Skip to main content

The Turkish Neo-Ottoman Response to the War in Iraq

Turkey has a collected interest in the war in Iraq not just stemming from multiple sources not of which the least is Turkish dependence on Iraqi oil to survive, and the desire for Neo-Ottomans to take Northern Iraq for their own. Since Turkey was made a nation after WWI they have had a desire to regain their old Ottoman glory. The Turks have forced the Turkish language on people living within their borders, and have made deals with local countries allowing them to conduct cross-border operations that enabled them to set up military outposts outside of Turkey. During many of my visits to Turkey I have always found humor in how Turks will claim all things good from the Ottoman empire to be Turkish, but whenever the “bad-portions” are brought up those are quickly explained away as being European-Ottoman problems and having nothing to do with Modern Day Turkey. I guess there is a serious desire to have their cake and eat-it-too.

Neo-Ottomans are the Turks that feel a desire to regain some of the prestige of the once powerful Ottoman Empire. Obvious internal posturing and interference in border country politics shows this desire to once again be the policy maker for the Near Eastern World. This desire is ever so evident in Ankara’s (capital of Turkey) inter-dealings with the Turkmen Issue in the Iraqi city of Kirkuk. Access to Oil and a desire to expand the Turkish Empire is forefront in the posturing, rhetoric, and financial and political support designed to decrease the stability of Iraq. The Neo-Ottoman Turks desire nothing more than to see Iraq split into several autonomous regions that then try to split. Sharing the same value with Turkey is Iran, as both Turkey and Iran have this same desire and both want a major piece of this pie. Interesting enough both areas where Ankara and Tehran (Capital of Iran) pledge their support for mistreated people just happen to be sitting on-top of some of the largest oil reserves in the entire world. I am sure that this is just a coincidence though and that both Ankara and Tehran are truly just concerned about the well-being and fair representation of a portion of Iraq’s citizens. After all, the humanitarian activities of both Ankara and Tehran around the world are second only to their benevolent nature in their own counties.
There are two distinct tactics that the Neo-Ottoman Turks are using to gain control of Northern Iraq and both of them are aimed at causing a disruption in the overall peace process. The first tactic is an age old tactic that serves to masters inside Turkish politics. This is a creation of a common enemy. For this purpose the PKK serve the role as the “bad-guys.” The PKK is a terrorist organization that by most liberal counts can amass a count of 20,000 members with an estimated 5 – 7,000 fighting troops armed with light weapons and a rudimentary understanding of explosives. Operating inside Turkey and hiding in Northern Iraq, the PKK are a separatist group that calls for the unification of Kurdish lands under a single socialist government. The Turkish military has worked in conjunction with the Iraqi and Kurdish governments to hunt down the PKK military camps for the past 20 years. Part of this agreement allows Turkish military bases to be constructed inside Iraq. I personally have visited 12 of these bases located anywhere from directly across the Turkish-Iraqi border to a large Turkish military base 30 miles inside the border that houses multiple tanks, armored fighting vehicles, jet runway, war helicopters, support vehicles and a contingency of over 100 Turkish soldiers .
The political aspect of this tactic is two-fold. First it allows the Turkish military to justify spending billions on military build-up while Turkish citizens in the eastern provinces do not have running water, constant electricity, medical care, adequate infrastructure and roads, or basic living allowances to include food subsidies. Second, this political tactic allows the Turkish government to not recognize the autonomous region of Kurdistan in northern Iraq as they are “aiding the terrorist PKK.” It is very important for the Turks to quell any Kurdish thoughts of autonomy because it would be very dangerous for the Neo-Ottoman Turks’ desires for expansionism. The reason it would be dangerous is because the Kurds make up 20% of Turkey’s population and are the dominate ethnicity in the eastern HALF of Turkey. Giving credence to a Kurdish Autonomy would not aid in expanding Turkey but would in effect cut it in two.

