Fuller Says Sending Turkish Troops to Iraq is ‘a Bad Idea’
Graham Fuller, former deputy chairman of CIA’s National Intelligence Council and author of ‘Future of Political Islam’, said ‘under present circumstances and conditions it’s a bad idea to send Turkish troops to Iraq’.
ALI H. ASLAN
Washington, USA, October 16, 2003 ( Zaman Newspaper) Fuller is concerned Turkish troops would be targeted by radical Sunni Arab and Kurdish groups, and even might intimidate Iran and Iraqi Shiite.
Mr. Fuller criticizes Bush administration for thinking in very ‘short-term’ and ‘tactical’ terms by requesting Turkish troops ‘to replace the American troops who are being killed’, and warns of ‘great conflicts and disagreements between Turkey and Washington in the future over the Turkish role in Iraq’ because two countries interests do not exactly converge.
Fuller also claims neo-cons in Washington push Turkish troops towards Iraq so that Turkey stays solely on the U.S. orbit rather than European Union (EU). According to Mr. Fuller, Israel as well as neo-cons do not want to see Turkey oriented towards the E.U.
Here’s the full transcript of Fuller interview by Ali H. Aslan, a summary of which appeared on Turkish version of Zaman.
Q: Do you think it’s a good idea for Turkey to send troops to Iraq?
A:No, under present circumstances and conditions I think it’s a bad idea. In fact, I’d go further. I think it’s a bad idea for Turkey, a bad idea for the U.S. and a bad idea for Iraq. From the point of American interest, Bush wants to have troops there to replace the American troops who are being killed. So in effect he is asking Turkey to send its troops instead to be killed. Average guy on the street in Iraq may have some positive views towards Turkey but their views are not so important. Although many Iraqi citizens may not be hostile to Turkey, we are talking about the problem of radical forces conducting guerilla warfare inside Iraq. There will be no distinction in the eyes of those radical groups between the American troops and Turkish troops. The Turkish troops will be seen there as doing America’s business and fulfilling an American agenda.
Q:In your opinion, no Muslim nation should send troops to Iraq?
A:No, but I think it must have at least two conditions. First of all, you have to have a request from Iraqi authorities, who have some legitimacy. And secondly you need to perhaps have some United Nations (UN) blessing also. But Turkey at this point has neither UN nor even Iraqi blessing for this undertaking, which seems to me therefore very risky. I understand that Turkey wants to play a significant role in the future of Iraq. That could be very useful. And furthermore many Turks have said that their interest in Iraq must go beyond simply the Kurdish problem. And I agree. But I think Turkey needs to be in Iraq completely independent of the US, if it is to have credibility and acceptance. Turkish interests are not the same as American interests. For America, right now, the desire is to save its own troops from being killed. And to leave as soon as they possibly can. Turkey’s interest is very long term. And I believe its relationship with Iraq should be established totally between Turkey and Iraq, and not through some American intermediary or to fulfill America’s own plans.
Q:You said Turkey’s Iraqi policy should be completely independent from the U.S. Would U.S. favor such a thing?
A:The Bush administration wants to save its own soldiers from being killed and wants to put other soldiers there in their place. So in the short run I’m not sure these interests are the same. When I say Turkish interests are different from America, I’m speaking of long range Turkish interests. If Turkey can play an instructive role in Iraq, yes that is good for American interest. But right now this arrangement is being created to meet very short term, very tactical American interests. Turkey’s interests are long term, and not tactical. I can imagine great conflicts and disagreements between Turkey and Washington in the future over the Turkish role as the situation heats up and Turkish soldiers start getting killed.
Q:Do you think US should help with Turkey in its fight with PKK-KADEK terrorism?
A:I think it’s important that any operations to eliminate the PKK be accompanied by moves towards reform inside Turkey on the Kurdish question. And we have seen a lot of progress in Turkey in the last five years or so. I think the U.S. can take a role in helping Turkey identify and find and eliminate these PKK rebel forces. But as an American I do not like to see Americans killing foreigners if there is a chance of some political settlement of this problem. I think there’s a chance of political settlement of Kurdish problem and Turkey indeed is working on it right now. So I’m hesitant an American role in simply going in and killing PKK by itself in Iraq.
Q:In your view is PKK-KADEK an imminent threat against Turkey?
A:No, I don’t think it’s an imminent threat. The major threat to Turkey from the PKK only will come if there is a collapse of reform programs and if Turkey is not able to bring change in the Kurdish region.
Q:How would you convince Ankara that a federal, or later perhaps even independent Iraqi Kurdish entity would not be a strategic and security problem for Turkey in the future?
