This was the reason Turkey told the US to forget it?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Turkey can't maintain it's tanks right now, never mind the other countries. I haven't heard of Egypt or Saudi Arabia having problems with their M1A1s, but 60-85% of Turkey's Leopard force is out of action due to lack of spares (as I mentioned before) and any dust-up with Turkey would quickly see Turkey's spare parts for it's obsolescent Pattons dry up- which would mean it'd have to cannibalize it's own force to keep them fighting.

An Arab force might be able to maintain its AFVs in planned manoeuvres and peacetime, but they'd go to hell once they got into combat. It's a cultural problem relating to army organization. They keep their spare parts and tools at higher levels than they should organizationally, and for prestige reasons most of the knowledge on how to use them is concentrated - In some cases among those who's attitude would be that it's uncouth for them to do serious physical labour.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think that America would probably crush these nations ina direct fight, but I am not sure that they would give you that oppertunity, besides, you are at the end of a long supply chain, and you would not be able to occupy such a huge area. Lion vs a pack of Hyena's is what you would end up with. NATO would facture and Britian would not get involved I think.

Britain would be involved because there'd be British troops there when it went down. They'd have no choice but to be involved. Same thing with Australia, Czech Republic, etc.

As to American public support? I dont think so, a large chunk of your population is not overly enmoured with war on Iraq, let aloine anything else.

A large part of the U.S. population is opposed to the war in Iraq because of the way the polls are worded. That is to say, they're opposed outright because Bush has delayed so long. His popularity dropped the longer he waited. You must remember the Jacksonian faction in American politics - The "Silent Majority". The people who wanted escalation in Vietnam, and wouldn't have minded nuking Afghanistan, at least on 9/12 (Bluntly, on 9/12, I was one of them, albeit not on 9/13).

Bush is losing popularity because he's going through the UN - long mistrusted in the USA - and not acting decisively. Decisive action is loved in democracies and espcially in the USA, and failure to act swiftly and unilaterally has seen us mired down in a long and uncertain process which has left people confused, uncertain, and annoyed. That's the reason for Bush's drop in popularity, and it will continue the longer he waits. Once he goes in, if the war is short and decisive, his popularity will of course soar - for the same reasons it is falling now. Even a major regional conflict with heavy casualties would be acceptable to this bloc, as long as the conflict was concluded with a clear victory and in an amount of time that seemed appropriate for it, and had been filled with genuine victories as that time had progressed.

As you point out its pretty unlikly, most probable is a few acidental shots here and there, much recrimination, bitching and then get on with life.

If shots are exchanged, I worry it will spiral. I think shots won't be exchanged at all. If they are, we could have trouble. Or perhaps not. It depends on the level of the exchange. If things are handled quickly, even a battalion-level incident might not result in a war. If they aren't.... Well, we know what could happen. My biggest concern there is Iran, as we do not have the contacts with the Iranian government that we do with the Turkish government, or even the Syrian government. With Iranian troops already inside northern Iraq, that does seem the greatest potential concern.

[MKSheppard]

An Arab force might be able to maintain its AFVs in planned manoeuvres and peacetime, but they'd go to hell once they got into combat. It's a cultural problem relating to army organization. They keep their spare parts and tools at higher levels than they should organizationally, and for prestige reasons most of the knowledge on how to use them is concentrated - In some cases among those who's attitude would be that it's uncouth for them to do serious physical labour.

Wow, so after all your flowery wording about how the Turkish army
is a "western army" full of "democracy", it turns out that they're like
every other damn Arab army in that pisshole?

[Crown]

Not that I disagree, but during the first Gulf War, wasn't the aim of the US to keep Israel as far out of the war as possible? Their main fear being that if Israel did indeed join, then the US's 'hosts' would most likely pull out the welcome mat?

If something like this went down the rules would be different.

