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

[Axis Kast]

While I’m positive that most of Turkey’s opposition to the war in Iraq lies upon the basis of (A) not wishing to bring upon itself a potentially bloody – and indeterminable - conflict and (B) a desire to see themselves as fundamentally above the position of “Western (especially American) pawn,” the feeling and falsehoods whose impact this article investigates are nevertheless unfortunate.

Whether or not the (especially liberal) opposition to George Bush accepts it or not, negotiation – via more than mere words – is absolutely key in bringing allies to one’s camp. Negotiations of the sort we are conducting with Ankara, though criticized as bribery, have motivated diplomatic action since the dawn of time. If I require your assistance for a potentially dangerous goal, isn’t it only right that I make it worth your while? Absolutely. Unfortunately, the idealistic among Bush’s detractors insist on putting this into degrading terms, portraying all those who would bargain with the unpopular President as prostitutes to “global imperialism.” Unrealistic and patently ridiculous.

The vote in Turkey would have favored rejection of America’s proposal whether or not this feeling of disgust with Bush’s offer were present. It is interesting to note however that such unrealistic criticisms have been so far-reaching and arguably effective in their effort to undermine Washington’s credibility. How unfortunate given the political realities of our day.

Now will the Turks go on holiday in Kurdistan once we’re finished? Only as much as the Iranians in southern Iraq. And that’s not all that much. Despite initial skirmishes between post-war Iraq and self-interested neighbors, American troops will quickly be in a strong position to block Turkish intervention, discourage Kurdish antagonism, and thwart Iranian gambits.

[Crown]

Point of fact: The power of Turkey has always rested with the military and not the government. Turkey already has a large build up of it's own troops on the wrong side of the border with Iraq. Turkey has demonstrated before it's willingness to 'protect it's interest' and at the same time disregarding the international community.

And personally the fact that a government has chosen to democratically reject a US proposal and has met with such blatant ignorant bashing and raving by the Imerialists really is like the pot calling the kettle black.

[Darth Fanboy]

It isnt so much as Turkey doesn't want war as much as They don't want a Kurdish state to arise in the northern part of Iraq.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Despite what many of you have said, the Turkish army - the second largest in Europe, the largest being Russia's - Is fully capable of opposing the American Army in the field. It is a NATO-spec army with Israeli enhanced equipment. Their airforce includes a large contigent of F-16s and a backbone of Israeli upgraded F-4s. They have two whole Army Corps directly in the region and their tanks - M-60s of the sort the Marines used in the Second Persian Gulf War - have been given upgrade packages by the Israelis as well.

They have just begun to deploy Dutch patriot missile batteries. As a NATO member they could in theory attempt to call upon French and German support against us in the event of a military conflict which we started. The treaty obviously wasn't designed for that but Turkey is a prospective EU member and the results of such a conflict could be quite catastrophic and have unforseen effects.

Short of Israel's nuclear capability, Turkey is the most powerful State in that region - And, moreover, has the most organized army there, again perhaps short of Israel's, or perhaps not. Though they have not faced organized combat since the 20s they have been victorious in a very long and tough guerilla war against the Kurdish Socialist Front. Their military is a secular, totally western force in the legacy of Mustafa Kemal and the training is wholly on par with any other European force and potentially better; Turkey doesn't skimp on defence.

Obviously the USA couldn't lose to the Turkish Republic, but a conflict over Kurdistan would likely involve more powers than Turkey. The Turks, for instance, already have troops inside of Iraqi Kurdistan. I will also point out that Iran also already has troops inside of Iraqi Kurdistan. They've begun deploying troops there recently - In the North, unusually, not the south, where their main contacts are - Which is quite mercenary of them, but a correct evaluation of where the main U.S. thrust will come from and hence that they can't do anything in the south. The Syrians are already massing on their border with Iraq, though I doubt the Syrians would get involved unless dragged into it.

Now, even with all of this said, Kast is likely right. We will likely be able to secure the country before anyone can make an outright claim in Kurdistan. The lack of Turkish cooperation makes this less certain, however, and makes me nervous.

