Iraq Invaded...by the Turks [Michael Ledeen]
According to the Azeri News Agency,
The Turkish army units have entered Northern Iraq, planning a large-scale operation against PKK gorillas, an Iraqi internet website related to head of Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Jalal Talabani reported Thursday.
So my question is, why aren't we bombing those Turkish army units? Aren't we supposed to be defending the territorial integrity of Iraq? Or have the clever diplomats decided that it's ok because we don't like the PKK?
re: Turkey, Kurds & PKK [Michael Rubin]
Michael, it may be obvious to you, but it's not so obvious to me that the Turks have crossed the border since 2003, when there was the July 4 "hooding" incident in Sulaymani. The Iraqi Kurds—who will protest harshly any Turkish incursion—did not complain in any of my recent visits. Nor, for that matter, has the Turkish press picked up on it. Recent operations that have intercepted Iranian Qods Force personnel in Iraq certainly suggest that such incursions will not be tolerated. Perhaps too little, too late, and we would should be more consistent in enforcement of diplomatic red-lines.
Regarding your other points: I am also unaware of any Syrian troops that have entered Iraq. If you're referring to Syrian provision of safe-haven for terrorism, that's another matter that should be dealt with directly. As to your broader question: There is a huge difference between a democracy striking at terrorist safe-havens and a terror-sponsoring state trying to undermine another by supporting terrorist groups within. I don't believe the moral equivalency you draw between Turkey on one hand, and Iran or Syria on the other, is either valid or fair.
Turkey, Kurds, etc. [Michael Ledeen]
Thanks for the good points. I am quite convinced that there have been Turkish incursions into northern Iraq, sometimes coordinated with Iranian actions including artillery shelling of villages, etc. I hope this story is false and am delighted you think it's false. I don't know anything special, I just saw this story and thought it useful to raise the general point. On Syria, I've been calling for action against the terrorist training camps for more than twenty years. And we of course agree on the Iranian matters: nice to see Qods Force thugs arrested and even killed, but it's not nearly enough.
I don't see how the central Iraqi Government can cede the defense of the national integrity of the country to the Kurds, or anyone else. I had thought the deal was that the Kurds were responsible for security—as in regional security, counterterrorism, law enforcement, etc. You know these things better than I, but I'm surprised to hear that the Iraq Army isn't entitled to defend its northern border. Is that right? Gracious...
Finally, I'm certainly not arguing for moral, or any other, equivalence between our actions, or Turkish actions, and Iranian actions. I'm not very sympathetic to this Turkish Government, but it has higher standing than the mullahcracy, obviously. I am only saying that, in the unfortunate way the world works, we will find it heavy going to argue that it's ok for the Turks to strike inside Iraq but not for the Iranians. If that's what we think—which I doubt—we should explain why. I think it's much better to stand for the territorial integrity of Iraq and tell the Turks to do the same. And then work with them against terrorism, which we're doing already. They aren't satisfied with our actions, but then hardly anybody is, are they?
Anyhow, thanks again for the good points.
corner.nationalreview.com |
