Erdogan - we will 'strangle' U.S.-backed force in Syria 'before it's even born'

[webfact]

Erdogan - we will 'strangle' U.S.-backed force in Syria 'before it's even born'

By Ellen Francis and Ezgi Erkoyun

 

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan speaks during an opening ceremony in Sincan near Ankara, Turkey, January 15, 2018. Yasin Bulbul/Presidential Palace/Handout via REUTERS

 

BEIRUT/ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan threatened on Monday to "strangle" a planned 30,000-strong U.S.-backed force in Syria "before it's even born," as Washington's backing for Kurdish fighters drove a wedge into relations with one of its main Middle East allies.

 

The United States announced its support on Sunday for plans for a "border force" to defend territory held by U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led fighters in northern Syria.

 

The Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad responded on Monday by vowing to crush the new force and drive U.S. troops from the country. Assad's ally Russia called the plans a plot to dismember Syria and place part of it under U.S. control.

 

But the strongest denunciation came from Erdogan, who has presided as relations between the United States and its biggest Muslim ally within NATO have stretched to the breaking point.

 

"A country we call an ally is insisting on forming a terror army on our borders," Erdogan said of the United States in a speech in Ankara. "What can that terror army target but Turkey?"

 

"Our mission is to strangle it before it's even born."

 

Erdogan said Turkey had completed preparations for an operation in Kurdish-held territory in northern Syria.

 

The Kurdish-led regions in Syria say they need the border force to protect them against threats from Ankara and Damascus.

 

"To prevent any attack... there must be a deterrent force that protects the border between our areas and the others," Fawza Youssef, a senior Kurdish politician, told Reuters.

 

"Until a political settlement is reached in Syria, these areas need protection. Now, there aren't any guarantees," she said.

 

The United States has led an international coalition using air strikes and special forces troops to aid fighters on the ground battling Islamic State militants in Syria since 2014. It has about 2,000 troops on the ground in Syria.

 

The U.S. intervention has taken place on the periphery of a near seven-year civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and driven more than 11 million from their homes.

 

Islamic State was effectively defeated last year, but Washington says its troops are prepared to stay to make sure the Islamist militant group cannot return.

 

For much of the war, the United States and Turkey worked together, jointly supporting forces fighting against Assad's government. But a U.S. decision to back Kurdish fighters in northern Syria in recent years has enraged Ankara.

 

Meanwhile, the Assad government, backed by Russia and Iran, has made great strides over the past two years in defeating a range of opponents, restoring control over nearly all of Syria's main cities. It considers the continued U.S. presence a threat to its ambition to restore full control over the entire country.

 

On Sunday, the U.S.-led coalition said it was working with its militia allies, the mainly Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), to set up the new force to patrol the Turkish and Iraqi borders, as well as within Syria along the Euphrates River which separates SDF territory from that held by the government.

 

"DON'T FORCE US TO BURY"

 

Turkey views the Syrian Kurdish forces supported by the United States as allies of the PKK, a banned Kurdish group waging an insurgency in southern Turkey.

 

"This is what we have to say to all our allies: don't get in between us and terrorist organisations, or we will not be responsible for the unwanted consequences," Erdogan said.

 

"Don't force us to bury in the ground those who are with terrorists," he said. "Our operations will continue until not a single terrorist remains along our borders, let alone 30,000."

 

Syria's main Kurdish groups have emerged so far as one of the few winners in the Syrian war, working to entrench their autonomy over large parts of northern Syria. Washington opposes those autonomy plans even as it has backed the SDF.

 

The Syrian government and the main Kurdish parties have mostly avoided conflict during the civil war, as both sides focused on fighting other groups. But Assad's rhetoric towards the Kurds has turned increasingly hostile.

 

Damascus denounced the new border force as a "blatant assault" on its sovereignty, Syrian state media said. It said any Syrian who joined the force would be deemed "a traitor".

 

"What the American administration has done comes in the context of its destructive policy in the region to fragment countries ... and impede any solutions to the crises," state news agency SANA cited a foreign ministry source as saying.

 

Assad's allies have also chimed in. In an apparent reference to the force, senior Iranian official Ali Shamkhani said it was "doomed to failure", Fars news agency reported.