What would happen if we paradrop guys into the north to interpose themselves between the Iranians and the Turks and the Kurds to keep this from going down? What if someone starts shooting without realizing who's who?

It's a very ugly situation, because even though even in the worst case cooler heads are likely to prevail, there is a possibility that something stupid will be done and compound its self. And then we'll have a real regional war. Maybe more sides than two.

[Darth Wong]

The neighbouring nations are like vultures poised to feed on Iraq's carcass. They've always been this way; they leapt in to fight Israel in the past not to help the Palestinians, but to defend and promote their own self-interest. None of the major Arab national leaders or political figures have ever given a shit about the Palestinians except from a standpoint of pure symbolism.

Blame the Europeans. The Israel/Palestine situation and the Kurdish situation are both the detritus of 19th century European colonialism, when the "Great Powers" sat down and drew lines on maps to decide where the nations were. The Palestinians were promised land that was simultaneously promised to the Israelis, and the Kurds were completely forgotten when drawing up the borders so they ended up becoming unwanted racial minorities in numerous bordering nations. In both cases, the stupidity of 19th century Europe is basically the root cause of a lot of these persistent problems. Saddam is merely the most violent oppressor of Kurds in the region; he is by no means the only one.

[MKSheppard]

They have two whole Army Corps directly in the region and their tanks - M-60s of the sort the Marines used in the Second Persian Gulf War - have been given upgrade packages by the Israelis as well.

Wow, you're sending modernized 50s technology against Chobham armor and
depleted uranium armored M1A2s?

And here's the key fucking rub: Turkey has not had a modern war in
it's history. Just a nasty insurgency that the Russians could handle in
their sleep.

For all we know, their military is as syphilitic and inbred as the rest
of the middle east. They might have the cash to buy the equipment,
but not the personnel to actually USE it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Wow, you're sending modernized 50s technology against Chobham armor and
depleted uranium armored M1A2s?

That's hardly as outdated as you say, especially considering the kind of modernizations the Israelis can do. I don't think a war is that remotely likely, however, though this collapse in negotiations has raised some disturbing possibilities.

And here's the key fucking rub: Turkey has not had a modern war in
it's history. Just a nasty insurgency that the Russians could handle in
their sleep.

Like Chechnya?

For all we know, their military is as syphilitic and inbred as the rest
of the middle east. They might have the cash to buy the equipment,
but not the personnel to actually USE it.

No, it isn't. They're a democracy, on the western style, and far better organized and motivated than any Arab Despotism.

[MKSheppard]

That's hardly as outdated as you say, especially considering the kind of modernizations the Israelis can do.

For a M-60 to have any resistance at ALL to modern APDFS rounds, you
gotta have ERA, and ERA is well...not very useful once your tank
has been hit on the frontal glacis repeatedly.

Like Chechnya?

Chechenya's pacified. All organized resistance is pretty much over, and only a few bandits are left.

No, it isn't. They're a democracy, on the western style, and far better organized and motivated than any Arab Despotism.

There are lots of democratic militaries that are nothing more than
well-paying jobs for the political elite, most of South America comes
to mind...

[Dahak]

Like Chechnya?

Chechenya's pacified. All organized resistance is pretty much over, and only a few bandits are left.

Oh! Then go tell those poor uninformed Russians. They seem to have overseen that little fact... </sarcasm>

No, it isn't. They're a democracy, on the western style, and far better organized and motivated than any Arab Despotism.

There are lots of democratic militaries that are nothing more than
well-paying jobs for the political elite, most of South America comes
to mind...

You don't know Turkey, do you?
They are *not* your typical arab nation. They're a rabid-secularist state.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

It's a very ugly situation, because even though even in the worst case cooler heads are likely to prevail, there is a possibility that something stupid will be done and compound its self. And then we'll have a real regional war. Maybe more sides than two.

Yep, When lots of different armies manouvour, accidents can happen. US forces better be fucking carefull about what they shoot at if these nations want to play vulture.

[MKSheppard]

Oh! Then go tell those poor uninformed Russians. They seem to have overseen that little fact... </sarcasm>

You missed my point - ORGANIZED resistance.

You don't know Turkey, do you?
They are *not* your typical arab nation. They're a rabid-secularist state.

Yeah right. Same way Egypt is a rabid secularist state. The Army is the
only thing keeping both from going Fundie Islamist.

[Stuart Mackey]

Oh! Then go tell those poor uninformed Russians. They seem to have overseen that little fact... </sarcasm>

You missed my point - ORGANIZED resistance.

Sure chechnya may be pasified to an extent, but it was like another Afganistan for the Russians, there millitary is screwed up even more since befor that conflict.
My flattie met a russian general who was over here a while ago, he recons that the russian army can defend russia only with nukes now, if that. No fuel, few spare parts, little proper training, pay is bad and the food is worse.

[Vympel]

Despite what many of you have said, the Turkish army - the second largest in Europe, the largest being Russia's - Is fully capable of opposing the American Army in the field. It is a NATO-spec army with Israeli enhanced equipment.

No, they're trying to get Israeli enhanced equipment, which isn't helped because in defence buys Turkey's eyes are always bigger than it's budget. It's tank force is relegated to M48 and M60 Patton tanks, and a lot of non-functional Leopard 1 tanks (Germany won't provide the spares for them).

That's hardly as outdated as you say, especially considering the kind of modernizations the Israelis can do. I don't think a war is that remotely likely, however, though this collapse in negotiations has raised some disturbing possibilities.

Israel hasn't touched Turkey's tanks, to my knowledge. And even an Israeli Sabra tank is no match for an M1.

Their airforce includes a large contigent of F-16s and a backbone of Israeli upgraded F-4s.

Nice, but incapable of defeating any American airpower worth a damn. It's not just the aircraft, it's the entire aircraft command and control system.

They have two whole Army Corps directly in the region and their tanks - M-60s of the sort the Marines used in the Second Persian Gulf War - have been given upgrade packages by the Israelis as well.

Incapable of penetrating the armor of any curret M1 variant, with inferior design, armor, fire control, speed, etc.

They have just begun to deploy Dutch patriot missile batteries. As a NATO member they could in theory attempt to call upon French and German support against us in the event of a military conflict which we started. The treaty obviously wasn't designed for that but Turkey is a prospective EU member and the results of such a conflict could be quite catastrophic and have unforseen effects.

I don't even want to think whether Patriot missile batteries can even be used against American aircraft.

Short of Israel's nuclear capability, Turkey is the most powerful State in that region - And, moreover, has the most organized army there, again perhaps short of Israel's, or perhaps not. Though they have not faced organized combat since the 20s they have been victorious in a very long and tough guerilla war against the Kurdish Socialist Front. Their military is a secular, totally western force in the legacy of Mustafa Kemal and the training is wholly on par with any other European force and potentially better; Turkey doesn't skimp on defence.

Not true, Turkey routinely skimps on defence. Turkey's major weapons buys have over the past few years been cut cut back to a mere fraction of their original order.

Obviously the USA couldn't lose to the Turkish Republic, but a conflict over Kurdistan would likely involve more powers than Turkey. The Turks, for instance, already have troops inside of Iraqi Kurdistan. I will also point out that Iran also already has troops inside of Iraqi Kurdistan. They've begun deploying troops there recently - In the North, unusually, not the south, where their main contacts are - Which is quite mercenary of them, but a correct evaluation of where the main U.S. thrust will come from and hence that they can't do anything in the south. The Syrians are already massing on their border with Iraq, though I doubt the Syrians would get involved unless dragged into it.

Of course the US wouldn't lose, but really- the Turks would be routed in a matter of weeks.

Oh! Then go tell those poor uninformed Russians. They seem to have overseen that little fact...

Actually Shep is correct- organized resistance was thoroughly smashed in 'Round Two'. Many of the major leaders are dead (including the infamous Khattab, asssassinated in an KGB whoops I mean FSB operation) and there have been no stand up fights in recent memory. As for bombings and ambushes, that's a different story.

[Dahak]

Yeah right. Same way Egypt is a rabid secularist state. The Army is the
only thing keeping both from going Fundie Islamist.

