Tweet
Zaman Online, Turkey
Sept 1 2006
I am not Comfortable with . . .
ALI H. ASLAN
Who supports sending Turkish troops to Lebanon in Washington and who
opposes it? And on what grounds? This week, let's try to find out
some answers to these questions.
American officials say they would be happy to see Turkish troops in
Lebanon, pointing to our military's success in UN and NATO
peacekeeping operations. It's not that they are not troubled by
Ankara's getting too cordial with Syria and Iran lately, and
directing harsh criticisms at Israel and the United States, last but
not the least during the Lebanon war. Nonetheless, they find it
useful that similarly skeptical Israel does not and can not do
without Turkey.
U.S diplomats are guided by one other important motive, that is to
protect Condoleezza Rice from the neocon lobby's wrath, who push hard
to make her a scapegoat over the failures in Lebanon and Iran's
nuclear program. Dr. Rice is the chief architect of UN Resolution
1071. She and her State Department will score points at every step
taken in that direction.
Neocons? I am sure they are praying for minimum troop contribution to
the peacekeeping force, just to see Rice embarrassed and to make sure
UN, which they dislike, don't be an obstacle to Israel in Lebanon!
Why should neocons be content with deployment of a force which
refrains from disarming Hezbollah and operates under the command of
`Old Europe'? Especially if that force includes Turkish forces as
well under the directions of JDP (Justice and Development Party)
administration, which they have categorized as `Islamofascists'
aligned with Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Ihvan (Muslim
Brotherhood) movement?
Thankfully, director of the Turkey Research Program at the Washington
Institute (WINEP), Soner Cagaptay, who has recently been doing
immensely shooting at the JDP administration, helps us understand the
neocon and the Israeli lobby lines. In articles published by the
Daily Star and the Jerusalem Post, Cagaptay characterized sending
Turkish troops to Lebanon as `dangerous'. Here is his basic line in
short: `Islamist JDP can't be trusted. Should there be another
skirmish in Lebanon, they would favor Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis''.
I asked Robert Satloff, Executive Director of WINEP, whether
Cagaptay's views reflected their institution's official position.
Satloff said they don't have an institutional view on the issue, but
he respected Cagaptay's article. `If Syrians are welcoming it
(Turkish troops deployment .A.H.A.), I think we should have serious
questions about the wisdom of it.' he added. Looks like positive
statements by the Syrian government about the Turkish troops
deployment raised serious doubts among some
more-pro-Israel-than-Israel Americans . They oppose Turkey's troop
contribution even though Israel has officially asked for it.
As for the Pentagon, likewise, one cannot say the leadership of that
institution is in love with Ankara. Israel's friends at the Pentagon
and civilian neocon officials must have as many questions in their
minds as those working at WINEP. Thus, The Pentagon does not exert so
much pressure on the Turkish General staff as it did during the March
1 parliamentary motion process, when they requested Turkey to open up
a Northern front against Iraq in the war.. So, if Turkish commanders
have some reservations about sending troops to Lebanon and they
convey them to the civilian government, Pentagon won't be too much
surprised or offended.
Among the most ardent opponents of the deployment of Turkish troops
in Lebanon are The Armenian and Greek lobbies. The Armenian National
Committee of America (ANCA) and the American Hellenic Institute (AHI)
sent separate letters to U.S President George W. Bush to express
their objections. The Kurdish lobby also supports Armenian and Greek
lobbies, silently but surely, because every thing which makes U.S.
grateful for Turkey would not only narrow the scope of Armenian and
Greek lobbies but also make the realization of Kurdist ambitions in
both Northern Iraq and Southeastern Turkey more difficult.
Why are some people (in Turkey), seemingly worried about the fate of
Turkish troops in Lebanon, opposing an attempt that might help
enhance US support to the fight against PKK, which is still killing
many sons of this land? I sense that once again national interests
are being abandoned in favor of domestic politics. At the expense of
the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which secured some of Turkey's
vital interests, power brokers in the state establishment who dislike
religious people distanced themselves from the March 1 motion just to
make sure U.S writes off the ruling JDP. Now the same groups are
opposing possible deployment of Turkish troops in Lebanon.. Those who
do not want to see Erdogan as the president, are eager to weaken his
hand prior to meeting with President Bush. They don't care about
Turkey's strategic losses in the Middle East or the tactical losses
with the fight against PKK.
Don't get me wrong, I do not question the aims and sincerity of
everyone who disapproves of Turkish troop deployment in southern
Lebanon. For instance, a retired American ambassador, whom I have
great respect for his views, expressed his concerns to me, regarding
this issue. People with good intentions both in Turkey and in the U.S
are might be coming up with different interpretations. A former
senior US government official, on the other hand, told me that he
favors sending Turkish troops to Lebanon.
Frankly, on this particular subject, I wouldn't be comfortable with
being on the same side with Armenian, Greek, Kurdish, neocon lobbies,
Israeli right, and President Ahmet Necdet Sezer. But if you want to
do that, I can't say anything, that's your choice...