 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "The actions that we see now show that the United States does not want to maintain the territorial integrity of Syria."

 

"Fundamentally, this means the breakup of a large territory along the border with Turkey and Iraq," Lavrov said.

 

(Additional reporting by Rodi Said in Qamishli, Syria, Daren Butler and Ece Toksabay in Turkey, Jack Stubbs and Gabrielle Tetrault-Farber in Moscow, and Bozorgmehr Sharafedin in London; Writing by Tom Perry in Beirut; Editing by Peter Graff)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-01-16

[Jack Mountain]

Don't mention the oil!

[johna]

America wants to do is get rid of Assad, they tried with their so called "moderate rebels" aka Al Qaeda, ISIS, now its the Kurds are up to bat.

[Enoon]

1 hour ago, johna said:

America wants to do is get rid of Assad, they tried with their so called "moderate rebels" aka Al Qaeda, ISIS, now its the Kurds are up to bat.

 

And the Kurds want an independent state, encompassing their ancient ethnic homelands.

 

A very large percentage of which fall within present Turkish territory.

 

Turkeys increased antagonism, towards an inevitably growing sense of Kurdish self-determination, became entirely predictable the moment that "Mission Accomplished" was declared.

 

 

[car720]

Saladin was a kurd.  Be careful.

[ilostmypassword]

 

24 minutes ago, car720 said:

Saladin was a kurd.  Be careful.

And Attila the Hun was Turkic. Therefore...?

[MyFriend You]

I think Turkey is due for another monster earthquake to take his mind of such silliness, he needs to apply his energy inside his own country first.   Or someone should cut his supply of Yaa baa.

[Srikcir]

Is it time for a travel ban that includes Turkey?

[Jack Mountain]

Travel ban for americans to leave there living country (USA) would be nice.

[thaibeachlovers]

Time for the US to face reality and realise the Erdogan's government is not a US ally.

Time for them to dump Erdogan and his anti democratic government, but let it be known they'd change their mind if Erdogan was gone and replaced by a democracy.

[JAG]

It is fascinating how the dynamics have changed! Throughout the "Cold War" Turkey, bordered by the Soviet Union and their client states Syria and Iraq, was an enthusiastic and effective member of the NATO alliance, its military largely dependent upon US kit and training.

Now the threat from Russia has largely gone, and Iraq and Syria emasculated, at least in military terms, Turkey is positioning itself as the regional power.

Ottaman Empire MK2?

 

Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

[farcanell]

30 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Is it time for a travel ban that includes Turkey?

Maybe.... but maybe it’s also time to welcome US supported Kurdish fighters that need a little R and R away from the front line ?

[Sir Dude]

Turdogan is not a friend of any western countries and Turkey should be stripped of NATO membership due to being unreliable and a liability. He [Turdo] is an Islamic dictator doing his best to destroy Turkey's secular roots and constitution whilst doing things like still calling German officials Nazis....blimey.

 

He looks to be finding his comfort zone with the likes of Putin and the self-serving Chinese communists, fits in a treat. The US and the EU can be annoying with their rules/expectations but at least you know where you stand with them, if you think you can trust the Russians and Chinese...well, good luck with that. As for Assad, he will have to pay a very high price for being bailed out by Putin and may never be rid of Russian troops in his country as Putin seems to have aced it on Syria through some pretty shady actions like on the chem weapons...another puppet country in his pocket. 

 

Looks to me like Turkey, under it's conservative Islamic government, is making a grab for territory and assets so it has a strong hand when the negotiations eventually start over Syria and it'll be after the Kurds at that table, relinquishing what it has acquired in Syria to hinder/destroy what the Kurds want as they are the true enemy of Turdogan and he is only interested in screwing them up as much as he can.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Sir Dude
Typos

[spidermike007]

The real question is, does the US have a coherent policy, when it comes to Syria? It does appear that the US suffered it's greatest ass whooping, perhaps since Afghanistan, and perhaps even Vietnam, in Syria. The Russians absolutely destroyed the US. It was Russia's greatest overseas victory since Georgia. So, I ask once again, does the US have a policy in Syria that makes any sense at all? Obama totally blew any opportunities we had in Syria. And it appears the circus huckster is doing the same. But, I sense it is too late, at this point, to accomplish anything significant in Syria. 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Jack Mountain said:

Don't mention the oil!

