My overall question for this thread of debate is:

Is it a good idea for the United States to allow regional peacekeeping troops in Iraq? (For the purpose of alleviating US troops from some peacekeeping dutys, and helping build the infrastructure of Iraq.)

Why or why not?

Some background:

The current friction is now between the Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar zebari and US officials, over the use of Turkish troops as peacekeepers in Iraq.


Pakistan Daily Times

The Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, seems optimistic and ready to send Turkish troops to peacekeeping roles in Iraq.


Turkish Press

It is well known that the ethnic Turkomen and Kurds are in a state of undeclared war. In light of this, is it wise to continue attempts at obtaining Turkish peacekeepers in a country already split down religious and ethnic lines? Will we be alienating our more staunch ethnic allies in Iraq? Even if the Turks operate in the largely Sunni Muslim province of al-Anbar, they will have to cross through or over the largely Kurdish north. This could pose serious problems in an already problematic situation.


Pakistan Daily Times

On that same train of thought is it wise to be asking for peacekeeping forces from the predominantly Sunni neighbors of Iraq? Are we alienating the Shia Muslims of the south by doing so?

This was one of the issues that I remember discussing here, or maybe another board, before the war. This was one of several sensitive issues that had the potential to blow out of proportion but apparently the White House didn't understand or didn't care. While we were building up troops on the border the US was never clear whether the Kurds or turkey would be given the upper hand. We kept going back and forth sending mixed signals...probably because we had not yet learned if we could use Turkey's land or air space until the very last minute.

But the two groups had barely ended an 8 year bloody civil war with each other and tensions were still high. One minute the US would agree to let Turkey come over the Iraq border to protect themselves from the Kurds and the next moment we were giving the Kurds all kinds of arms and a possible role in the war.

IMO, Turkey should not be allowed in because it has the potential to do more harm then good. I don't know the best way to go from there. I lean towards making a deal with the UN where they provides troops and money. The US is in charge of the security, police training, and army training.

The UN takes over the humanitarian/reconstruction/election issues. Rumsfeld and Bremer are removed.

Under US control the Iraqi people have been treated as either non-entities, criminals, or uncivilized simpletons. They have no voice in directing their reconstruction on any level. They were shut out and the US hired Companies to take over every detail they could. The infrastructure may have gotten some repairs but the most basic needs have not been completely resolved to this day. There is no security and things are becoming more and more unstable. The response to every concern or grievance for them is 'be grateful you're free' or 'Saddam is gone and that's what's most important'.

The US leadership seems to have it's own agenda's which has little to do with the Iraqi peoples wants or needs, they are basically treated as part of the background. I don't think it's in anyones best interest to keep the US in charge of anything but the security and funding...which does not include running their oil business or giving all the jobs in the state to rich friends and business associates.

These things have only proven to be distractive, self serving, and ultimately counter to the best interest of building a sovereign and democratic Iraqi. It's also proven to be extremely costly to the American citizens.

When Congress gave Bush the blank check for war it was with the understanding that he got the UN's support first. He failed to do that and invaded anyway. Now that he's had his war he needs to bring the UN in to help the Iraqi's do what's best for them. It seems like Bush feels Iraq is his...like he conquered it and can do what he likes and take what he wants. Like he can give it back when he's ready and doesn't have to answer to anyone as the supreme ruler.

He needs a wake up call.

I have to turn downt his regional military cooperation idea

If we allow Turkish forces to be part of this "Regional Force", the kurds would not like it. There would be ethnic fighting between them, and it would cause an internal war that we have been trying to avoid since the fall of Iraq

I think the Turks could still play a role as peacekeepers without ruffling too many feathers. Stationing them in the north would be out of question, as it would likely spark violence between the Kurds and the Turks, both in Iraq and in Turkey. I think though that they could operate in the Arab Shi'ite south, where there would be far less hostility towards them.

One reason it might be a problem to bring the Turks in - It is decidedly in the interest of Turkey, given their longstanding "Kurdish problem," to befriend whomever ends up consolodating power in Iraq, particularly if that power base is composed of southern Iraqis. Turkey has long considered Mosul and Kirkuk to be part of their rightful lands, and would surely love to make some sort of deal that would bring those northern oil cities back into the Turkish fold.

Will the Kurds trust Turkish troops, no matter where they are stationed in Iraq? Even if Turkey doesn't have ulterior motives? It's doubtful. They've been persecuted by Turkey for far too long - and screwed over by America too may times - for a move like this to rest easy.

Of course, in any group of people, oppressed or not, there will be those few (who so often end up in power) who will gladly accept all sorts of compromises and stalled out processes of "reconstruction" and "free market reforms," all in order to grab more power and more personal wealth.

Whether or not my analysis is correct, it may be cogent to remember that all political actions have more than one layer of motive. This is not to imply a partisan or ideological judgement on such motives - for good or ill, such layers exist.

Bush Sr. thought that regional cooperation in a war against an Arab nation was an imperative element. Why is that no longer the case?

Without real support from neighbors such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey, how can the United States expect a long term stability to come from Iraq. I wonder if this is something that has expired as an option. Some of these nations should have been part of the (snicker) broad coalition of support that was patched together to wage this hurried war.

Here is the link to President Chirac interview with the New York Times. It's quite long, but it's worth the read.

Chirac interviewed by the NY Times

I agree with Chirac that it is time to hand over soveriegnty, as an important symbolic gesture, immediately. The new Iraqi government's responsibilities can be phased in.