The second tactic the Neo-Ottoman Turks are using is claiming defense of their Turkmen brethren in Iraq. Turkmenia is a land claimed by the Turkmen people living in Iraq. This area of land sweeps across Iraq from the Turkish Syrian border, through Kirkuk and below Sulimaniya on the Iranian border and lays south of the area controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq. The Turkmen people come from Turkmenistan on the North Eastern border of Iraq. The people from Turkmenistan and the people of Turkey are related in the fact that some people in Turkey descend from the people of Turkmenistan as do the Turkmen of Iraq. These are really the only ties. However the reason why a country that does not allow autonomy for their own people but cries for autonomy of their Turkmen brothers in Iraq is chiefly due to the fact that Turkmenia lies across two of the largest oil fields in Iraq. Turkey has said many times that if The Kurdish region of Iraq separates and becomes its own country then Turkmenia should also be its own country. Of course Turkey being so gracious to its brethren would move in and absorb Turkmenia into its auspices to help them move into the new world. The key point and largest point of contention in this move is the city of Kirkuk. Many people claim to be the true majority in Kirkuk making it their city, yet the true diversity of Kirkuk makes it very hard to declare who the majority is.

Politically this is a sound movement and relies heavily on Iraq not resolving the issue of who owns Kirkuk. Turkey has vested interest on keeping the situation highly unstable and even pushing the Iraqi Central Government to create such a level of hostility with the Kurdish north that this region secedes from Iraq and declares themselves a separate country. At this point Turkey will move in and take over Northern Iraq in a two-fold sweep. The reason they will use is that they were afraid a Kurdish government that close to their border would embolden the Kurdish rebels in their own country and they were acting in the better interest of the Turkmen people that are being abused by the Kurdish regime in this new country. This move would cause concern from the United States but by declaring the Kurdish Government as a state sponsor of terrorism the US cannot condemn Turkish actions. Iran will not condemn Turkish actions because they would be looking to accept their Shia brethren who are living in the southern region of Iraq, and Saudi Arabia will gladly take the Sunni West and Central.

Few countries may have an issue with this division. Syria will find itself surrounded by strong Sunni countries that may threaten their Shia minority rule. Greece already has unresolved border disputes and may feel an emboldened by their new-found power Turkey may focus their new expansion ideas to the west.

When you look at this tactical reasoning and at the current state of politics within Turkey you can easily see why Turkey acts the way it does. Many in the USA look at Turkey’s actions and think they are filled with inconsistencies and erratic actions. Yet when you remember that Turkey has been involved in political intrigue for centuries you can start to see how their politics may be evolved to the point where we can give them the benefit of the doubt; that there is reason behind the madness.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Al Qaeda and the Ashayish?

Recently I had the privilege to read an article by Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis that compared the Kurdish Ashayish to al Qaeda. To me this was a very interesting article because I have always viewed them as diametrically opposed institutions. If you do not know what the Ashayish or al Qaeda is then let me start with that. According to their own website Al-Qaeda's objectives include the end of foreign influence in Muslim countries and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. The name Al-Qaeda quite literally means camp and was created in Afghanistan when the Sunni Muslims were creating training bases for the mujahedeen (holy warriors) to fight against the Russians. These camps were created by the House of Saud and were funded in part by the US State Department (these actions were recently made into a movie called “Charlie Wilson’s War”). The Ashayish are the security forces of the officially recognized Kurdish Regional Government of Iraq. The Ashayish were created as th

Peripheral Visionary

It is never a good idea to type when you are angry. If anyone has read my blog before you will see that many things have been cut out of it lately. There were too many toes being stepped on and to many things being referred too. My emails were long and disjointed and easily taken out of context. So to ensure this does not happen again I will dissect everything I write before I put it on this site. If you are offended by what you read please let me know and I will take that off as well. I do not want to offend anyone. So from now on I will not use names to describe anyone. Everyone I talk about will be given pseudonyms. This will anger some of you because you want to know the names, places, dates – but you will have to settle for the taste, smell, and feel. If you want their real names you will just have to wait for the book.

Definition of Terrorism

Terrorism and Extortion are very similar in action but where they differ the most is with intended results. Extortion : Using violence or the threat of violence to create an environment where actions toward the victim lead to the victim giving the perpetrator(s) something of value . Terrorism : Using violence of the threat of violence to create an environment where actions towards the victim lead to society giving the perpetrator(s) something of value . When defining terrorism it is pertinent to first set what parameters the definition is adhered to. If we took a general definition of terrorism and said that it is simply the act of generating fear to elicit the desired response of the issuer then we can say all governments engage in terrorism to control the activities of their populace. Threat of going to jail unless you meet social norms would fit into this definition of terrorism. The same could be said about having a strong military imposing the will of a country upon another co