 

What oil would that be?

[Morch]

5 hours ago, johna said:

America wants to do is get rid of Assad, they tried with their so called "moderate rebels" aka Al Qaeda, ISIS, now its the Kurds are up to bat.

 

Ignoring the actual facts (such as the US actually fighting against extremist Islamic forces, and generally not engaging Assad's forces) is the norm for some. The same applies with failures to to differentiate between groups within Syria or account for the changing dynamics of the situation. That aside, I'm pretty sure that had the US announced it's disengagement from the Kurds, the same posters would have no issues going on about US betraying allies etc.

 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

And the Kurds want an independent state, encompassing their ancient ethnic homelands.

 

A very large percentage of which fall within present Turkish territory.

 

Turkeys increased antagonism, towards an inevitably growing sense of Kurdish self-determination, became entirely predictable the moment that "Mission Accomplished" was declared.

 

 

 

This isn't about Kurdish independence, though, even if there was such a supposed unity of purpose among the various Kurdish factions. Erdogan's rhetoric aside, the goals of the Syrian Kurds seem less all-encompassing than advertised, focusing more on some sort of self-rule within the Syrian state. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Time for the US to face reality and realise the Erdogan's government is not a US ally.

Time for them to dump Erdogan and his anti democratic government, but let it be known they'd change their mind if Erdogan was gone and replaced by a democracy.

 

A real thought out bit of diplomacy there, Trump should be right at home with this one.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

The real question is, does the US have a coherent policy, when it comes to Syria? It does appear that the US suffered it's greatest ass whooping, perhaps since Afghanistan, and perhaps even Vietnam, in Syria. The Russians absolutely destroyed the US. It was Russia's greatest overseas victory since Georgia. So, I ask once again, does the US have a policy in Syria that makes any sense at all? Obama totally blew any opportunities we had in Syria. And it appears the circus huckster is doing the same. But, I sense it is too late, at this point, to accomplish anything significant in Syria. 

 

I don't think that the US had much of a coherent ME policy for quite a while now, going way before Trump. In military terms, the US did not suffer any "ass whooping", diplomatically - yes, but sitting it out would have generated a same same but different result.

 

Doubt there was ever a serious prospect of "accomplishing anything significant" to begin with, so a better question would probably be how to minimize losses. As things stand, there's no easy answer for that, or at least none that do not come with a hefty price tag as well. Lowering the bar further, seems like it's turning out into how not to make things worse, while sustaining the usual erosion.

 

To a degree this depends on Russia's ability to mediate an agreement between Assad and opposition. So far, doesn't seem this is going too great, which gives the US some time. Of course, moves supporting de facto Kurdish autonomy do not make Russia's task easier...

[the guest]

US really should keep it's nose out of foreign policy before it gets cut off!

[Jack Mountain]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

What oil would that be?

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/23/middleeast/syria-oil-field-isis/index.html

[zydeco]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Time for the US to face reality and realise the Erdogan's government is not a US ally.

Time for them to dump Erdogan and his anti democratic government, but let it be known they'd change their mind if Erdogan was gone and replaced by a democracy.

The US needs to withdraw its men and equipment from Incerlik and anywhere else they are stationed in Turkey. And need to get out of Syria and the rest of the basketcase countries in the Middle East. Leave them to their fate. Let's see Erdogan's face when Russia starts to gobble him up. Crimean War 2.0.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Jack Mountain said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/23/middleeast/syria-oil-field-isis/index.html

 

Your original post said "Don't mention the oil!". From the above, seems like the oil is being mentioned, though (there are actually quite a few articles discussing the situation). But what we're talking about here is hardly significant on international or even regional level. If you original comment was an attempt to spin this along these lines, doubt it holds.

