Turkey: Better late than never

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/72636.htm

April 3, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell's damage-control visit to longtime ally Turkey paid off yesterday with a deal to let U.S. forces use Turkish territory to resupply troops in next-door Iraq....

..."We have solved all the outstanding issues with respect to providing supplies through Turkey to those units that are doing such a wonderful job in northern Iraq to keep the situation in northern Iraq stable," Powell said.
 
I wonder how much we had to pay them? The situation with Turkey was one of the things that suprised me the most about the current war with iraq. I hope that once people around the world start seeing how glad the people are about their liberation that we can repair/improve our relation with Turkey. I want to see our bases in germany closed and moved to Turkey.

later,
 
Well, it's no wonder that there were troubles getting Turkey's support. 95% of the people oppose the war. Also, there are significant security risks involved in letting the coalition forces be based there. Chances are missiles will come their way, and add all the talk about WMD's.
So I don't think there really is a problem with the US-Turkey relationship.
 
epicstruggle said:
I wonder how much we had to pay them? The situation with Turkey was one of the things that suprised me the most about the current war with iraq.
With the overwhelming majority of the turkish public and politicians opposing this war, what exactly surprised you about it? Anyway, its a good thing they opened up the possibility for supply lines, those air bridges must have been bothering US strategists.

I hope that once people around the world start seeing how glad the people are about their liberation that we can repair/improve our relation with Turkey.
I don't think the relationship was damaged dramatically at all, at least not in a way that couldn't be easily attended to in a reasonable amount of time. Of course, that also depends how the situation in the region develops after a war, it might take years to see the full impact this war had...

I want to see our bases in germany closed and moved to Turkey.
I'd like to know why you think so? For strategic reasons, as Turkey is a closer stationing point to the Middle East? In that case bear in mind that its not neccessarily as easy as it looks. There would not only be political hurdles within Turkey to take (although I'm sure there wouldn't really be much opposition), but also popular and severe security considerations to be taken into account. Bear in mind though that it is not in the interest of the US to just withdraw and move their whole military presence from one region to another. Quite the contrary, a more extensive global military network is seen as the a desirable basis of future prosperity and security by the current administration AFAIK. Also, a significant increase in US troops stationed in the region, beyond what is already there and will stay there after the war, might not go down too well with some other countries in the reagion at all. Either way, it won't happen overnight.

Or is the reason rather that you feel offended that Germany chose to oppose this war? If so, wouldn't you agree that this would be a pretty childish reaction, cutting ties that reach back almost 50 years and go much, much deeper than just foreign policies in one specific situation? In case you don't know, although Germany is officially opposed to the war the goverment is actually more than just fully cooperating according to its international obligations, even more so than many nations in the so called coalition of the willing. German military is not only helping in keeping up operations of US military bases during this war, granted the US full use of air space (something e.g. Italy, one of the more prominent coalition members, has had some trouble with), reinforced pretection troops in Kuwait (specialists for protection from biological and chemical weapons), sent defence missiles and AWACS planes for defensive purposes to Turkey (that whole NATO affair was a joke though, with the large Kurd-controlled zone in northern Iraq there never really was any danger of Turkey getting attacked) and in general has more troops in the area than pretty much all coalition members besides the US, UK and Australia. Beyond that about 60.000 german troops are in deployment all over the world, both in peace-keeping missions like Kosovo, or in the fight against terror as in Afghanistan, where it took a significant part in securing Kabul and other areas as well as actively fighting what remains of Taliban resistance. Its not as if we're lazy nay-sayers that are afraid to risk anything, we just happen to think this specific war is not right...
 
I think it's funny how we have to pay all these countries to be our allies. The US is like that spoiled rich kid who has to pay other kids to be his friend.
 
@gollum, the bases in germany are part of the relic of the cold war. I think many in the military believe that we need to shift our focus from the middle east to areas where we might be needed. such as the middle east, and southeast asia. we have bases in japan so that takes care of asia. in regards to the middle east, we need to move our bases out of saudi arabia and into turkey. Saudi Arabia is a region with too many religious areas, so many might feel slighted so the best solution is to move them out from there to a different base of operation.