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.

[MKSheppard]

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...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yep, When lots of different armies manouvour, accidents can happen. US forces better be fucking carefull about what they shoot at if these nations want to play vulture.

Oh, we can win a war against even a combination of Turkey, Syria, and Iran - And, honestly, though a dustup with Turkey would be a stupid and pointless thing, I wouldn't mind fighting Iran and Syria, as I suspect an Iranian attempt to grab Northern Iraq which sends Iranians home in body bags in large numbers (as long as we don't follow it up by invading Iran, which would be a massively stupid waste of resources and the popular support we have there) would be the end of the Ayatollahs. They're hardly popular now - An offensive war of territorial acquisition which ends in bloody defeat, now, what would that do to them?

As for Syria, the regime is more stable, and the idea of a nice open road to Damascus from Iraq while the Israelis regain their honour in Lebanon seems quite appealing. Then we could occupy Syria and reconstruct it just like Iraq. Likewise, with the northern frontier stabilized Israel would have less of an excuse with their current social organization in the long run.

The problems with that kind of conflict are of course equal to the advantages.

1. If both Iran and Syria are involved than Turkey is probably involved, too. If we were to end up fighting Turkey this would be a disaster. Short of Israel, Turkey has the best equipped military in the region - Some of the Arab powers play around with M1-A1s but they cannot maintain them properly, nevermind the air force - the largest military in the region with a potential full call-up, and the strongest national ideology.

They are a NATO ally, and so fighting them would probably destroy NATO - I doubt Germany and France would literally side with them but the division would undoubtably be fatal in that respect - And quite possibly there might be a fatal division in the EU as well, since British troops would be in on this too.

So we would have this major regional conflict on our hands with no purpose except, well... Protecting the territorial integrity of a country we just conquered. How far would that mandate be exceeded in each case? How far could it be exceeded? Hard to think upon, and it would probably be dictated by events.

3. Our current host-nations might be rather less willing to support us. Kuwait, at best, might avoid ejecting us. Of course, they'd have little choice with the Iranians right next door and not making distinctions. We could just seize Bahrain for that matter if we needed the facilities, but that isn't going to endear us to anyone. Basing will be very problematic and we'll be fighting from a country we just conquered, surrounded by enemies.

4. Straits of Hormuz. We may have supply problems for at least a short time until we deal with the Iranian Navy, which is a credible littoral threat. Not against the concentration of force we have in the region, but that's a tight area, and mines are mines. Supply problems are dangerous against the numbers potentially to be faced.

5. Who's side will the Kurds be on, anyway? That's problematic. We may go in to protect them but end up fighting them depending on what happens in this thing. Hopefully not, but application in our foreign policy has not necessarily been stellar, and their territory will be the battleground for a major conflict.

6. Just how confused will this be? Weird things could happen. Iran and Turkey might be fighting each other in addition to us. The Kurds might be fighting everyone. Who knows; we could end up with the Syrians as allies despite the fact it would be nice to occupy their country. That's one of the dangers.

7. This will be a real war - especially if Turkey is involved - and though the forces for the conquest of Iraq are also sufficient to defend it against even a simultaneous attack by the armies of the powers in question in almost all cases (combined with sufficient airpower and preferably Israeli operations in Lebanon and perhaps even a demonstration against Damascus from the Golan - I think we'd want our money's worth in a situation like this), casualties would not be like that of the Second Gulf War.

Would the American people accept this? I suspect so. The Syrian regime is like the Iraqi one, albeit more cunning; unprovoked attack from it would not be well-received (which is what such a conflict would be likely perceived as). Another chance to go at it with the Ayatollahs might be welcomed. Perceived backstabbing by an ally would meet with popular indignation.

In all cases, however, economic strain from a full callup would have to be factored in as well, since relief of the forces in the region to meet the requirements of victory would be necessity. Depending on what they are, a popular call for volunteers or the draft might even be required to end this thing - the later, though, only seems likely if the DPRK salivated a bit too much and got stupid while it was going on.

