10. Gimme that match...

...I wanna see how much gasoline I have in this barrel.

:nuke:

[leesa]

11. The usual US back-stabbing of 'allies'

This is to get that cherished Turkish support mentioned in Cheney's energy papers

[FAndy9]

13. Not to mention that the Turks

aren't exctly saints, having under the belts the masacre of 1 million Armenians and thousands of Kurdish villages.

This spells out MASSACRE, perpetual guerrilla war and a second Palestine.

[bemildred]

18. The question is what can they do about it?

Besides talk. PKK isn't likely to listen to diplomatic
blather coming from Ankara.

[LauraK]

21. The US ambassador to Turkey says they leave or face...

military action.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=23845&mesg_id=23845&listing_type=search

[Resistance Is Futile]

22. PKK not allied to the US

Someone's already posted this, but it seems to have got lost in the noise.

The PKK is not and was not a US client/ally