The US, The UN and Iraq

Now, there is absolutely no doubt that the CIA is engaged in espionage against U.N. Security Council member-states.That is what they are paid to do, and it would be expected that they are doing it. But the probability of this memo's authenticity requires that Frank Koza, the NSA official who allegedly issued it, not be U.S.-educated, not have his spell-check turned on and not know the difference between the directorates of operations and intelligence. That could be, but it is more likely that The Observer either created, purchased or was slipped a forged document. It would be fascinating if The Observer told its readers where this document came from. The newspaper can be assured that it would not be compromising operations in an intelligence agency -- at least not in an American intelligence agency.

Tres, I'd someone as studied as you are about semantic precision would not put words in another's mouth. No, I didn't say you were a "bad person" - I'd be insane to think I could glean enough just from this forum to know or judge same.

I said you were needlessly cynical in your responses for no obvious reason besides insult. It's my opinion, and I'm sure you don't share it. But ain't that what makes America great?

btw Gulf war 2 (or 1b if you prefer) war kicked off yesterday with American and British aircraft attacking Iraqi surface to surface missile installations. Seems war by escalation rather than declaration is a neat way of circumventing all the legalistic embarrassment at the UN.

Background / Turkish refusal won't stop U.S.
By Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz Correspondent

If the Turkish parliament maintains its refusal to allow American troops in the country, the decision would present difficulties for the American war plan but wouldn't significantly affect the main front, which is expected to take place around Baghdad. However, continued Turkish refusal could ultimately make the Iraqi war longer and bloodier.

The dispute in Turkey over whether to allow American troops into the country in preparation for the anticipated war in Iraq is not over yet. Turkish military leaders, who support close military cooperation with the United States, haven't become involved with the political debate and have barely made their voices heard.

It seems likely that the new Turkish government - under the leadership of the Islamist Justice and Development Party - lacks experience in conducting detailed international negotiations with a world power. On the other hand, the process that took place in the Turkish parliament was conducted in a democratic fashion and was based on the position of the large portion of the Turkish public that opposes the war in Iraq. This opposition stems at least partly from the feeling that Turkey is being called on to join a "Christian coalition" in a war against a Muslim nation, and moreover, a nation whose ruler, Saddam Hussein, is considered dangerous.

Talks between Washington and Ankara have been going on for several weeks already. In the beginning, it seemed like a "Turkish bazaar": financial negotiations in which the Turks wanted to get most of the aid they requested from Washington in exchange for granting permission to allow about 62,000 troops and about 250 warplanes and several fighter helicopters on their territory. The military leaders' silence was considered, therefore, a tactical exercise meant to allow the diplomatic establishment to get as much money as it could. The West figured that at some point the government, and then the parliament, would approve the American request.

But as time passed, it became clear that Turkish agreement was not merely a matter of money. Turkey suspects that the sovereignty vacuum that already exists in northern Iraq would be completed with the existence of a diplomatic Kurdish entity. Turkey thinks that such an entity - even if it's not an independent Kurdish nation - would negatively influence the Kurdish minority in Turkey.

The Washington and London governments tried to calm Ankara by issuing a declaration that they completely support Iraq's sovereignty. But then there was also the problem of the Turkmenistan minority that lives mostly in an oil-rich city in northern Iraq and speaks Turkish. Ankara is concerned that the Kurds could harm the Turkmenistan minority under the cover of the Iraqi war.

Turkey also remembers the 1991 Gulf War, which seriously hurt its economic standing. That's why its leaders now want enough insurance to keep such a situation from repeating itself or want America to cover the damages. But in Ankara, and especially within the military, people understand that Turkey also faces serious danger if it maintains its refusal to allow troops on its territory.

Continued refusal will cause Turkey to suffer both direct and indirect financial damage. Turkey is also likely to lose a significant portion of its influence over what happens in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.

Washington has said that even if the Turks maintain their refusal, the Pentagon will find other ways to wage war in Iraq. Turkey, which borders Iraq, is geographically important, but not on the same level as Pakistan was in the American war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. American forces can infiltrate Iraq from places other than Turkey, and experts predict that the main campaign will be conducted around Baghdad in any case.

On the other hand, if Turkish opposition to America's request leads the U.S. to call off a northern front attack that it intended to open from Turkey, Iraq will be able to deploy more forces to the Baghdad area. Such a process could lengthen the war and cause heavier losses. Haaretz article

A democratically elected parliament blocked U.S. troops from deploying in Turkey.

Perhaps, the US shouldn't bring democracy to other states.

Surely, there must be a name for "Bush only considers it democatic when he controls all branches of government~"