The fact that germany will lose billions of dollars from US is only icing on the cake.

later,
 
barnabas: tens of thousands of troops, and their families will not be essentially tourists in germany. The US I believe rents the bases from germany, so theres more money. We buy supplies (food, gas,...) from germany to supply the troops and their families.

later,
 
epicstruggle said:
barnabas: tens of thousands of troops, and their families will not be essentially tourists in germany. The US I believe rents the bases from germany, so theres more money. We buy supplies (food, gas,...) from germany to supply the troops and their families.

later,

I think the US has slightly more intelligence than you epicstruggle. You think that because the cold war is over the US will pull out of its strategic bases in Germany to go to Turkey and put all its bases there? Russia is blowing its own horn right at this moment - Cold War MkII is something the US needs to prepare for however unlikely it is. And I don't think the US servicemen in Germany would like to be called 'tourists.'

Just because you think you know everything about world politics and the reasonings behind what is going on in NATO and the Warsaw Pacts as well as the Middle East doesn't for one nanosecond mean you are correct. Your have your biased opinions but: show some respect to the President and administration you admire and aspire to so much. :rolleyes:
 
tahir, not sure whether or not you read my comments, but let me clarify something. These are my opinions. I dont work for the government (yet).

The troops are aboviously not tourists, but with their families, they do go out of the bases from time to time. And I assume that they buy stuff. So they are tourists from time to time.

Why are the bases in germany strategic, you think the germans will rise up and create a fourth reich(i think thats the correct term) or one of the former baltic states rise up too. Turkey is better located then Germany for the future. There have been people in Congress (US) that have felt the same way.

I dont know everything about politics in a global sense, but I do read books, newspapers, and watch tv and I form my opinion based on that and my common sense. Who doesnt have a biased opinion, everyone has their own take on things, I just post mine from time to time.

BTW how have i not shown respect to the Pres. and his administration?

later,
 
tens of thousands of troops, and their families will not be essentially tourists in germany. The US I believe rents the bases from germany, so theres more money. We buy supplies (food, gas,...) from germany to supply the troops and their families.
Well, i know the city councils of Fürth and Erlangen were really happy to get rid of the huge bases and homing areas in their towns despite the loss of a lot of jobs and high costs to repair the environmental damge. I'm not sure about the bases being rented, too. I think they are leftovers from the occupation time but i wasn't able to find any reliable information on this subject so far. Moreover, the US forces brought their own economy with them. Things were different when a US $ was worth almost 3 Mark but with the decline of the exchange rate it was more profitable for the soldiers to buy all supplies in army stores.
 
Turkey is in a very hard position right now and I wish the media were to focus more on this country and all the politics surrounding recent events.

The barring from NATO to allow support for defending this country a few months ago was a political act instigated by France/Germany in order to create an ultimatim for them. This poor country is being pulled between two polar sides of "become an ally of the EU" or "become an ally of the US/UK coalition." They had to work around the NATO decision by instigating a special exceptionary rule just to obtain basic defense support that is supposed to be assured to all members just because of political antics from France/Germany. It's a sad day when these countries will back other countries into a corner to force ultimatims when it comes to simple issues of medical supplies and defense-only equipment for use inside one's borders during the event of a possible war. All they were asking for was a basic support package which included bio/chem equipment for it's citizens, several hundred thousand bio/chem antidote medical supplies and a basic missile defense system (i.e. patriot batteries).

Furthermore, Turkey has no assurance the US will not simply turn a cold shoulder after any possible hostilities, such as the war in Iraq. Probably the biggest reason for the poll results in Turkey surround what the US might contribute down the road AFTER a possible war in Iraq (I keep saying "possible" since I'm talking several months ago when all this went down). With the EU making big promises of future support, they were pretty much being asked to decide who will be at their side if/when they ever need it. The EU (a big leap of faith) or the US/UK coalition (not quite as much of a big leap, but not 100% assured either).

