Re[2]: This Is The Way The World Ends (Scenario Planning)
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:07:50 -0500

Re: The Turkish bits only.

I don't admit to speak for Turkey, but here's some relevance.

First, they're insanely apprehensive about the Kurds. Especially a
Turkish State.

Second, at least some news reports have let on to the fact that if the
Turkish agree to military occupation by our troops, we'll sorta let
them march on in to Northern Iraq, to quell the uprising:

Third, if Northern Iraq has oil, you can bet they'll want a part of

Fourth, the Turks have a history of doing this.  Repeatedly.  Without
admitting to it. (This is a seminar -- but it
explains both Genocides quite nicely).

Fifth, the Turks have a history of denying it.  Getting angry, and
generally, not facing up to their responsibilities -- Why ? Because
too many freaking people think they're our good buddies.

I get so sick of the general misunderstanding that seems to come over
people in general when it comes to Turkey.  This isn't directed at you
specifically, James, but just the general disregard to look back a few
years and figure out what was going on.  Kurdish examples are even
more recent -- going as far as the early 1990s.   The fact that we're
just uniformly putting our heads in the sand about a country which
IMHO, is as bad as the folks in Al'Qaeda, is just insulting to
history, and to the millions of people who lived through the repeated
crap that Turkey has unleashed on its 'enemies'.

I'm willing to wager, that after we do the big payout, do this war,
and move on, we're going to have a force in the region that is yet
another militarily armed nightmare to contend with.

The idea that TUrkey will just 'stay out' seems laughable to me.


>> That's entirely plausible.  In fact, my own scenario
>> (Turkey/Iran/Syria 
>> vs. U.S. / etc.) is rather outside the box.  The only thing 
>> that makes 
>> the latter (mine) even remotely plausible is that T/I/S share an 
>> interest in keeping an independent Kurdistan from forming, while the 
>> U.S. has split motivations:  we don't want a Kurdistan either 
>> and we've 
>> promised the Turks to help prevent it, but we also don't want 
>> Turkey in 
>> northern Iraq.  I'd say we marginally prefer fighting the Turks than 
>> giving up northern Iraq, and that kind of fight might force the 
>> speculated alliance.

JR> There are a number of considerations that make this highly unlikely.  First
JR> is the odd relationship the Turkish military has with the Turkish
JR> government.  As a formidable institution, the Turkish military has very old
JR> and strong ties with the US military and the US government.  The Turkish
JR> parliament panders to its population, but the Turkish military panders to
JR> neither parliament nor the population.  The Turkish military is strongly in
JR> favor of fully supporting the US, it was the parliament that waffled, and
JR> most of what I am hearing out of Turkey suggests that the Turkish military
JR> is helping the US military do what it needs to do to the extent they can
JR> without the approval of the parliament.  The Turkish military fighting the
JR> US military would be as odd and unreal as the US military fighting the UK
JR> military (ancient history notwithstanding).

JR> That said, Turkey is definitely nervous about Kurdistan though they do not
JR> appear to have any interest in getting involved in that region either.  The
JR> compromise between the various factions in the region appears to be a
JR> 10-mile deep security buffer at the border of Iraq that Turkey may patrol to
JR> assuage the fears of the Turkish parliament until such time as a sane and
JR> stable government system is put into place post-Baath.

JR> The US is involved with something with the Syrian government, but I don't
JR> know what.

JR> Iran will stay out of Iraq primarily because they are nervous about the US
JR> and their own internal problems.  My read based on the current activity in
JR> Iran is that the government there feels that if they play nice, stay quiet,
JR> and keep things low key in their own country, not only will they be able to
JR> maintain some semblence of their current government, but the US will work
JR> with them in an amicable manner.  Iran has its own problems that have
JR> nothing to do with the US, and it seems to me that there is a view within
JR> the Iranian government that following Pakistan's example with Musharraf's
JR> government may be the safest and most productive pathway for them.  Their
JR> internal pressure has been putting them on a course towards moderation, and
JR> this external pressure is only encouraging that shift.

JR> So no, I don't think that a T/I/S alliance is in the offing and I don't see
JR> it as particularly beneficial to those players in the region.  I don't think
JR> there will an independent Kurdistan state because of serious political
JR> difficulties but who knows how that will work out.  Like in Africa,
JR> tribalism is an underlying roadblock to building a state that actually works
JR> well.

>> Those particular players are notoriously shifty anyway;  I 
>> wouldn't be 
>> surprised by anything, particularly given the political unrest and 
>> instability in Turkey and Iran right now.

JR> Turkey is not unstable; I'm not really sure what would give you that idea.
JR> Iran isn't entirely stable, but it is more of a problem internal to Iran
JR> rather than an instability that would manifest itself outward.

JR> Cheers,

JR> -James Rogers

Best regards,