History and Complications of Involvement with Turkey, PKK, Iraq, Iran, Syria

While our focus has been on impeachment, the US is gearing up for what may be the beginning of the final war of Armageddon. Despite sounding like a generous dish of hyperbole, there are some reported points of view that this administration is hell bent on maintaining control over its Evangelical base by orchestrating a WWIII that originates in the Middle East. Not only will it originate in the Middle East, mind you, but in the very location of the Garden of Eden itself. That should provide a convenient full circle…………

We should be concerned because no one talks about it, for just in its concept, it is way too bizarre of a belief to be taken seriously. Historically it can be compared to the outlandish inner sanctum whispers in and around the Third Reich during the late 30’s, “psst…..there are rumors that he plans to exterminate every one of them that is alive today in Europe.”

For if the above ridiculous assertion were to be proven true, then perhaps we could then have at least some motive as to why the middle administration officials are stymied and blocked from making real progress, while the captains of the Titanic, retire to their quarters after ordering a “full steam ahead.”

The Titanic actually provides a very good metaphor for this administration. Everyone on deck can see a collision is eminent. Meanwhile those unconcerned drink and dance in the staterooms below. Those in charge, the senior officials under the sway of the republican mantra, prance around completely unworried about real events even as their administration unravels around them?

So how does the end of the world pan out? It starts with our support for Turkey’s elimination of the PKK, the Kurdish terrorist organization that has been responsible for 35,000 Turkish deaths since its beginning in 1984.

Common knowledge says that Green Berets, CIA, or both have already been inserted into the Kurdistan region and are now actively pursuing “intel” on the 3500 of the estimated PKK guerrillas living near the Turkish-Iranian border region.

The first question to pop up is this: why would we invest more time and money to suppress the Kurds who were the most supportive of our Iraqi adventure, and who controlled the most stable of those three regions of Iraq? Why?

First, for the Cheney opponents, the regional Kurdish government has NOT been supportive of the Bush/Cheney Oil grab. They have independently made two oil deals themselves(with Norway and Turkey even) that have NOT been sanctioned by the US provisional government’s Iraqi parliament. Kurdistan will stand to make a much larger percentage off of the profits from each well, then would any of other provinces if the Iraqi HydroCarbons Act, the Oil bill, ever gets passed.

By bringing hostilities into an area previously tame by comparison to say, the Sunni province, we are effectively using the military to put a hold on any oil deal previously made, even if we were ineffective in stopping it politically. As long as there are hostilities occurring in that region, no oil company can capitalize on its contract,and rush in and invest, no matter how lucrative the oil revenues might be………

Another difficulty for the US position, is that the Kurds tend to provide the most reliable units in the reformed Iraqi national army. The Kurdish section of the local police bureau has taken part in recent counter-terrorism operations in Baghdad and other parts of the country that are dominated by Sunni or Shiite political factions. To have the US either sponsor or carry out attacks on Kurds within the Kurd’s homeland, could alienate our staunchest domestic ally, right there in Iraq.

Another interesting development is the new alignment occurring as we speak within the Middle East that is occurring as a direct result of US military involvement in Iraq. Turkey as alway been considered as one of our staunchest allies ever since the advent of the cold war……Iran has been considered one of our most vilified enemies ever since the fall of the Shah. But currently Turkey and Iran are working together to eliminate the PKK in the US controlled northern Iraq.

What? Screech. Halt. Bang. Crash………

Turkey and Iran have quietly worked out a reciprocal security arrangement, whereby Iran’s military will engage Kurdish separatists whenever encountered, in exchange for Turkey’s cooperation against the Iranian Mujahideen-e-Khalq movement (MEK), a well-armed and cult-like opposition group that previously found refuge in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Both Iranian officials and Turkey’s prime minister have alluded to “mechanisms” (likely to involve intelligence-sharing) already in place to deal with security issues of mutual interest. Neither Turkey nor Iran has any desire to see an independent Kurdish state established in northern Iraq. For the moment, Turkey’s cooperation with Iran is achieving better results than its frustrating inability to persuade the United States to help eliminate a designated terrorist group in northern Iraq.

In a recent interview, Erdogan vowed that Turkey would not allow attacks on its neighbors from its territory, adding, in an obvious allusion to Iran, that all countries had a right to pursue the development of a peaceful nuclear energy program (Milliyet, March 12).

