Iraq: Turkey Ratchets Up Pressure For Action Against PKK

By Sumedha Senanayake

July 5, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- Recent figures by Turkish military sources indicate that attacks by Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) rebels have surged this year. Turkish officials charge that many of the weapons and much of the training and logistical support for the rebels originates from PKK-run bases in northern Iraq, at which up to 3,800 rebels are thought to operate.

While the Turkish government has repeatedly urged the United States and Iraq to move against the PKK, political complications, particularly with regard to Iraq's Kurds, have prevented any large operations against the rebel group.

Since 2004, Turkey has warned that it will go after the PKK in northern Iraq if its warnings are not heeded. Despite repeated warnings by the United States for Turkey not to carry out unilateral military actions in northern Iraq, recent indications suggest that Ankara is on the verge of actually doing just that. With thousands of Turkish troops amassed along Iraq's border, a major military operation seems imminent.

On June 30, the Turkish daily "Radikal" reported that Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul warned that a military plan was in place to invade northern Iraq if U.S. or Iraqi forces failed to move against the PKK bases there. While details of the plan were not known, it is believed the Turkish military might try to establish a buffer zone in northern Iraq to curb the rebels' movements.

Gul's warning came on the heels of comments by Turkish General Yasar Buyukanit, the head of Turkish armed forces, about the need to conduct cross-border operations against PKK rebels in northern Iraq. Buyukanit also indicated that he had requested the Turkish government draw up political guidelines for any sort of military incursion into the region.

The comments by Gul and Buyukanit have been the clearest signs yet that Turkey is planning a major military operation. The threatening rhetoric has been coupled with sporadic, and sometimes unconfirmed reports in the Iraqi and regional press of shelling and limited cross-border military operations by Turkish forces.

However, the threats also come as Turkey prepares for general elections on July 22. The increasingly aggressive rhetoric from Ankara may be partly the result of criticism by the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), which has been accusing the ruling Justice and Development (AK) party of lacking the political will to move against PKK rebels in Iraq.

The Turkish parliament is currently in recess for the elections, but the cabinet of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is scheduled to hold a final pre-election meeting on July 9. There is wide speculation in the Turkish press that the cabinet could give the green light for some sort of military operation in northern Iraq.

Pressuring The United States To Act

While Turkey has ratcheted up its threats to intervene in northern Iraq, it has also increased pressure on the United States to crack down on the PKK. In fact, accusations of U.S. failure to curb PKK activities have intensified into outright suspicions in the Turkish press that the United States may actually be aiding the rebel group.

The Turkish media widely reported on July 1 that four former PKK fighters who had "escaped" from a PKK-run base at Mount Qandil in northern Iraq claimed to have seen U.S. military vehicles delivering arms to the camp. The Turkish government said it did not have further information concerning the allegations and the U.S. Embassy in Ankara vehemently denied them.

While the veracity of the allegations by four masked ex-PKK fighters may be somewhat dubious, it could well have been a tactic by Ankara to express its frustration with the United States and to increase the pressure on Washington to move against the PKK.

Indeed, several Turkish leaders have even indicated that the United States is displaying a certain double standard regarding its commitment to fighting terrorism. The "Anatolia" news agency reported on July 4 that AKP lawmaker Egemen Bagis said Ankara is losing patience with the U.S. refusal to move against the PKK, even though Washington has labeled the group a terrorist organization.

"I cannot argue that we are making sufficient progress with the U.S. against PKK terrorism," Bagis said. "The Turkish nation is losing its patience. The prime minister is holding necessary talks. But we expect our ally [the U.S.] to take action against terrorism as soon as possible, and this is a correct and just expectation."

Washington's Hands Are Tied In Iraq

The United States has indeed shown an unwillingness to move against the PKK, and for good reason. One reason is that Washington is far too focused on stabilizing Iraq to shift valuable resources to mount a serious crack down against the PKK. Pressure from the U.S. Congress to show tangible gains from the surge strategy is immense and growing. At this juncture, it is extremely unlikely that resources would be allocated to northern Iraq to assuage Turkish anxieties.

In addition, with U.S. and Iraqi forces currently engaged in major campaigns against Sunni insurgents, Shi'ite militias, and Al-Qaeda-linked foreign fighters throughout Iraq, opening an additional front against the PKK in the north does not seem feasible.

In addition, any aggressive U.S.-led operation against the PKK in northern Iraq risks enraging the Iraqi Kurdish leadership, who may view it as an infringement on their semi-autonomous status. In turn, they may decide to distance the region from the Baghdad government, creating additional political tension.

At the same time, the United States is highly reluctant to pressure Iraqi Kurdish leaders into cracking down on the PKK for fear of antagonizing them. In the chaotic atmosphere of Iraqi politics, Washington can ill afford to alienate its most steadfast ally.

Alienating the Kurds could also lead to serious consequences for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government given its tenuous position. The Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni political bloc in parliament, has decided to boycott the Iraqi government after an arrest warrant was issued against Sunni lawmaker and Iraqi Culture Minister As'ad al-Hashimi.

In addition, radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr's political movement and the Islamic Virtue Party (Al-Fadilah) have pulled out of the Shi'ite coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance. Any further withdrawals or boycotts could lead to either greater political paralysis or, worse, the collapse of the government.

Key GOP Senator Breaks With Bush
Domenici Urges Change In Strategy on Iraq War
By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 6, 2007; A01

White House efforts to keep congressional Republicans united over the Iraq war suffered another major defection yesterday as Sen. Pete V. Domenici (N.M.) broke with President Bush and called for an immediate change in U.S. strategy that could end combat operations by spring.

The six-term lawmaker, party loyalist and former staunch war supporter represents one of the most significant GOP losses to date. Speaking to reporters at a news conference in Albuquerque, Domenici said he began to question his stance on Iraq late last month, after several conversations with the family members of dead soldiers from his home state, and as it became clear that Iraqi leaders are making little progress toward national reconciliation.

"We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress," Domenici said. "I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

The White House had hoped that Republican lawmakers would stand back until a mid-September administration report on military and political progress in Iraq resulting from the president's troop-increase plan, which has boosted U.S. forces by tens of thousands. But Domenici said the signal to Bush should be clear: GOP patience is running out much more quickly.

"What we're doing here could overtake the way we're handling things over there," he said.

Yesterday, Domenici embraced a new legislative proposal to reshape U.S. policy around the 79 recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. In December, the bipartisan panel called for withdrawing most U.S. combat troops by March 31, 2008, although a limited number would remain in place for training and counterterrorism operations and other specific missions.

Democratic leaders waved off Domenici's announcement as all talk -- at least for now.

"Republicans will have the opportunity to not just say the right things on Iraq but vote the right way, too, so that we can bring the responsible end to this war that the American people demand and deserve," said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.).

The Senate will reconvene next week to face a new round of Iraq-related votes as part of the annual defense policy bill, including various Democratic proposals to cut off war funding and to set a firm withdrawal date. But the dark horse may be the Iraq Study Group measure offered by Sen. Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat. Domenici quietly endorsed Salazar's proposal before the July 4 recess and announced his public support yesterday.

Salazar's bill has attracted 10 co-sponsors, including several lawmakers whose participation suggests that its cross-party appeal may be growing. The six Republican supporters include Sen. Robert F. Bennett (Utah), a close ally of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), and Sens. Judd Gregg and John E. Sununu, both of whom have remained loyal to Bush despite strong antiwar sentiment in their home state of New Hampshire.

Domenici and Sununu, along with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who also co-sponsored Salazar's measure, all face reelection in 2008 -- and are considered top Democratic targets. Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the bill's original GOP co-sponsor, holds party leadership aspirations.

The five Democratic signatories are moderates. Along with Salazar, they include Sens. Bill Nelson (Fla.), Robert P. Casey Jr. (Pa.), and Blanche Lincoln and Mark L. Pryor, both of Arkansas.

