turkey is marching towards war?

I think that the problem lies here, Mikail. The last thing that America wants is a full scale invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan. There is enough chaos in Iraq without the Americans inviting the Turks in to cause some more. Iraqi Kurdistan is probably the most 'peaceful' part of Iraq. Although the US has the PKK on its official list of terrorist groups, it is not prepared to act against them, as Turkey is constantly pressurising them to do because they realise that a war in Kurdistan would send Iraq completely out of control.

This doesn't mean that Turkey won't intervene in Iraq. It has it the past, is probably doing so now, and will certainly do so in the future. The question is how far they can go. The 2003 hood event was an indication that the Americans are only prepared to tolerate so much.

To launch a full scale war agiainst the PKK in Iraqi Kurdistan requires either US agreement, which I don't think is forthcoming, or a policy of confrontation with the US. Whilst it is true that there are certainly those among the Turkish nationalists who fantasise about confrontation with America (witness the popularity of 'Kurtlar Vadisi Irak', and 'Metal fırtına'), I tend to think that the Turkish bourgeoisie is not actually insane enough to be planning a confrontation with the US.

That doesn't mean that confrontation can't arise, and that there are no dangers in the region. I think that the way that it could possibly occur is by the Turks pushing the boarders of what the US will allow beyond the limits. The Turkish bourgeoisie is playing a very dangerous game.

Devrim

i think that terming the army under the category of bourgeosie or likewise the state as merely an instrument of bourgeois rule is methodologically false, but this is not the palce and time to argue about this.

likewise even the concept turkish bourgeosie itself is not very useful, if we want a fruitful analysis. how can you a homogeneous unity among the secular istanbul industrialists with the islamic "anatolian tigers" and fettullahist borugeoisie organised under tuskon? this was not useful in understanding the coup of 1997 and will not help us much today.

"6- Despite the assumed U.S. policy against a turkish intervention against northern ıraq-kurdistan turkish burgeoisie is regrouping the traditional parties of the regime for the next election with top bureoucracy backing them"

the moderate-islamist akp will be again the biggest party in the parliament. nationalist mhp has very nationalist members working in the construction sector in the south kurdistan. can the dp of ex-fascist new-democrat mehmet agar do it? he is pretty much a puppet of american imperialism and favors friendly relations with barzani just like the whole chorus ex-fascist neo-democrats e.g ex-dictator kenan evren, the undersecretary of national security agency etc. the class base of dp was very much against their position at the presidential elections and it seems that the only reason behind their betrayal of akp is that someone convinced them that an islamist president will mean military coup.

what we have is just chp and he is a paper tiger in every standard. even a lot of the people voting for chp do not take the leaders of it seriously.

the funny thing is that nobody wants to carry the "anti-imperialist political responsibilities" of turkish nationalism. in the last three years they heightened the nationalist hysteria with every method they have in their hands, but nobody wants to be responsible for entering into kurdistan. in late april the head of the army said that they think a miliary operation would be beneficial and they will do it, if the head of the government orders. yesterday the head of the government said that they will enter kurdistan, if the army wants it. what? do these people no telephone in their homes to talk with each other?

"U.S. is getting lonelier in middle east. One possible experssion of that mihgt be the arap petrolium producer countries are tending to leave the dollar currency."

which country/ies did it? you know, size is important in these issues. generally i think the us imperialism is dying but he is still very strong in the middle east. and the sunni arabs love usa more than they love the shia arabs.

do you think that the turkish ruling classes will do it despite the us? or why can us allow turkey to this? i dont see any benefits.

by the way the army/"deep-state" has never been as inept as today. even the some of the bourgeois journalists (i'm not mentioning the liberal intellectuals) do not believe that the bomber in ankara was a member of pkk or a left group and they openly say it.

also the islamists are working great in the police force. i want an islamist police union in turkey. i can give my critical support to it since it wil be the stronghold of democracy

Yes, I agree with, Miasnikov

A bit of Maoist phraseology, but undoubtedly true. A lot of people hate who vote CHP hate Baykal. Even if they manage a coalition with the DSP, it won't change the overall result.

The AKP will win the elections, and the CHP will get over 10% to be represented in Parliment. I think it is also possible, but not probable, that the MHP may squeeze in. The centre right parties will be excluded, and go into crisis.

I agree with the anarchist As I said above:

Devrim

From another thread:

Devrim

Again, I agree with Misasnikov. This diplomatic notr means nothing.

Wangwei asks:

As I mentioned before although the US may be against the PKK, thry are not prepeared to sanction full scale war.

Devrim

the problem is: how can usa do it? iraqi kurdistan is the most peaceful place in iraq and would you dare to fight against a very experienced 4 000-strong guerilla army? i'm not mentioning their links in the cities. when in 2003 pkk ended the longest ceasefire it made about 20 bombings in a week in the turkish territory. and their forces were suposed to be withdrawn to the south. i cant imagine what they can do in south kurdistan in the case of an operation against them.

beyond 4 or 5 000 guerillas you have also at least a quarter of the kurds and kurds are not only in southeastern turkey. the biggest kurdish population in the world lives now in istanbul. after the army used chemical weapons against the pkk guerillas the riots in diyarbakır did not end until about 15 people are shot dead. the pkk base in turkey is smaller and more liberal than a decade ago. the al-queda base in iraq is probably very very small, but you dont need many people, if you have the right explosives. recently many pkk suicide bombers are caught and the pkk strategy was not targeting civilians excluding a few exceptions. if they see an army of hunderds thousands crossing the border and marching against them, it would be legitimate for them and the kurds to change their tactics (or more indirectly: turkey intervenes, kurds in the north riot&protest, army kills some, kurds riot more, pkk swore an oath of revenge)

on the other hand pkk is quite useful for usa&barzani: it distracts attention from the foundation of a free kurdistan. it makes barzani and turkey hate each other and therefore rely on the usa (actually iraqi kurds are the perfect ally for turkey for cultural and social reasons, if turkey hadnt made the kurdish question so complicated). also iranian wing of pkk - pjak - is destabilizing the eastern kurdistan probably with the aid of usa.