To conclude, none of this is very likely at all. Even conflict with one of these countries is very unlikely. However, possibilities do exist. They exist now in greater measure, and with an additional nation, than before. That makes the lack of a second front worrying, and these worst-case scenario considerations are not entirely out of mind. A single country is somewhat more likely, if still unlikely; chaos and resistance in northern Iraq much moreso.

[MKSheppard]

4. Straits of Hormuz. We may have supply problems for at least a short time until we deal with the Iranian Navy, which is a credible littoral threat.

Credible?

Last time they were fucking around in the 80s, we sent some DDGs and CGs
down there and sank literally half the Iranian navy in a few days.

The greater threat is their Anti-Ship missile batteries, which can move and
can be more easily concealed than the burning hulk of a patrol boat

[Crown]

7. This will be a real war - especially if Turkey is involved - and though the forces for the conquest of Iraq are also sufficient to defend it against even a simultaneous attack by the armies of the powers in question in almost all cases (combined with sufficient airpower and preferably Israeli operations in Lebanon and perhaps even a demonstration against Damascus from the Golan - I think we'd want our money's worth in a situation like this), casualties would not be like that of the Second Gulf War.

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?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

IMI To Sign Historic, Highest Revenue Contract To Modernize Turkish Tanks
News from IMI

Israel Military Industries will be signing it's most profitable contract to date with an agreement to upgrade the Turkish Army's M-60 tanks for $688 million. The full deal is worth an estimated $2 billion. Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit announced Friday that Turkey has decided to accept Israel's bid. He said, "We took future projects into account. We chose the Israeli proposal mainly due to the low price of the upgrade package, but also because of the short implementation and delivery timetable." The Turkish government statement said that 170 M-60 A1 tanks would be upgraded in the first stage. Turkey operates 900 M-60s, and unofficial Turkish sources said the upgrade of all the tanks could total up to $7 billion. The upgrade will be carried out by a consortium headed by IMI, together with El-Op Electro-Optics Industries, Tadiran, Urdan Industries, Ashot Ashkelon Industries and Optronics.

I think that was in 2001, though I'm not sure - It was a search archive I dragged it off and didn't have the original date.

[Rubberanvil]

So in effect, turkey really is a military dictatorship?

The choice is either them or the fundies ruling the place.

[Vympel]

1. If both Iran and Syria are involved than Turkey is probably involved, too. If we were to end up fighting Turkey this would be a disaster. Short of Israel, Turkey has the best equipped military in the region - Some of the Arab powers play around with M1-A1s but they cannot maintain them properly, nevermind the air force - the largest military in the region with a potential full call-up, and the strongest national ideology.

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.

[Crown]

4. Straits of Hormuz. We may have supply problems for at least a short time until we deal with the Iranian Navy, which is a credible littoral threat.

Credible?

Last time they were fucking around in the 80s, we sent some DDGs and CGs
down there and sank literally half the Iranian navy in a few days.

The greater threat is their Anti-Ship missile batteries, which can move and
can be more easily concealed than the burning hulk of a patrol boat

Shep you aren't paying attention to what the Duchess is saying, the USS Samuel B Roberts struck a $1,500 mine in the Persian Gulf that caused $96 million damage (ref Janes), the Duchess was clearly talking about that hazard...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

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.

[Stuart Mackey]

Yep, When lots of different armies manouvour, accidents can happen. US forces better be fucking carefull about what they shoot at if these nations want to play vulture.

To conclude, none of this is very likely at all. Even conflict with one of these countries is very unlikely. However, possibilities do exist. They exist now in greater measure, and with an additional nation, than before. That makes the lack of a second front worrying, and these worst-case scenario considerations are not entirely out of mind. A single country is somewhat more likely, if still unlikely; chaos and resistance in northern Iraq much moreso.

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.
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.

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.

[Vympel]

I think that was in 2001, though I'm not sure - It was a search archive I dragged it off and didn't have the original date.

I remember hearign that too- running some checks I dug this up

http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... index.html

For now, 170 tanks like the article said are probably being upgraded. The problem is that's a tiny fraction of the total force.