True, but I hardly think the US would still 'want' Israel to come running in, it would be like a 4 front war, not to mention that their bases in 'friendly' muslim coutries would be comprimised almos immediately.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

An Arab force might be able to maintain its AFVs in planned manoeuvres and peacetime, but they'd go to hell once they got into combat. It's a cultural problem relating to army organization. They keep their spare parts and tools at higher levels than they should organizationally, and for prestige reasons most of the knowledge on how to use them is concentrated - In some cases among those who's attitude would be that it's uncouth for them to do serious physical labour.

Wow, so after all your flowery wording about how the Turkish army
is a "western army" full of "democracy", it turns out that they're like
every other damn Arab army in that pisshole?

No, by stating that I was meaning to imply that the case is precisely the opposite in the Turkish Army. However, Vympel is correct that spare mights would simply not be available due to blockade/state of hostilities, which is an entirely different sort of deprivation.

[Stuart Mackey]

I think that America would probably crush these nations ina direct fight, but I am not sure that they would give you that oppertunity, besides, you are at the end of a long supply chain, and you would not be able to occupy such a huge area. Lion vs a pack of Hyena's is what you would end up with. NATO would facture and Britian would not get involved I think.

Britain would be involved because there'd be British troops there when it went down. They'd have no choice but to be involved. Same thing with Australia, Czech Republic, etc.

If their respective governments do not want to be involved in a wider conflict such as described, they will pull out, these are other nations armies and they follow the orders of their respective governments. They pack up and go home after they announce they are not going to be involved.

As to American public support? I dont think so, a large chunk of your population is not overly enmoured with war on Iraq, let aloine anything else.

A large part of the U.S. population is opposed to the war in Iraq because of the way the polls are worded. That is to say, they're opposed outright because Bush has delayed so long. His popularity dropped the longer he waited. You must remember the Jacksonian faction in American politics - The "Silent Majority". The people who wanted escalation in Vietnam, and wouldn't have minded nuking Afghanistan, at least on 9/12 (Bluntly, on 9/12, I was one of them, albeit not on 9/13).

Dont underestimate people, if they are opposed to a war its quite likly that they are genuinly opposed. Just becuase it does not nessarly agree with your POV, doe snot mean its worded wrong.

Bush is losing popularity because he's going through the UN - long mistrusted in the USA - and not acting decisively. Decisive action is loved in democracies and espcially in the USA, and failure to act swiftly and unilaterally has seen us mired down in a long and uncertain process which has left people confused, uncertain, and annoyed. That's the reason for Bush's drop in popularity, and it will continue the longer he waits. Once he goes in, if the war is short and decisive, his popularity will of course soar - for the same reasons it is falling now. Even a major regional conflict with heavy casualties would be acceptable to this bloc, as long as the conflict was concluded with a clear victory and in an amount of time that seemed appropriate for it, and had been filled with genuine victories as that time had progressed.

Hang on, are you saying that people dont like a war because the UN does not want a war? I think that if you get a long bloody war, one that stuffs the economy of more than yhalf the planet including the US, Bush will get very unpopular as will his war.

As you point out its pretty unlikly, most probable is a few acidental shots here and there, much recrimination, bitching and then get on with life.

If shots are exchanged, I worry it will spiral. I think shots won't be exchanged at all. If they are, we could have trouble. Or perhaps not. It depends on the level of the exchange. If things are handled quickly, even a battalion-level incident might not result in a war. If they aren't.... Well, we know what could happen. My biggest concern there is Iran, as we do not have the contacts with the Iranian government that we do with the Turkish government, or even the Syrian government. With Iranian troops already inside northern Iraq, that does seem the greatest potential concern.

I wouldnt worrry too much, your fighter jocks ability to distinguish targets is the biggest worry here, but strict air corridors of action should solve this isse, just a management and planing problem. I dont think that any nation in this senario wants to buy a fight with anyone, the repercussions are far to serious for everyone, including the US.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If their respective governments do not want to be involved in a wider conflict such as described, they will pull out, these are other nations armies and they follow the orders of their respective governments. They pack up and go home after they announce they are not going to be involved.