This is so complicated. Here's a thread recently started.

Posted: Submitted by sphinx on Tue, 05/06/2007 - 04:55.
The potential for a further escalation of the inter-imperialist war in the middle east just stepped up a notch.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=74897

http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=4264

Quote:
Turkish guns ready to advance on Iraqi Kurdish border

Defense Secretary Robert Gates Sunday cautioned Turkey against sending troops into northern Iraq.

A Turkish incursion unheeding of strains with Washington would have two objectives, according to DEBKAfile’s military sources: To prevent the rise of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq and the fall of the oil town of Kirkuk into Kurdish hands. American troops have been hurriedly pulled out of the Kurdish towns of Irbil, Dohuk and Suleimaniyeh, but remain in force in and around Kirkkuk.

Needless to say, with the recent arming of Saudi Arabia with missile defense systems and continual brinkmanship with Iran, the process of Iraqi disintegration seems more unstoppable. Despite the recent movements of left forces on the ground in Iraq and increasing rejection of AQ elements in the provinces, the core of the imperialist conflict, i.e. the competition for, or carving up of, Iraq is accelerating.

Quote

wangwei Posts: 172 Joined: 21-09-06 | Send pm

Posted: Tue, 05/06/2007 - 13:59
I've been thinking long and hard about what's going on in Iraq and the relationship of forces between the US and Turkey. How much of an agression would it be for Turkey to control Northern Iraq in much the same manner as the British control the south?

Who would benefit? Would the Kurds blame the US or would it be a pretext for the US to cow a potential troublesome state?

Could Turky be sabre rattling for a larger piece of the Iraqi pie, or a piece of it for that matter?

I'm so confused about what's happening between Tureky and Iraq right now, and it's so hard to get information here.

It seems to be a possibility - a very dangerous one.

I don't think anything that is not happening now - more bombs, more clashes between the Turkish army and the PKK etc. will happen before the elections next month, but there are already some major parties saying that they will attack Northern Iraq, it seems to be something that would please the US because they are left all alone in Iraq and the FOX TV channel in Turkey is very actively making propaganda for war and last but not least, this war might be the most visible imperialist option for the Turkish bourgeoisie - of course it will only bring more violence, more problems and more barbarism but the bourgeoisie really doesn't calculate that aspect of the issue.

this article suggests the moment has arrived
i'd appreciate comment.

A brief comment: To a certain extent this is part of the Turkish election campaign. The military wants the government out, and is trying to show the government as being soft on terrorism to discredit it with the voters.

That does not mean that the military don't want war, or that there won't be one. The presure though will ease significantly after the election at the end of July, if war hasn't already broken out by then, and if AKP aren't still in office.

Devrim

i understand tho' that the AKP are quite widely supported. a few articles in the states have presented this as an elites(= army)-vs-the-people(=AKP) sort of thing. this was eye-opening, as i reflexively supported the 'secularist' demonstrations of a few months ago (being a yank and surrounded by boneheaded fundamentalism) but have read very different takes on that whole business since.

Yes, certainly. It is the current government, and has a complete majority (a very rare thing in Turkish politics). In my opinion, there is no doubt that they will be the biggest party after the election. If they fail to get an absolute majority, they could well be forced out of office by a coalition. I can imagine the possibility of the other parties supported by the military to keep out AKP. The Parties in the Parliment will be in order of size AKP (Justice, and Development Party-Islamicist), CHP (Republican People's Party-Kemalist/'social democratic'), DYP(True Path Party-Centre right), and proabably though I am not sure if they will make 10% MHP (Nationalist movement Party-Extreme right/fascist). A coalition of these other three parties would be very similar to the coalition after the 1999 elections. Other coalitions are possible though.

Yes, I can see their point. It is a bit of a simplification though. The AKP does have huge support among the working class. What you describe as the 'elite' certainly does include the army, and the elites of the old regime. It too has large amounts of support amongst workers. Let's us just go back to the size of the demonstrations again:

I would go with the higher figures. To pull over a million people out on demonstrations three times within a month is quite impressive, and certainly not just the 'elite'. I think that the base of this movement is the urban middle class, and state employees. Obviously this group too includes many workers.

Yes, we said at the time that they were nationalist demonstrations. I don't know if you saw any pictures of them, but the 'sea of Turkish flags' gave it away somewhat.
One of our members said this about it in a speech in Paris**:

Full text: http://eks.internationalist-forum.org/en/node/51

Devrim

*to get into parliament a party must receive over 10% of the national vote, a rule which whatever its origin conveniently keeps out Kurdish parties, who in a good election poll around 8%. Interestingly, many of them are standing as independents in these elections, which will, for technical reasons, I can't be bother to explain, eat into the AKP'S majority.
**I don't really like the language used in this speech. I would just like to stress that we don't speak like this all the time. It was a speech given at an internal political meeting.