Question marks originating from the US

"Our military and political talks with Turkey are continuing. It would be to the benefit of everybody to have the negotiating process proceed with great care. On this issue our talks both in Iraq and in Ankara and Washington, will continue…"

However, this statement fell short of satisfying the general public.

The failure to start the bilateral negotiating process raises question marks in Ankara. Diplomatic sources point out that regional countries, Jordan among them, have an adverse reaction to the possibility of Turkish troops serving in Iraq. They say, "Americans too are trying to make up their minds. These unexpected reactions have caused all the more confusion. Assessments are still being made on whether it would be better or worse to have Turkish troops cross into Iraq." Is the U.S. worrying that it would be creating with its own hands a veritable tangle in the region?

What happened to make the U.S. to start wondering all of a sudden whether it would be better or worse to have Turkish troops in Iraq? Could it be that they are trying to avoid creating fresh instability in Iraq?

Information reaching Ankara indicate that on the other side of the Atlantic questions in the following vein are being asked:

"U.S. troops in the region feel themselves to be complete strangers. They become scared and, as a result, make one mistake after another. They are faced with a society they are not familiar with, a society whose ways they cannot fathom. Under the circumstances, the arrival on the scene of Turkish troops would naturally reduce the risks the U.S. is faced with while increasing the trouble from the standpoint of the Iraqis. U.S. troops are in Iraq as an occupation force. Would Turkish troops, who say their going to Iraq would be aimed at providing the Iraqi people with aid and support, be seen any differently by the Iraqi people? At a time people are having trouble with the occupiers they can hardly be expected to greet with flowers those who go to the aid of the occupiers.

"Turkey is a factor that renders more difficult a solution in Iraq. For one thing, Turkey does not have any thesis, any claim, any perspective of creating a climate of peace and confidence in Iraq. Turkey’s aim is to be a party to the new formation there and to push backwards the new living conditions the Kurds have been provided with. More importantly, Turkey was friends with the Saddam regime, had never approved of his elimination. It will want to help as much as it can the supporters of the former regime gain strength."

Meanwhile, are fresh question marks being formed on Ankara’s mind as well? The assessment being made in Ankara is as follows:

"The bomb attack perpetrated against the Turkish Embassy in Iraq — and similar others that can be expected soon enough — could be heralding the kind of developments that can occur frequently in the next 12 months if Turkish troops get sent to Iraq.

"Therefore, the potential risks in Iraq must be analysed and discussed in a much more objective manner in greater detail than in the past. The potential risks must be measured up, rendered more "substantial" by being translated into scenarios and specific numbers. The results must not remain on paper. One has to think about the potential consequences for Turkey both from the military standpoint and regarding domestic political developments."

For that reason, though this may sound like a contradiction, the officials in Ankara think that if Turkish troops are to be sent to Iraq these should serve in two of the three areas the General Staff has mentioned when it said that Turkish troops could be assigned to one of these three areas.

The areas they have in mind are the Salahaddin province and that part of the Anbar region that borders the Euphrates River. Furthermore, they are thinking in terms of not merely 10,000-12,000 troops but of a much bigger force. This is because they think that this is the only way Turkey can exist in Iraq in the eye of the developments, exerting a big influence.

How would that situation affect domestic politics? That will be the subject matter of tomorrow’s article.