[ilostmypassword]

. According to this story,  the US wants to create an armed force of 30,000 Kurdish troops to patrol the border region between Iraq and Turkey. Whatever the faults of Erdogan may be, and they are legion, I don't think his reaction to this is any different from how previous Turkish regimes would have reacted. That's a lot of well-armed and powerfully backed potential enemies to have on your border.

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

. According to this story,  the US wants to create an armed force of 30,000 Kurdish troops to patrol the border region between Iraq and Turkey. Whatever the faults of Erdogan may be, and they are legion, I don't think his reaction to this is any different from how previous Turkish regimes would have reacted. That's a lot of well-armed and powerfully backed potential enemies to have on your border.

 

 

There is already a (mainly) Kurdish force of similar size in area, and it's been that way for years. Erdogan is more upset about US openly supporting this, and possibly wiggling out of past (empty) promises - such as retrieving arms supplied to the Kurds or discontinuing military support of the Kurds.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There is already a (mainly) Kurdish force of similar size in area, and it's been that way for years. Erdogan is more upset about US openly supporting this, and possibly wiggling out of past (empty) promises - such as retrieving arms supplied to the Kurds or discontinuing military support of the Kurds.

I assume you're referring to the SDF. And so long as Turkey and the SDF were battling a common enemy - be it Assad or Isil - that was fine. But that war is virtually over. Already Turkey has been making unhappy noises aimed in the direction of the SDF.  Now you think it's going to tolerate another force of that size patrolling its borders? Seems dubious.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I assume you're referring to the SDF. And so long as Turkey and the SDF were battling a common enemy - be it Assad or Isil - that was fine. But that war is virtually over. Already Turkey has been making unhappy noises aimed in the direction of the SDF.  Now you think it's going to tolerate another force of that size patrolling its borders? Seems dubious.

 

The new force is essentially the SDF by another name. Turkey was never "fine" with the concept and presence of the SDF, nor were the two fighting exactly the same enemy (and Assad was not a major direct opponent either way). Never said anything about Turkey "tolerating" this or that, just your usual nonsense. The point was about Erdogan's indignation being more to do with the US's stance, rather than the actual Kurdish military presence - which is nothing new.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

The new force is essentially the SDF by another name. Turkey was never "fine" with the concept and presence of the SDF, nor were the two fighting exactly the same enemy (and Assad was not a major direct opponent either way). Never said anything about Turkey "tolerating" this or that, just your usual nonsense. The point was about Erdogan's indignation being more to do with the US's stance, rather than the actual Kurdish military presence - which is nothing new.

Let me repeat what I wrote "And so long as Turkey and the SDF were battling a common enemy - be it Assad or Isil - that was fine." Clearly, that is not the same as saying Turkey was fine with the concept and presence of the SDF. Why the distortion? As for tolerating...here is how you described the situation..then what was Turkey doing "There is already a (mainly) Kurdish force of similar size in area, and it's been that way for years.. Erdogan is more upset about US openly supporting this,..." In this context "tolerating is exactly the right word". As in "putting up with".  And what's with this angry language like "just your usual nonsense?" Calm down and stop nitpicking.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Let me repeat what I wrote "And so long as Turkey and the SDF were battling a common enemy - be it Assad or Isil - that was fine." Clearly, that is not the same as saying Turkey was fine with the concept and presence of the SDF. Why the distortion? As for tolerating...here is how you described the situation..then what was Turkey doing "There is already a (mainly) Kurdish force of similar size in area, and it's been that way for years.. Erdogan is more upset about US openly supporting this,..." In this context "tolerating is exactly the right word". As in "putting up with".  And what's with this angry language like "just your usual nonsense?" Calm down and stop nitpicking.

 

Let me repeat - more of your nonsense. There was no point, from Turkey's point of view, in which "that was fine". There was also not much of fighting a common enemy, exactly - never mind, Assad's forces not being either Turkey's or the SDF's direct major opponent. As for "nitpicking", the above seems to be a definition of.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Let me repeat - more of your nonsense. There was no point, from Turkey's point of view, in which "that was fine". There was also not much of fighting a common enemy, exactly - never mind, Assad's forces not being either Turkey's or the SDF's direct major opponent. As for "nitpicking", the above seems to be a definition of.