One can remember the reports that Israel and the U.S. Department of Defense were providing clandestine support to Kurdish PJAK “terrorists,” operating in the northwestern Iranian border region, questioning the usefulness of such a policy in countering Iran’s nuclear ambitions or destabilizing the country in advance of a military strike. Since then, there have been further allegations that the CIA is using its classified budget to support terrorist operations by disaffected members of Iran’s ethnic minorities, including Azeris, Baloch, Kurds and Arabs (Sunday Telegraph, February 25).

Iran may be expected to continue aggressive military operations against Kurdish militants to keep its border region secure in a politically volatile period, while continuing to demonstrate to Turkey its usefulness as a security partner in contrast to U.S. reluctance to undertake anti-Kurdish military activities. U.S. intervention in northern Iraq’s Kurdistan region could create a new wave of destabilization in Iraq, as well as diverting U.S. resources from a confrontation with Iran (a result no doubt desired by Tehran).

A Turkish incursion will likely have limited scope and objectives, although it will likely include at least two divisions (20,000 men each) with support units. The last major cross-border operation 10 years ago involved 40,000 Turkish troops. With the greater distance to PKK bases at Mount Qandil from the Turkish border, a first wave of helicopter-borne assault troops might follow strikes by the Turkish Air Force. An assault on Mount Qandil will prove difficult even without opposition from Iraqi Kurdish forces. More ambitious plans are likely to have been drawn up by Turkish staff planners for a major multi-division offensive as far south as Kirkuk if such an operation is deemed necessary.

A Turkish newspaper has reported that General Ralston has already negotiated a deal with the KRG to permit a Turkish attack on Mount Qandil in April (Zaman, March 25).

Conclusion

While tensions peak on the border, the time has in many ways never been better for a resolution to the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. From captivity, Abdullah Ocalan appears ready to concede Turkey’s territorial unity in exchange for stronger local governments. He recently stated, “The problems of Turkey’s Kurds can only be solved under a unitary structure. This is why Turkey’s Kurds should look to Ankara and nowhere else for a solution” (Zaman, March 26). Turkish investment in northern Iraq is far preferable to having Turkish tanks and artillery massed menacingly along the border. If the KRG was intending to keep the PKK as a card to use in coercing Turkish support for Kurdish autonomy, it may be time to play it. PKK morale is low and prolonged inactivity under the aging leadership will ultimately send many fighters back to their villages. The movement is hardly in a position to mount an effective offensive. Without state sponsorship, the PKK is poorly armed and supplied. The KRG’s limited hospitality is hardly a replacement for Syrian patronage. Massoud Barzani has urged face-to-face talks on the PKK problem with Turkish leaders, who have also recently indicated openness to discussion (NTV, February 26). Turkey’s continuing conflict with the Kurds in turn,jeopardizes its candidacy for European Union membership. With the possibility of full-scale Turkish military operations beginning in northern Iraq in the coming weeks, both U.S. and Turkish strategists must realize that any clash between the Turkish military and U.S.-supported Iraqi Kurds who back their PKK brethren, is a political disaster in waiting.

Whereas common sense says to stand down, and wait for possible provocation, the Cheney arm of the Bush administration has pushed for a full steam ahead affront on the Kurdish guerrillas. The Turkish troops are there, at least in Cheney’s eyes, to intimidate the Kurds to support the Hydrocarbon Oil deal.

“Look you Kurds. If you don’t stand behind my oil bill you won’t have an semiautonomous region to call your home. You will be under Turkish control! Got it?”

Why the flames are being fanned, and why the administration stands by with cans of gasoline, they are not saying. However to most rational people, this oil piece of the puzzle offers some sincere motive behind the otherwise insane mechanizations of this administration.

To others; those whose defections most worry this administration, these actions double as proving that the Armageddon’s scenario is taking shape.

Castle Tries Harder, but Gets It Wrong Still

Recently Delaware’s lone congressman helped introduce, along with 44 other members, Senator Salazar’s Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act. This act attempts to make an end run around George Bush’s failed policies, by having Congress take the lead and mandate that our Iraqi policy follow the Iraqi Study Group’s recommended courses of action.

This bill has a wide range of bipartisan support. Both Democrats and Republicans have signed on as sponsors.

Several parts of this bill fly in the face of the Bush administration. For this bill follows the ISG’s recommendation that talks must include both Iran and Syria involving the region’s future stability. This makes sense since both of these two former Axis of Evil powers have considerable influence over certain parts of Iraq. Also this bill forces the President to make it clear that America does not have any intentions of maintaining permanent military bases within Iraq, and that he restates on occasion that the United States has absolutely no interest in controlling Iraqi oil revenues or resources.

It also seeks to undo the problematic DeBaathfication laws originally forced on Iraq by Brenner, as well as to ensure the sharing of all Iraqi oil revenues among all segments of an Iraqi society in an equitable manner.

Knowing me I went right to Section 8, page 13 to the section labeled: Statement of Policy of Oil Sector of Iraq.

It shall be the policy of the United States to formulate and implement with the government of Iraq, a plan, consistent with the Iraq Study Group, that–

1) provides technical assistance in drafting legislation to implement the February 27, 2007, agreement by Iraq’s Council of Ministers on principle for the equitable sharing of oil resources and revenues.

What?

Whoa. Screech. Stop. Halt.

I don’t know if you took the time to click on the links above, but if you hit “February 27” you got the draft of the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Act that was leaked to the internet last week It’s long. And if you click on “What” you get the best line by line rebuttal as to why this same Cheney Oil bill will not work for Iraqis, by the person who leaked the oil bill to begin with. It’s also long.

There are huge problems with this certain piece of legislation. In fact, it is obvious that the US congressional delegation that is sponsoring Salazar’s Bill, has no idea what the February 27, 2007, agreement really is. How do we know? Because of the linkage that 1) we reiterate that the US has NO interest in Iraqi oil, with this very agreement 2) that according to loose estimates will give US corporations up to 70% of Iraqi oil for free.

This is predominately the “why”behind why the Iraqis are fighting us. They are fighting us for their own oil. This is why even though our Military daily struggles to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi citizenry, we lose ground every day because more and more Iraqis come to the conclusion that based on our oil plan, we really did invade to participate in this tragic rape of Iraq’s one natural resource.

First of all, who are these oil ministers, endorsed by Secretary Rice before the Senate appropriations committee, who approved this bill? They are all ex patriots, wined and dined like Chalabi before the invasion, then brought into the Green zone with the first troops and made the official head of Iraq’s oil ministry, answerable to the coalition government. The parliament, the actual people who represent the people of Iraq, up until this bill was leaked last week, had no clue what was inside.

So whereas to the unsuspecting, this bill appears to have the backing of the oil ministers, in other words the “experts” and is just languishing in the Congress, because they can’t get it together long enough to pass a simple piece of legislation. At least that is the spin we are given. Nothing could be further from the truth.

To understand what went wrong in Iraq and why we did not win the war after we won the war, one needs only to read the analysis of the oil bill. Had we done everything the same, but instead done just what the Iraqi Study Group recommends, had George Bush stand up and credibly say, ” America has no intentions upon your oil,” our troops would be home now. We would have a flourishing democracy in Iraq. But we sent the opposite signal. The signal we sent was this: we want to take control of Iraqi oil resources away from the Iraqi government and give it to Big Oil Companies.

And so they fought us.

Here is what needs to happen before that part of the bill passes. An amendment needs to pass, that strips that section from the bill. If they want, they could substitute the Federal Oil Law, with the Regional Oil Laws, which already have some sentiments of public support. The regional oil laws were hammered out by Iraqis, not an illegitimate cabinet of American appointed officers. Here is what the Iraqis say about the regional oil laws………

,,,,,,, though the Federal Law does not name any figures or percentages of sharing or profits, the Regional Law sets the way profits are calculated, which is based on giving reasonable percentages for the Internal Rate of Return, according to the wideness of the field, after appraisal. We think the reasonable rate could be no more than 15 percent.

This reasonable rate is higher than those in the surrounding countries, which shows it fairly takes into account the higher level of risk that Iraq provides over Kuwait, Iran, or Saudi Arabia.

This reasonable rate will allow Iraq infrastructure to begin to be rebuilt. This reasonable rate will stop the flow of insurgents into the recruiting arms of Al Qeeda.

So one could applaud Mike Castle for breaking with Bush and not following the Mitch McConnell and McCain line that we need more American dead in Baghdad to honor the American dead already there. Here in Delaware, we are glad he has broken away from Worm -Tongue’s spell. However, he needs to do more. For without a change in the Iraqi Oil Bill, his, and his other 44 co-sponsors’ bill, is doomed to fail.