A:I’ve mentioned many times before that I think an unhappy Diyarbakir makes Turkey very vulnerable to outside manipulations and provocations. If the Kurds in Turkey believe that progress is taking place, then I think events in Iraq will have small impact inside Turkey. But if there’s no progress in Turkey and events move in a negative direction, then the political position of the Kurds inside Iraq could be quite dangerous to Turkey. I don’t expect Kurdish independence in Iraq for the near future for sure. Who knows in the long run?
Q:Do you think it’s a more likely scenario that we’ll have a highly federal Iraq and a highly autonomous Kurdish entity in Northern Iraq?
A:Yes, I think so. Certainly for the time being. Because, if I were a Kurd in Iraq, I would not trust Baghdad. I suspect that at the beginning Kurds will want as much protection and autonomy as they can have until they watch the situation more closely.
Q:Why do think Kurds are afraid or worried of Turkish military presence in Iraq?
A:Most Kurds in Iraq think that Turkey is hundred percent dedicated to the destruction of any Kurdish nationalism or Kurdish autonomy. Right now we are in a period of interesting transitions when Turkey is rethinking both its domestic Kurdish issue and define Kurdish issue in the broader context of Iraqi politics. In this case maybe Turkey will become slowly more relaxed about the Kurdish presence and autonomy in Northern Iraq, and the Iraq Kurds will slowly become trusting of Ankara’s policies and not see Turkey as a cultural threat to them.
Q:Don’t you think it would be much easier for Ankara to have this gradual relaxation on Iraqi Kurdish federalism, if Turkey sends troops rather than just watching what’s going on in Iraq?
A:No. I think sending troops now is clearly opposed by the Kurds in Iraq. It’s opposed by the Turkish people. And it seems to be opposed even by Iraqi Arabs. Furthermore, there is a big danger to this Turkish military presence in Iraq. They will be attacked by the same radical Sunni forces that are attacking American troops. Secondly, this would be a temptation for radical Kurds even from Turkey or from the PKK or perhaps from other Iraqi Kurdish radicals to come down to the Arab region and to attack the Turks there, which would put the Turks in a very difficult situation. They may then be required to fight against some of these guerilla forces or chase them back into Kurdistan, which could lead confrontation with Peshmerge. Another great risk is, Iran is very opposed to Turkish presence there. I’d guess that Iran will move in small and subtle ways to undermine the Turkish presence there. Maybe they would encourage some Shia radicals to attack them, I don’t know.
Q:What would you recommend Turkey to do in Iraq if it sends troops?
A:Turkey needs to work with international forces especially with the U.N. to facilitate as rapid as possible transition to some type of Iraqi government. I’m not saying that America should leave tomorrow. I think it would be messy.
Q:What kind of political structure would serve America’s interest best?
A:Any system, which would lead to a generally democratic order will be the most desirable. Democratic order means Shiite dominance, not hundred percent, not dictatorship. Sunni Arabs will have a weaker voice than before. And Kurds will have a greater voice than before. So the Kurds and the Shiite are the winners, and Sunni Arabs are the losers. If Turkey associates itself with the Iraqi Sunnis, the Turkish presence there frustrate and block the possible power of Shia in Iraq in the future. And that may push the Shiite in a very negative position against the Turkish military presence.
Q:Are you personally concerned that a Shiite dominated Iraq would lean towards Iran?
A:No, I don’t have a lot of concern by that. Iran will have some influence but in the long run I believe that the greater likelihood is rivalry between Iraqi Shiite who will want to the leadership of all Arab Shiite and Iran, which at present has the dominant place as the protector or leader of Arab Shiite world. But they will lose that. In fact, they are already in the process of losing their dominance with the reemergence of Najaf, and moderate Iranian clerics coming to Najaf.
Q: How likely is it that Turkey could build relations with the Kurds in the north, and really contribute the stability rather than being a destabilizing force in Iraq? And what does it take to do that?
A:I’m quite optimistic about this. As I said, Turkey is beginning to make serious progress in this direction, which is very encouraging. Secondly, I go back to my old slogan. An unhappy Diyarbakir is a great threat to Turkey and makes it vulnerable to external enemies. But a happy Diyarbakir will be the perhaps dominant force in the Kurdish world. And if that situation continues, the Kurds will find continued association with Turkey, desirable, useful, it has tremendous potential, it’s democratic, it’s going to be oriented towards Europe, and I think it has a great future ahead of it. So I would guess that in the long run Kurdish suspicion in Iraq gradually weaken and disappear, and I would expect to see some very interesting cooperation back and forth across the border.
Speaking of Turkey’s orientation to Europe, there’s something else I want to say. It’s also becoming very clear that neo-conservatives in Washington are now trying to kill any future prospect Turkey has with the European Union. Most of them are now saying Turkey has no chance in Europe, Europe will never accept Turkey, Turkey should be realistic about this. America is its only future. Of course Turkey will have close relations with America. I want it to have close relations with America. But I think this is a very negative role that they are playing because they are trying to keep Turkey away from the international approach to Iraq and keep them inside the American orbit on this.
Q:So you claim neocons are trying to push Turkey towards Iraq?
A:Yes, very much so.
Q:But Richard Perle speaking at AEI was not very enthusiastic in the overall idea of sending international troops, including Turkish troops.
A:Neocons don’t all have exactly the same ideas. But in general they want to keep Iraq as an American operation, as an American project for as long as possible to keep, to maintain a monopoly over the decisions, this is not surprising. Some of them are concerned that that any foreign troops will be a complication. But they think that Turkish troops are at least the best and perhaps the most easily controlled, the most willing to cooperate with Washington of any of these forces especially among Muslim forces. But in general I noticed lately that they constantly predicting Turkey has no future in the E.U. This essentially reflects neo-con anger at Europe, European project. They do not want Turkey to be strongly European oriented, but rather to be American oriented. I think this is very unwise policy, very narrow, short sided policy on the part of neocons.
Q:So they push Turkey towards the Middle East because they don’t want Turkey to go towards the E.U.?
A:They don’t want Turkey to go towards the E.U., they want Turkey to go towards Washington and be dependant on Washington, and Washington the chief partner in the world. Not a Turkey that is partly in Europe and partly with the United States.
Q:I’m confused here. As far as I know, most neo-conservatives in Washington are also supporting Kurdish aspirations in Iraq. They are very sympathetic with Kurdish causes..
A:Sure, because they want to weaken the Arab cause.
Q: But isn’t this kind of a contradiction? Kurds do not want Turks, but neo-cons support Turks’ going there?
A:There are some contradictions, but they are different agendas. The administration wants to have some foreign troops bare some of the burden of being attacked by guerilla forces so they can bring American troops home. This is a very serious political issue. But on the other hand the neo-cons are strongly opposed to the entire E.U. project. They are very angry about the E.U.’s position about the whole war in February. And they do not want Turkey to be part of the European project in any significant way. They would like Turkey to be more cooperating with Washington instead.
Q:Speaking of neo-cons, you know that most of them are also very much sympathetic to Israel.
A:Right.
Q:Do you think is it in the best interest of Israel to see TR in E.U., towards E.U.?
A:No, I think Israel basically would prefer to see Turkey oriented towards Washington and towards Israel. And the closer Turkey is to Washington, the closer it would be towards Israel, in their view. But many Arabs fear that Turkey’s strategy is indeed to create a Washington-Ankara-Tel Aviv axis. And therefore they have special fear about what the real agenda is of Turkey is in Iraq. That is going to cause some problems. And will cause other Arab countries as well to be uncomfortable or hostile to the Turkish role, which they may see as not only serving Americans but also Israeli interest. Turkey will have to face this problem.
Q:How do you see Israel thinks about Turkey’s increasing its presence in Iraq?
A:I think Israelis are probably very pleased with this. Because they hope that this will make the American voice and role in Iraq stronger and can prolong that role. In general, Israelis very much favor a weak Iraq, in other words a highly federal Iraq. Basically, Sharon government would strongly favor of the Turkish presence in Iraq now.
Q:But then there’s a contradiction between Turkish and Israeli interests in Iraq. Because you say Israelis would like to see a highly federalized in Iraq. But Turkey does not want to see that. And there are many people in Ankara who are suspicious on Israeli policies vis-à-vis Northern Iraq. Do you think there’s some truth in this?
A:Sure. The neo-cons have made very clear in the their writing that they favor a federal Iraq which basically means a weak Iraq, even a divided Iraq with Kurdish independence. Given the neo-conservative agenda of intensifying relations between Israel and Turkey, therefore there’s suspicion in the Arab world that this is what the Turkish agenda, the Turkish game is in Iraq.
Q:Did you support the first motion regarding US request opening a Northern Front through Turkey?
A:No, I did not.
Q:Why was that?
A:Because any kind of hegemony by a single global power is dangerous. It’s dangerous to the world, dangerous even to the US as a super power. I believe the future of international relations is going to be maximum cooperation, internationalization, multilateralism, close consultation and the Bush administration did not believe at any of those principles. I strongly supported the idea of overthrowing Saddam Husseyin. But I think it was handled badly, they did not gain the necessary support from the U.N. and others, which was possible. From that point of view, I think for Turkey to have gone in by itself was not good. And furthermore, Turkish public didn’t want this. I am frankly happy to see international limitations on American unilateral especially pre-emptive policy.
Copyright: Zaman Newspaper: The First Turkish Daily Newspaper on the Internet
ZAMAN: English Edition
