It's being reported today that Turkey attacked an abandoned village in northern Iraq. Although the village was empty, it points to much deeper and more troubling issue. Why has the U.S. allied with both the Turks and the Kurds while avoiding the obvious issues that divide them? And, why does the U.S. continue to arm both groups, giving both military assistance and training? More below the fold.
From today's New York Times:
'American officials in Baghdad declined to comment on either attack. Leaders in Iraq’s autonomous region of Kurdistan questioned how Turkey could have crossed the border by air without American approval.'
'"The sky is in the hands of the Americans, so they knew about this attack and they know Turkish planes entered Iraqi territory," said Mr. Hussein. "We hope this will not be repeated again."' (link)
This is not a totally unforseen development; the Times of London reported days ago that:
'Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, has delayed a final decision on whether to take military action against Kurdish rebels across the border with Iraq until he hears what Mr Bush has to say in their talks today.'
Although public opinion in Turkey is pressing for the use of ground troops, diplomatic sources in Washington say that Mr Erdogan's preferred option – if he decides to take action – would be for airstrikes on Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) targets inside northern Iraq. He has made plain that he wants US cooperation as the price for exercising restraint, saying of his meeting with Mr Bush in Washington: "I am expecting that this trip will result with the United States taking solid steps."'(link)
Considering today's events it is probable that President Bush promised some sort of access to Iraqi airspace for Turkish airpower. However, just as the U.S. has inflamed tensions in Iraq by foolishly arming groups with unknown motives, it has also done the same with Turkey and the Kurds. While Turkey apparently is allowed to attack the Kurds inside Iraq, at least one Kurdish group has received training for cross-border incursions. As Seymour Hersh reported almost exactly one year ago:
'In the past six months, Israel and the United States have also been working together in support of a Kurdish resistance group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan. The group has been conducting clandestine cross-border forays into Iran, I was told by a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership, as "part of an effort to explore alternative means of applying pressure on Iran." (The Pentagon has established covert relationships with Kurdish, Azeri, and Baluchi tribesmen, and has encouraged their efforts to undermine the regime's authority in northern and southeastern Iran.) The government consultant said that Israel is giving the Kurdish group "equipment and training." The group has also been given "a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S." (An Israeli government spokesman denied that Israel was involved.)'(link)
And so the U.S., once again, finds itself with a hard choice of its own making. It has allied with both the Turks and the Kurds, while leaving the longstanding issues between them to fester. Not only has it allied with them, it has prepared both (and tacitly given its blessing) for a possible war in the area of Northern Iraq/Southern Turkey. While the PFLK may have obstensibly trained to attack Iran, the tactics and (more importantly) the weapons and knowledge about those weapons are just as valid in Turkey. What remains to be seen is whether the U.S. has given the same training to the PKK, or if the PFLK will ally with the PKK if Turkey steps up its military action against the Kurds in Iraq.
This is the result of a foreign policy that only takes into account immediate and pressing goals, while failing to forsee all of its implications. and the game will continue to get trickier if or when tensions between the Kurds and Turkey escalate. Who will the U.S. ultimately support, if anyone? That choice could have a profound impact on the future of U.S. operations in Iraq, and could seriously undermine any progress U.S. forces have made there.