Turkey has become caught up in this struggle of France/Germany/Russia trying to build some powerful EU that wishes to become some polarized world superpower. It's a good thing if the EU wants to be pulled off the mother's tit of US military support, but they have to realize to do this they will need to get their hands dirty in global issues... which also includes the possible death of their citizens in global conflicts. This hesitation is why you dont see countries like Turkey ready to jump 100% on the EU band wagon.

Turkey is an important country. They are the only text-book example of an open/free society that is predominantly muslim in the region. This is also why they must remain as neutral as possible during these kind of conflicts until they can establish a thriving economy and quality of life for all it's citizens. For now, they have only assured "neutralish" policies for the US/UK during the Iraq war- which pretty much limit their airspace and local foreign-owned military bases for moving supplies, medical needs and humanitarian aid. It's just pathetic that even while maintaining neutral/humanitarion stance on the war that the EU will continue to block them from standard assurances in NATO, and likely in the future at the UN to try and fully polarize them. People on both sides should stand up and observe what difficulties this country has in the future and condemn any such actions that so deserve it.

And even after denying their border as an assault point for an offensive military incursion, the US still went to congress a week or so ago to get a $1 billion dollar aid package for this country.
 
Sharkfood said:
And even after denying their border as an assault point for an offensive military incursion, the US still went to congress a week or so ago to get a $1 billion dollar aid package for this country.

You do notice that we're shipping in supplies and military equipment from Turkey now, don't you?
 
I saw this in a documentary by the Fith Estate, a part of CBC.

I believe Israel said this and same with an MIT professor who was to investigate the performance of missle during the Gulf War.
 
Saem said:
I saw this in a documentary by the Fith Estate, a part of CBC.

I believe Israel said this and same with an MIT professor who was to investigate the performance of missle during the Gulf War.

I think its how you measure it:

Yes, there was a decent intercept rate.
No, blowing up in front of the missile does not prevent it from continuing its trajectory and blowing up).

The new patriot intercepts by impacting with the incoming missile, and its apparently reasonably effective, given that only 1 missile hit Kuwait this time.
 
The intercept rate was horrible, if not non-existant.

The patriots came close, but they never took one out. Their intercept was more like general vicinity (at times 3 miles away) rather than anything.

The scuds launched during the gulf war sucked. They were horribly built. As they would fly through the air they would come apart, releasing a stream of chaff, basically. The patriot missle would then hit this chaff and go boom, the patriot system would say the patriot blew up thus there was an intercept. Additionally, the patriot is slower than a scud and the scud has VERY irradic tracetory.

In actuality, there wasn't a hit. The Israeli defense minister at that time I believe went to Bush and said, you have about a 20% interception rate. After an investigation run by the Israeli army (IIRC) with some civilians brought on, they found no patriot hit it's mark or even close.

I can't remember what the MIT prof said about it's success rate in terms of numbers, but the gist of it was that it was ineffective.
 
RussSchultz said:
You do notice that we're shipping in supplies and military equipment from Turkey now, don't you?

You did read my post, didn't you? :)

The current agreement does not allow the US to stage a military incursion using their border.. at least how I understand it from a variety of media sources trying to dance around the subject without ever taking it head on. The best that I can piece together are confirmations that food, water, medical supplies, *light* munitions (i.e. rifle ammo) and other limited supplies that cannot be directly attributable to an attack.

A Japanese TV source (of all places) spelled it out- no offensive use of their border whatsoever, which is why the 4th infantry division had to take the slow boat all the way around to the Gulf and is NOW unloading in Kuwait. Another point that was marketed prior to the war but has been "hush hush" now is that the division planned to stage from Turkey is our most mechanized and technilogically advanced force. Whether the delay was good or bad will likely depend on how much of their equipment they can put on C-130's as the airport a few miles from Baghdad is now under coalition control. If they have to leave their tanks behind, or worse yet- make the trip across the desert setting them back a full week or more... it could be a bad thing.
 
Back
Top