It's rather hard to pull out of a conflict when your troops are heavily engaged, outnumbered ten-to-one, and if they try and pack up and head home, are rather liable to get a bit shot up. Not to mention expose your ally's flank..

Hang on, are you saying that people dont like a war because the UN does not want a war? I think that if you get a long bloody war, one that stuffs the economy of more than yhalf the planet including the US, Bush will get very unpopular as will his war.

No, I'm saying they want a war, but they wanted it quickly and decisively and unilaterally if necessary (it wouldn't have been, of course; we would have had allies once we started to move), and their opposition is to the way Bush is going about this war, not the idea of this war its self.


As for the conclusion, I have said it is unlikely - the most extreme of probabilities. It is just that it has been made something that has to be considered by the Turkish action. Abruptly there are three States instead of two, not firmly locked to our action and with forces and interests around Kurdistan, and two with troops already inside of it - And our stated goal is to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq.

That is a situation where a potential for conflict exists, and that is my concern. Certainly any opposition is likely to take a lesser form and if contact between our troops occurs it is unlikely to see any escalation, surely not to that height. But it is possible, rather moreso than before.

The other concern, of course, is that without the quick establishment of control in the north we'll see internal disorder there which will hamper the rather necessarily delegate effort at establishing democracy in Iraq. Troops can be sent in via airlift, but that brings with it a unique set of problems, naturally.

None of our goals are unachievable because of this, and certainly even a major regional war could have tremendous benefits - But an element of uncertainty now that exists that was greater than it was before. (and would certainly be many, many times vastly greater still were some of these circumstances to be realized).

The next dozen weeks will be very interesting times...

[Axis Kast]

I wouldn’t favor an invasion and subsequent occupation of Syria for up to five years after Iraq. And that’s assuming our troops are no longer necessary to maintain order in Afghanistan. Not only is Syria best contained via a series of economic threats and limited diplomatic footwork, but the potential for our war with Damascus to explode into a wider conflict involving the Israelis – as well as a hostile Arab world (which could erase gains, through its ire, in Iraq to that time) – is simply too great.

And while I understand, Marina, that your outline of conflict with the Turks is on the low end of the probability table, I seriously doubt whether Ankara would risk war with the United States over Kurdistan. As has been pointed out, the Turkish military is a largely paper giant with only limited ability to sustain long-term operation in the field. From bases in Bulgaria, Italy, and even from Mediterranean carrier groups themselves, Turkey would fall under constant bombardment. Its airfields would be systematically pounded and its air force destroyed almost entirely within the early days of the war. Their F-16s are by no means as advanced as our F-18s, nor are their pilots nearly as well-trained and professional. We’re also talking about a nation likely to be placated anyway even if they don’t become involved at all. The likelihood of an independent Kurdistan rather than a semi-autonomous zone within the bounds of Iraq itself is almost nil. Despite our promises to the Kurds – and the potential for their future retaliation against localized peacekeeping troops -, an independent Kurdistan just doesn’t seem to be in the cards. It’s too great an affront and potential flashpoint for Turkey, still among our most important allies in the region.

Iran is also moot. Their troops will hardly be able to frustrate our own operations in Iraq on any appreciable level. We’re looking at their obligatory commitment of troops for the purpose of instigating the Shi’a, not a true warplan. Not that a handful of old T-72s could really disturb our forces all that much anyway. They are nothing more than slow-moving targets.

[Dahak]

But, *gasp*, that's what they designed their army's position in the constitution for in the first place. To be the guardian of democracy.

So in effect, turkey really is a military dictatorship?

Wow, I can see why Duchess has a hard-on for them...

They are no military dictatorship.
They are a fully functional democracy. But the army is the safeguard of this democracy. As long as the governments are secularist, everythings fine.
But ass soon as a government would go against that, and Attatürks heritage, they'd stomp them.

[MKSheppard]

They are a fully functional democracy. But the army is the safeguard of this democracy. As long as the governments are secularist, everythings fine.
But ass soon as a government would go against that, and Attatürks heritage, they'd stomp them.

