BUSH’S NIGHTMARE IN IRAQ – “THE DOMESTIC FRONT”

 

Each passing day in Iraq since the end of the war on 1 May proves that Washington calculated the risks and challenges of the war down to the smallest detail, but failed to do the same in the aftermath, thus causing the present chaos and the quagmire it is facing in that country today. The Turkish Ground Forces Commander, General Aytac Yalman’s address to the War School  cadets in Ankara on September 29^th, on the occasion of the inauguration of the new academic year, was a real eye-opener in explaining the nature of the American mistakes in the aftermath of the Iraq war. General Yalman spoke of Turkey and the Turkish Armed Forces, but what he said about the “Domestic Front” in regard to Ataturk’s address to the Turkish Parliament in March 1922 was the best explanation of the reasons for the Americans’ plight  in Iraq and PM Blair’s impasse at home today. For the details of this exceedingly interesting military analysis please see the article below.

 General Yalman noted in his address to the War School cadets in Ankara on September 29^th that the country, at a time when there are preparations to celebrate the 80^th anniversary of the Republic within a couple of weeks, was living through the toughest and most critical days of its history. A “campaign of attrition” was being carried out against the Turkish Armed Forces, but they were emerging from that campaign even stronger than before, he stressed.

Ataturk’s definition of “domestic front” and Iraq today

Underlining that “unfortunately our generation has had to live one-third of their lives, nearly 22 years, under martial law,” the Ground Forces commander said that Turkey had to wage “an internal security war for 18 years against terrorism.” Different to the western democracies which passed into democracy as a result of the industrialisation process, the Turkish Republic was founded after a war of independence against colonialist forces and it had to pass into the information age and then into the globalization process before it could complete its process of industrialisation, enlightenment and national formation. The military rather than the people played the key role in founding, preserving and promoting the Republic and democracy, he noted.

General Yalman complained that certain quarters at home and abroad were trying to destroy the democracy and the Republic in Turkey “by using democracy as a tool with the claim of normalising the country.”  Certain countries and international organisations were trying to make the Turkish Armed Forces passive in fulfilling its duty to ensure national security and survival. They think the military in Turkey is against democracy and the EU accession, but it was impossible even to think such a thing as “the military is the pioneer of Ataturkism and modernisation and it aims at catching up contemporary civilisation with progressive and energetic activity,” he stressed.

He recalled that Ataturk said in Parliament on March 6^th, 1922 that the way out of such difficulties was to strengthen the “Domestic Front”. Silence about this front would destroy the country from within and make the people a captive nation, as Ataturk said, noted General Yalman.

Ataturk defines the “Domestic Front” as follows in his Great Speech:

“…To understand it easily let me explain the National Front which is the main factor. This is the front that the entire nation brings about. The armed military front of the army which directly fights against the enemy may be shaken, weakened or defeated. But this state of affairs can never annihilate the nation. Our enemies have been working for centuries in order to dismantle this domestic front and they have, to a certain extent, been successful too. It is possible to pin point the agents they have planted within us for that purpose.”

The Ground Forces Commander General Yalman’s reminder of Ataturk’s Domestic Front definition last week was concerned with the internal situation of Turkey, but it also sheds light on the developments in Iraq today.

President Bush in Washington and PM Blair in the UK last week faced tough criticisms with the charge that they distorted intelligence reports about the danger of weapons of mass destruction from the Saddam regime in order to start the war against Iraq. With his excellent oratory, PM Blair received a standing ovation from delegates after his conciliatory address about Iraq to the Labour Party convention in Bournemouth. In Washington President Bush was exerting similar efforts to ease the negative impact of the official American report that there were no WMD in Iraq.

Neither of them could explain to their nations or the world, however, the reasons for their failure to restore peace. Nor could they even talk about the harm of inadvertently creating a national hero in Iraq out of a terrible dictator, Saddam, who caused nothing but suffering to his nation with three decades of adventures in foreign policy.

The explanation for these failures of the US and the UK rested in General Yalman’s speech in Ankara about Ataturk’s prognosis of the domestic front being much more important than the battle front. Mindful of this reality Turkish rulers occasionally express the wish that the Iraqi people will not in time miss the Saddam period. President Demirel went even further last week and said in the United States that he would not be surprised if “Saddam emerged from the ballot box in Iraq” when democratic elections were held.

Turkey will move into Iraq only to make peace with the Domestic Front

On Tuesday (7^th) the Turkish Parliament, rather hastily to put an end to Washington’s impatience, passed the motion with a very comfortable majority to send Turkish troops to Iraq, but still everything is far from being a foregone conclusion for the Americans for several reasons.

The main reason is Turkey’s determination to deploy forces in Iraq only for peace with Iraq’s domestic front. In other words, the Turkish forces in Iraq will not be a peace keeping force, but a peace making force, as there is no peace in that country at the moment, despite President Bush’s claim of the end of the war on May 1^st. This, for its part, that is to say making peace in Iraq requires suitable conditions that avoid the mistakes made by the Americans hitherto.

Ankara has been exerting efforts for months to ensure the existence of these conditions before the deployment of Turkish forces in Iraq. The failure to do so at the initial negotiations was the reason for the 1 March rebuff, much to the world’s surprise and the Americans’ shock. Today nothing has changed and no Turkish soldiers will go to Iraq unless this is achieved.

It should be noted that the Turkish Grand National Assembly did not “authorise” the Erdogan Government to send forces to Iraq, but gave it “permission” to do so for a year under the terms that the Council of Ministers will deem fit. The difference between “power” and “permission” is that the first requires a bill which is subject to the President’s veto and the Constitutional Court’s supervision and the second is a government resolution by accepting a motion without such restrictions for the Executive.

The Opposition, CHP, has been threatening the Erdogan Government with a Supreme Court trial because the $8.5 billion loan agreement they signed with the United States has a provision to the effect that Turkey will not move into northern Iraq militarily without Washington’s consent. The Opposition’s threats are even tougher about using Parliament’s “permission” for force deployment in Iraq, without proper legislation. The people’s feelings are definitely against this deployment because it may result in spilling the Muslim blood.

Whatever the Opposition says and the people feel, however, it is evident that Turkey cannot possibly turn its back on the historic changes next door or remain passive about the developments of direct concern to its long-term national interests. That is why the Turkish Armed Forces will sooner or later move into Iraq and now is the proper time. The objection voiced from Iraq’s governing council or the Kurdish quarters are cracked voices deserving no notice. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said on Friday (10^th) that they were taking strong initiatives with the United States about this contradiction between Washington and the present governing council assigned by it in Iraq. This contradiction will probably be useful in inducing the United States to make a more rational choice between its present excessive favouritism of the Kurds and Turkey’s objection to it for a unitary Iraq with a strong Turkman community among others.

The important question is to negotiate the best terms for Turkey about force deployment and it is at the moment under discussion with the Americans. They badly need the Turkish forces and Turkey needs their cooperation to secure its long-term national interests in Iraq. Failing to reach a fair and workable agreement between Ankara and Washington would have far reaching consequences for both. It would mean for Turkey an undesirable, costly and prolonged strife with the Superpower. But the consequences of such an undesirable development for the United States would be much more grave than Turkey which has the tremendous advantage of location. Washington knows with the experience of the last two decades that it is not possible to create an independent Kurdish State and have a big international airbase there despite Turkey.

For all these reasons, the pending Turkish-American talks on Turkish force deployment in Iraq are bound to end up in an agreement and the future course of history in this region will make Turkey the key factor in the Gulf and the Middle East. uras@ada.net.tr – October 11^th, 2003