Salazar said yesterday that Domenici's public endorsement could lure others looking for a "centrist alternative" on Iraq. Lee Pitts, an Alexander spokesman, said, "We hope that having his name on the bill will motivate others."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto stressed that the troop increase reached full strength less than a month ago, and that any sharp changes in war strategy should wait at least until September. "Senator Domenici is someone we have tremendous respect for," Fratto said. "We understand that senators and all Americans are frustrated."

He added: "You can't back out of the surge. The surge is in place, and it is going to be in place for some time. What we have to focus on and talk about is what happens sequentially next. And what happens next will be a decision that we have conversations about with Congress and with policymakers here and in Baghdad."

But, for Republicans, the floodgates have already started to break. Last week, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the leading Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, delivered a rebuke to the White House on the Senate floor, declaring that the "current path" in U.S. Iraq policy is not acceptable.

Sen. John W. Warner (Va.), the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, praised Lugar's speech and said he may offer his own amendments calling for a change in policy during the defense authorization debate next week. Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio) also endorsed a call for withdrawing troops, personally sending a letter to Bush with that request.

Before drafting the legislation, Salazar engaged in lengthy talks with former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), the study group's co-chairmen. The legislation was introduced in early June with little fanfare.

Many Democrats have dismissed it as a weak substitute for the tougher withdrawal terms that they want to force Bush to accept. But if Republican senators return to Washington in a state of mind similar to Domenici, Salazar's bill could become a serious legislative threat -- both to the White House and to antiwar Democrats, who favor a more definitive approach.

Domenici described to reporters the pleading tone he hears in phone calls with grieving families. He told of an exchange with one father, whom he quoted as saying: "I'm asking you if you couldn't do a little extra, a little more, to see if you can't get the troops back. Mine is dead, but I would surely hope that you would listen to me and try to get the rest of them back sooner."

Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher contributed to this report.

May 23: 2954

June 12 3195 11:45 p
June 13 3210 10:30p
June 14 3228 7:30p
June 15 3238
June 16 3249 11:45p
June 18 3274 8 a.m.
June 18 3288 10p.m
June 20 3350 11p.m
June 22 3371 8 a.m.
June 23 3381 10 a.m.
June 24 3408 10 p.m
June 26 3435 8 a,m.

June 27 3455 4p.m.
June 28 3465 9p.m.
June 29 3486 7p.m.
June 30 3501 11p.m.
July 1, 3547 11.p.m.
July 2 3585
JUly 3 3649 11 p.m.
July 6 3718 4p.m.

Pentagon tackles globalisation
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: July 5 2007 21:55 | Last updated: July 5 2007 21:55
The Pentagon is having to face a new set of challenges and opportunities as the defence industry heads along the path of globalisation.

In crafting industrial policy, the Pentagon has to tread a difficult line between obtaining the best defence technologies, regardless of origin, and ensuring that buying foreign products does not compromise national security by eroding critical sectors of the US defence industrial base.

“Globalisation is here whether we like it or not,” says Gary Powell, assistant deputy undersecretary of defence for industrial policy. “[We have to] leverage the benefit and minimise the risk”.

Mr Powell stresses that the Pentagon needs to protect its supply chain as it acquires military technologies from overseas, particularly in the case of certain commodities, computer software and micro-electronics.

The Pentagon is increasingly having to rely on importing software and micro-electronics from non-US companies, which raises the potential for foreign governments to tamper with critical technology. The Defense Science Board, a Pentagon advisory group, is currently conducting a study to determine the national security implications of the use of foreign software in US military technology.

Another area of debate involves US export controls. While the Pentagon wants to ensure that foreign governments do not obtain sensitive military technologies, there are also concerns that overly restrictive controls are hurting US industry. The Institute for Defense Analyses concluded in January that “the current US export control system appears to be out of step with today’s world of global manufacturing, technology developments and capital flows”.

“If [we] want industry to stay strong, we would like them to be able to compete worldwide,” says Mr Powell.

He agrees that the list of technologies subject to export controls is outdated, but says the Pentagon’s office of defence research and engineering is now trying to modernise the list.

The Pentagon faces legislative constraints when it comes to buying the best technology, or ensuring the supply of critical components. The so-called Berry Amendment, for example, requires the Pentagon to procure food, clothing, fabrics and speciality metals from domestic sources.

While Congress last year provided some flexibility to exempt certain goods, Mr Powell says the Pentagon would ideally like Congress to jettison the amendment. Earlier this year the Pentagon availed of the looser restrictions to allow it to buy fasteners containing foreign-made speciality metals.

“If we cannot buy a C-17 aircraft because it contains fasteners made from speciality metals?.?.?.?we have lost a kingdom for want of a nail,” says Mr Powell.

The Pentagon also faces efforts by some members of Congress to pass “Buy America” legislation, championed by Duncan Hunter, the top Republican on the House armed services committee, which would further restrict the ability to buy foreign defence goods.

“[Congressman] Hunter fundamentally believes that the US should be self-sufficient,” says Mr Powell. “I don’t believe it is possible. We cannot be the best in everything.”

Mr Powell points out that the US defence and aerospace sector is one of the few areas of industry where America still enjoys a positive balance of trade. US defence exports averaged $11.5bn (€8.5bn, £5.75bn) a year between 2000 and 2004, while imports averaged $1.8bn, according to a study conducted last year.

Mr Powell says the Pentagon is looking into whether it should be concerned with the increased consolidation of the US defence industry. He also says the Pentagon needs to take a closer look at mergers to make sure the US industrial base is not being dangerously eroded.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Islam Between London and New Delhi

GMT 7-6-2007 15:1:58
Assyrian International News Agency
To unsubscribe or set email news digest options, visit http://www.aina.org/mailinglist.html

(AINA) -- The flaming jeep at Glasgow Airport and unexploded bombs at London have created a big diplomatic ripple between London and New Delhi. With minimal actual casualty, the effect could hardly have been bigger. Both the British and Indian governments appear anxious to fudge, rather than to admit, the truth of Jihadi attacks. The involvement Kafeel Ahmed and Dr. Sabeel Ahmed, two brothers from India's IT-capital Bangalore, have reason to make Indian government edgy. Their cousin, Dr. Mohammed Haneef, who until last year worked in Britain before shifting to Brisbane, Australia, is presently detained in that city for interrogation. Mr. Manmohan Singh, the Indian Prime Minister, says he could not sleep through the night on seeing the anxiety and apprehension of Dr. Haneef's Bangalore-based family in television.

An Indian newspaper, which has a London edition as well, The Asian Age reported that Dr. Haneef Mohammed was a member of now-banned SIMI (Students Islamic Militia of India). SIMI's real objective was to uproot idolatry (i.e. Hinduism) from India, and establish an Islamic state. In 2000, its posters pasted in Kanpur, an industrial town in north India with sizeable Muslim population, extolled the iconoclastic invasions of Mahmud Ghaznavi on India in 11th century. Haneef, as a student in Bangalore's Dr. Ambedkar Medical College, had tried to organize SIMI conferences in Bangalore in 1999 and 2000 but failed on both occasion.

The Indian Prime Minister is never known to have lost his sleep over numerous Jihadi attacks across India -- in Mumbai, New Delhi, Bangalore, Varanasi, Guwahati, Jammu, and regularly in Kashmir valley where Hindus are killed.

The newly sworn in British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has prohibited the use of 'Muslims' by his ministers in connection with terrorist attacks. The expression 'war on terror' has been disavowed, in a clear indication of distancing the entire White Hall from the White House. Mr. Brown was prompt to declare that entry of highly skilled migrant workers in Britain would get tougher. It would particularly be so for the doctors as National Health Service has been instructed to expand the background checks of the immigrant applicants.

Mr. Brown appears to have a Newtonian mind -- 'the big door in the cage for mama rabbit, a small door for the young rabbit'. He seems paranoid about the highly skilled professional immigrants -- most of whom are non-Muslims -- but an apologist of Muslims, who are spawning the Jihadis. The profession is not the inspiration behind acts of incendiary; the religious precepts are worth examining for it.

The clock appeared to have turned a full circle. Not long ago, Left-liberals preached that poverty and lack of education, rather than quotes from the Quran, prompted 'Islamic terrorism'. Now, does Mr. Brown want to say that ethnicity and high qualifications prompt terrorism? Has he come across any, or honestly hope to come across, any Hindu, Buddhist or Catholic immigrant in Britain perpetrating acts of terror? He can't dare name Germaine Maurice Lindsay, the Jamaican immigrant, who blew himself up in tube railway on 7/7, 2005. Lindsay did not blew himself up because he was a Jamaican -- but as a convert to Islam (as Abdullah Shaheed Jamal) following its gospel of Jihad against non-Muslims. Why it was no other Jamaican -- there is a Jamaican Diaspora in Britain -- who acted as suicide bomber. Lindsay was no suicide bomber but a fidayin [suicidal warrior], like Kafeel, the Glasgow jeep driver who is now fighting imminent death from burn injuries. Kafeel is an aeronautical engineer with a PhD -- 'a highly skilled professional!' Lindsay a.k.a. Abdullah Shaeed Jamal was a humble carpet fitter -- a semi-skilled or unskilled person. But it was the zeal of Jihad which unites them -- Glasgow incendiary and London bombing.

Britain, no less than any other sovereign nation, has absolute right to reframe its immigration policy. It might stop immigration, if it so likes. But the problem of Jihad is not a problem of immigration -- unless we are speaking about London's old policy of sheltering radical Muslims -- which earned it an infamous name Londonistan from the French intelligence agency. Were the fidayin of 7/7, apart from Lindsay, immigrants or 'home grown'.

Mohammed Sidique Khan's parents were from Pakistan but he was born in Leeds in 1974 and grew up in West Yorkshire. Shehzad Tanweer was born in Bradford. Habib Hussein was born in Leeds. Although their parents hailed from Pakistan, formerly a colony of Britain as part of undivided India, they all were born and brought up in Britain. Is it likely that Mr. Brown toughness of highly skilled immigrants of all religious background could prevent the rise of home-grown Jihadis in Britain? He may need a tough 'emigration' policy as well! On April 30, 2003 Asif Mohammed Hanif, a British citizen, perpetrated a fidayin attack in Tel Aviv in which three civilians were killed and 50 were injured. A second British citizen Omar Khan Sherif, who also planned a simultaneous attack, fled the scene but his body was discovered on Mediterranean beach front of Tel Aviv on May 12, washed ashore.

The Muslims have been a traditional vote bank -- in Britain of Labour Party, which Mr. Brown represents; in independent India of Congress -- which Mr. Manmohan Singh represents. Never mind that in pre-independent India Muslims always vilified Congress as a Hindu party, and Mr. Manmohan Singh happens to be refugee from West Punjab after Islamic Republic of Pakistan was declared in 1947. But will somebody care, for the Muslim designs on Britain and India.

I have no special sympathy for the Indian immigrants in Britain (the richest man of Britain is an Indian immigrant) -- most of them are careerists. No doubt some of them are nationalists, who are asset to both Britain and India, materially as well as culturally. However, I see no reason why the Indian Diaspora in Britain -- a vast majority of whom are Hindus and Sikhs -- should take lying down an ill-conceived measure meant to stop Jihadi attacks. Most Muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims. Why should the non-Muslim immigrants (whether Indian, Chinese, Filipino of Jamaican) suffer the blame for Islamic Jihad? The British ire, essentially towards Muslims, can get easily misdirected towards any brown skin Indian -- a Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Parsi -- and they end up with shattered window panes or broken ribs.

The Glasgow-London incidents might lead to a polarization in immigrant community on Muslim and non-Muslim lines. Much of Europe's immigrant problem today stems from Muslim immigrants. Today, the Prime Ministers, British as well as Indian, appear more as apologists of Muslims, than the leader of their countries. But the question is whether it would help either India or Britain -- both of whom should brace up for a tough battle against Jihad ahead.

By Priyadarsi Dutta

Priyadarsi Dutta is based in New Delhi, India.

This item is available as: html