Wow, so they ARE a military dictatorship.......do what the Army wants,
or you're shot and hung from a lamppost...

[Colonel Olrik]

They are a fully functional democracy. But the army is the safeguard of this democracy. As long as the governments are secularist, everythings fine.
But ass soon as a government would go against that, and Attatürks heritage, they'd stomp them.

Wow, so they ARE a military dictatorship.......do what the Army wants,
or you're shot and hung from a lamppost...

In the same sense that the U.S army would probably be considered as a safeguard to extremist rises in power..

Anyway, that's one of the reasons the E.U doesn't consider they have reached the democratic standards required for adhering. The military still has a too large influence in the society, and we don't want a potentially explosive situation within our borders.

[MKSheppard]

In the same sense that the U.S army would probably be considered as a safeguard to extremist rises in power..

Actually, the US Army would just do nothing and say "yessir" if a socialist
president came to power.

[phongn]

AFAIK, Turkey's military meddles in government affairs in only one thing: religion. They run under the assumption that if a religious government (read, Islamic, which runs the risk of sheriat law being imposed) is put into power it'll completely destroy whatever democracy Turkey has.

[HemlockGrey]

I don't think we have much to worry about with Syria. If they try to enroach on a US-occupied Iran, not only will they get bombed to hell, it'll give the Israelis an excuse to spank them around a bit. Given Syria is currently 0-3 against Israel, I doubt they wish to take the chance.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

AFAIK, Turkey's military meddles in government affairs in only one thing: religion. They run under the assumption that if a religious government (read, Islamic, which runs the risk of sheriat law being imposed) is put into power it'll completely destroy whatever democracy Turkey has.

That's correct. The army will never relinquish its constitutional role, because the army has always been the most secular and progressive force in Turkish society, and is needed to smack down any conservative government that tries to go a bit too far. If the EU is unhappy with that, well... I suppose the EU just can't deal with the fact that constitutions are written to deal with internal standards in countries as they exist, not some perfect ideal.

[Dahak]

AFAIK, Turkey's military meddles in government affairs in only one thing: religion. They run under the assumption that if a religious government (read, Islamic, which runs the risk of sheriat law being imposed) is put into power it'll completely destroy whatever democracy Turkey has.

That's correct. The army will never relinquish its constitutional role, because the army has always been the most secular and progressive force in Turkish society, and is needed to smack down any conservative government that tries to go a bit too far. If the EU is unhappy with that, well... I suppose the EU just can't deal with the fact that constitutions are written to deal with internal standards in countries as they exist, not some perfect ideal.

Better this, than to have an islamic fundie group taking over...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I wouldn’t favor an invasion and subsequent occupation of Syria for up to five years after Iraq. And that’s assuming our troops are no longer necessary to maintain order in Afghanistan. Not only is Syria best contained via a series of economic threats and limited diplomatic footwork, but the potential for our war with Damascus to explode into a wider conflict involving the Israelis – as well as a hostile Arab world (which could erase gains, through its ire, in Iraq to that time) – is simply too great.

Understandable, but though I expect the Iranian regime to collapse quite soon after we institute democracy in Iraq, I suspect the levantine states will be able to maintain their hold on power, and democracy will have to be spread by force in the Arab world. If that's our goal, realistically, we'll have to deal with Syria, Lebanon, and Libya (I worry about Libya collapsing into chaos after the death of Qaddafi and leading to instability in Algeria and Tunisia). Egypt can perhaps be pressured into reform, and both Algeria and Tunisia are secular if hardly true democracies and don't need our attention, except we ought provide more support to the Algerians in dealing with the insurrection in the south.

Morocco primarily seems a Spanish problem, and one they can handle on their own. The KSA is a serious short-term and a serious long-term problem - But there's no civil society there, no infrasture, no concepts, to support a democracy. You can't imprint democracy on a medieval society, and so conquering and restructuring the KSA would be pointless - Nevermind that we'd need to use Muslim troops for any attack and/or occupation of the Hejaz. In the long term the best solution for the KSA would be attacking it and annexing the vital regions to the surrounding states which are our allies, I would think - Giving Jordan the Hejaz, and leaving the Najd rump state to go to hell, since it wouldn't have the resources to do the kind of harm the current KSA is by funding terrorists.

It’s too great an affront and potential flashpoint for Turkey, still among our most important allies in the region.

Which is partly why I was bringing this up, as a demonstration of how far things could go to the gung-ho "create Kurdistan" crowd who has no conceptualization of what we're dealing with in the region.

Iran is also moot. Their troops will hardly be able to frustrate our own operations in Iraq on any appreciable level. We’re looking at their obligatory commitment of troops for the purpose of instigating the Shi’a, not a true warplan. Not that a handful of old T-72s could really disturb our forces all that much anyway. They are nothing more than slow-moving targets.

My concern is that as I understand it the Iranian commitment is in the north - There aren't any Shia to speak of there. I'll have to double-check that source.

On the plus side, the Turks may in fact be reconsidering the issue, now. Even if its late for the deployment we should give them the money - Fixing the arrangement and keeping them happy and locked in with an agreed foreign policy in the region and idea on what the future will look like, or at least a mechanism for how to determine it, is worth it. We'll get the airbases, besides.

(Not to mention that a timely leak of an actual Turkish advance and a deployment of an airborne division could have the same effect as sending in our own heavy forces in terms of splitting Saddam's army.)

[Colonel Olrik]

That's correct. The army will never relinquish its constitutional role, because the army has always been the most secular and progressive force in Turkish society, and is needed to smack down any conservative government that tries to go a bit too far. If the EU is unhappy with that, well... I suppose the EU just can't deal with the fact that constitutions are written to deal with internal standards in countries as they exist, not some perfect ideal.

All the E.U members share a few similarities. Political stability, with govenmnents and a society capable of functioning democratically without being supervised by the army, is one of them. Having a country where the majority is against the E.U future constitution and ideals, and is kept in check by the military, would be a time bomb inside our borders. With Turkey a member, terrorists residing or entering there would have free, immediate access to any E.U city.

The only possibility would be expulsion from the Union, and that would be far worse than not letting them join in the first place.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

All the E.U members share a few similarities. Political stability, with govenmnents and a society capable of functioning democratically without being supervised by the army, is one of them. Having a country where the majority is against the E.U future constitution and ideals, and is kept in check by the military, would be a time bomb inside our borders. With Turkey a member, terrorists residing or entering there would have free, immediate access to any E.U city.

The only possibility would be expulsion from the Union, and that would be far worse than not letting them join in the first place.

The majority of the population isn't against EU ideals so much as the current government was elected due to the massive economic downturn caused by the Second Persian Gulf War. The average Turk is very much a secular individual - Well, by American standards, probably not by European ones.

[Dahak]

Understandable, but though I expect the Iranian regime to collapse quite soon after we institute democracy in Iraq, I suspect the levantine states will be able to maintain their hold on power, and democracy will have to be spread by force in the Arab world. If that's our goal, realistically, we'll have to deal with Syria, Lebanon, and Libya (I worry about Libya collapsing into chaos after the death of Qaddafi and leading to instability in Algeria and Tunisia). Egypt can perhaps be pressured into reform, and both Algeria and Tunisia are secular if hardly true democracies and don't need our attention, except we ought provide more support to the Algerians in dealing with the insurrection in the south.

Whereas you seem to want to install democratic governments in those countries, ironically you resent the fact that when a democratic government makes a decision you don't like or is directed against you.

SInce the Arab nations don't have a democratic tradition at all, I would be very surprised if they'd jump to it...

[Colonel Olrik]

The majority of the population isn't against EU ideals so much as the current government was elected due to the massive economic downturn caused by the Second Persian Gulf War. The average Turk is very much a secular individual - Well, by American standards, probably not by European ones.

Yes, it is true. Turkey is pretty much a secular democracy, and it has been one for decades. I think they belong, and have the right to be, in the E.U, and there are good reasons to let them in. Nonetheless, the potential for disturbances is still there, and that's one argument against them. The military has messed with the government in the last decade, and will do it again if the population votes for a more extremist party. While that's good, it also can bring problems (majority of the population sheltering and aiding terrorists, from Turkey itself or one of the friendly neighbour arab countries, who then have access to Paris or Berlin in a heartbeat).

[Axis Kast]

Understandable, but though I expect the Iranian regime to collapse quite soon after we institute democracy in Iraq, I suspect the levantine states will be able to maintain their hold on power, and democracy will have to be spread by force in the Arab world. If that's our goal, realistically, we'll have to deal with Syria, Lebanon, and Libya (I worry about Libya collapsing into chaos after the death of Qaddafi and leading to instability in Algeria and Tunisia). Egypt can perhaps be pressured into reform, and both Algeria and Tunisia are secular if hardly true democracies and don't need our attention, except we ought provide more support to the Algerians in dealing with the insurrection in the south.

At best, Iran will last up to a decade after the Ba’ath Party’s defeat in Iraq. Although I think Khemeni will be riding high on a wave of popular (and paranoid) acclaim for a time after Saddam’s fall – largely in response to the close proximity of American and later international forces -, he will soon begin to experience the pressures of democratic agitation more fully – especially if reconstruction and peacekeeping in Iraq go according to plan.

Syria and Lebanon are one and the same. Isolate Damascus economically while still taking seemingly non-obtrusive steps diplomatically and we sow the seeds for failure of that régime without ever having to drop a single bomb. I’m not sure whether an invasion of Syria inside ten years is a good idea anyway given the fact that Iraq has now consumed a vast majority of our military assets and the potential for Israeli involvement to set off the Arab world in retaliation is at this time too great.

Libya? I can’t see anything worrisome coming out of Tripoli after al-Qadhafi. Algeria? Tentative engagement is, I suppose, not a terrible suggestion.

Which is partly why I was bringing this up, as a demonstration of how far things could go to the gung-ho "create Kurdistan" crowd who has no conceptualization of what we're dealing with in the region.

I seriously doubt whether we will move so far as to create an independent Kurdistan. Not only would this cause obvious problems with our Turkish allies – valuable whether or not we move down from their bases to create a Northern Front in Iraq. I can see the region as enjoying the most autonomy in a post-war Iraq, potentially with its own utilities, self-contained economy, domestic self-government, and even military capabilities. But no true statehood.

My concern is that as I understand it the Iranian commitment is in the north - There aren't any Shia to speak of there. I'll have to double-check that source.

On the plus side, the Turks may in fact be reconsidering the issue, now. Even if its late for the deployment we should give them the money - Fixing the arrangement and keeping them happy and locked in with an agreed foreign policy in the region and idea on what the future will look like, or at least a mechanism for how to determine it, is worth it. We'll get the airbases, besides.

Again, I doubt whether the Iranians, Turks, or Kurds will be able to do anything more than momentarily distract our forces – and then largely to their own detriment. The Turks will be sent home in embarrassment, the Kurds in tears (and a kick in the backside), and the Iranians in body bags if they get too rough.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't understand Turkey's actions, very well. They're basically screwing themselves in the future.

If the Turks were to allow the Americans to land their troops and use Turkey to open a northern front, the Americans would not only attack Iraq but also protect Turkey. The United States would then be indebted to the Turks. As it is, the Americans will use the Kurds to open a northern Iraqi front. After the war, the Americans will be indebted to the Kurds. When the Kurds eventually have their impending war for independence from Turkey, guess who the Americans will side with.

By allowing American troops to land, the Turks would be securing their position for years to come. As it is, they have allowed a dangerous but containable future revolt to become a major and potentially very dangerous rebellion.