The Kurdish region of Iraq, the one part of the country that’s been fairly stable and able to function in recent years, is on the brink of a new conflict, following an attack yesterday on Turkish troops.
An audacious cross-border ambush by Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq killed at least 17 Turkish soldiers Sunday, ratcheting up pressure on the Turkish government to launch a military offensive into Iraq. […]
The raid on Turkish soldiers, among the deadliest attacks in recent memory, was carried out by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, known by its Kurdish initials PKK. The armed group aims to create an independent Kurdish state out of parts of eastern Turkey, northern Iraq and western Iran.
Turkish officials said 16 soldiers were also wounded in the fighting in Hakkari province, which borders Iraq. Thirty-two Kurdish fighters were killed in subsequent clashes and 10 Turkish troops were still missing, they said.
Since that report was published, it appears that the PKK has eight Turkish troops in custody. As of this morning, the AP reports that dozens of Turkish military vehicles loaded with soldiers and heavy weapons are headed towards the Iraq border, prompting Iraq President Jalal Talabani, himself a Kurd, to say that the PKK will announce a cease-fire later today. That’s unlikely to do much good; it hasn’t in the past.
Besides, as James Joyner noted, Talabani has admitted he can’t really control what Kurdish rebels do anyway.
It brings up a sensitive political question: does the Bush White House take a firm stand, defending an ally as it prepares to respond to terrorists, or does it caution patience? Given the president’s philosophy, shouldn’t one course of action be the obvious one?
Matt Yglesias’ take struck the right tone.
I’ll take the path of consistency and say that for the sake of the United States, and the sake of the Kurds, but also for Turkey’s sake as well, I hope Turkey doesn’t respond to PKK provocations with cross-border military actions that will ultimately fail to solve anything. That said, I do wonder what the apostles of “toughness” and willpower on the right will say about this. Don’t they think that the Turks must cross the border in force and show the Kurds what’s what? Won’t weakness only invite further aggression?
Actually, The Daily Show had a rather adroit segment exploring this very point late last week. (I know it’s a comedy show, but what can I tell you; quality analysis is quality analysis.) The Daily Show noted that Bush’s worldview practically requires him to support a Turkish military response. The president backed Israel’s strikes on Lebanon, emphasizing the importance of a country having the right to “defend the homeland” against attacks from terrorists. For that matter, Bush’s “doctrine” states that harboring a terrorist is no different than being a terrorist. If the PKK has found refuge among the Kurds in northern Iraq, then Turkey, a close U.S. ally, would presumably enjoy American support on a military response to yesterday’s attack.
As Aasif Mandvi put it, “Turkey isn’t facing some nebulous threat, thousands of miles away, substantiated only by dubious intelligence. Turkey has every right to defend its border. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised to see America first in line to join Turkey’s ‘coalition of the willing.'”
Of course, actual foreign policy crises and Bush administration rhetoric need not connect at any level — and in this case, they won’t. U.S. officials have scrambled today to urge Turkey to be patient, and not launch a military incursion. Condoleezza Rice reportedly appealed to Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan for what he characterized as “a few days” before any Turkish military response.
Turkey expects the U.S. to deal with the PKK, the U.S. expects Iraq to deal with the PKK, and the Kurds expect Turkey to back off. It’s not exactly a recipe for success.
Stay tuned.