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Sept 1 2006
I am not Comfortable with . . .
ALI H. ASLAN
Who supports sending Turkish troops to Lebanon in Washington and who
opposes it? And on what grounds? This week, let's try to find out
some answers to these questions.
American officials say they would be happy to see Turkish troops in
Lebanon, pointing to our military's success in UN and NATO
peacekeeping operations. It's not that they are not troubled by
Ankara's getting too cordial with Syria and Iran lately, and
directing harsh criticisms at Israel and the United States, last but
not the least during the Lebanon war. Nonetheless, they find it
useful that similarly skeptical Israel does not and can not do
without Turkey.
U.S diplomats are guided by one other important motive, that is to
protect Condoleezza Rice from the neocon lobby's wrath, who push hard
to make her a scapegoat over the failures in Lebanon and Iran's
nuclear program. Dr. Rice is the chief architect of UN Resolution
1071. She and her State Department will score points at every step
taken in that direction.
Neocons? I am sure they are praying for minimum troop contribution to
the peacekeeping force, just to see Rice embarrassed and to make sure
UN, which they dislike, don't be an obstacle to Israel in Lebanon!
Why should neocons be content with deployment of a force which
refrains from disarming Hezbollah and operates under the command of
`Old Europe'? Especially if that force includes Turkish forces as
well under the directions of JDP (Justice and Development Party)
administration, which they have categorized as `Islamofascists'
aligned with Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Ihvan (Muslim
Brotherhood) movement?
Thankfully, director of the Turkey Research Program at the Washington
Institute (WINEP), Soner Cagaptay, who has recently been doing
immensely shooting at the JDP administration, helps us understand the
neocon and the Israeli lobby lines. In articles published by the
Daily Star and the Jerusalem Post, Cagaptay characterized sending
Turkish troops to Lebanon as `dangerous'. Here is his basic line in
short: `Islamist JDP can't be trusted. Should there be another
skirmish in Lebanon, they would favor Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis''.
I asked Robert Satloff, Executive Director of WINEP, whether
Cagaptay's views reflected their institution's official position.
Satloff said they don't have an institutional view on the issue, but
he respected Cagaptay's article. `If Syrians are welcoming it
(Turkish troops deployment .A.H.A.), I think we should have serious
questions about the wisdom of it.' he added. Looks like positive
statements by the Syrian government about the Turkish troops
deployment raised serious doubts among some
more-pro-Israel-than-Israel Americans . They oppose Turkey's troop
contribution even though Israel has officially asked for it.
As for the Pentagon, likewise, one cannot say the leadership of that
institution is in love with Ankara. Israel's friends at the Pentagon
and civilian neocon officials must have as many questions in their
minds as those working at WINEP. Thus, The Pentagon does not exert so
much pressure on the Turkish General staff as it did during the March
1 parliamentary motion process, when they requested Turkey to open up
a Northern front against Iraq in the war.. So, if Turkish commanders
have some reservations about sending troops to Lebanon and they
convey them to the civilian government, Pentagon won't be too much
surprised or offended.
Among the most ardent opponents of the deployment of Turkish troops
in Lebanon are The Armenian and Greek lobbies. The Armenian National
Committee of America (ANCA) and the American Hellenic Institute (AHI)
sent separate letters to U.S President George W. Bush to express
their objections. The Kurdish lobby also supports Armenian and Greek
lobbies, silently but surely, because every thing which makes U.S.
grateful for Turkey would not only narrow the scope of Armenian and
Greek lobbies but also make the realization of Kurdist ambitions in
both Northern Iraq and Southeastern Turkey more difficult.
Why are some people (in Turkey), seemingly worried about the fate of
Turkish troops in Lebanon, opposing an attempt that might help
enhance US support to the fight against PKK, which is still killing
many sons of this land? I sense that once again national interests
are being abandoned in favor of domestic politics. At the expense of
the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which secured some of Turkey's
vital interests, power brokers in the state establishment who dislike
religious people distanced themselves from the March 1 motion just to
make sure U.S writes off the ruling JDP. Now the same groups are
opposing possible deployment of Turkish troops in Lebanon.. Those who
do not want to see Erdogan as the president, are eager to weaken his
hand prior to meeting with President Bush. They don't care about
Turkey's strategic losses in the Middle East or the tactical losses
with the fight against PKK.
Don't get me wrong, I do not question the aims and sincerity of
everyone who disapproves of Turkish troop deployment in southern
Lebanon. For instance, a retired American ambassador, whom I have
great respect for his views, expressed his concerns to me, regarding
this issue. People with good intentions both in Turkey and in the U.S
are might be coming up with different interpretations. A former
senior US government official, on the other hand, told me that he
favors sending Turkish troops to Lebanon.
Frankly, on this particular subject, I wouldn't be comfortable with
being on the same side with Armenian, Greek, Kurdish, neocon lobbies,
Israeli right, and President Ahmet Necdet Sezer. But if you want to
do that, I can't say anything, that's your choice...
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress