You might have thought they'd have done that a while ago

Iraq ordered the closure yesterday of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) offices in the country as pressure mounted on the Government of Nouri al-Maliki to clamp down on the hardline Kurdish separatists.

“The PKK is a terrorist organisation and we have taken a decision to shut down their offices and not allow them to operate on Iraqi soil,” Mr al-Maliki said after talks with Ali Babacan, the Turkish Foreign Minister.

Turkey is on the verge of invading Iraq

In an apparent attempt to get the U.S. to act against Kurdish separatists using northern Iraq as a safe haven, Prime Minister Erdogan is requesting authorization from his parliament to invade.

Erdogan suggested Turkey may not take immediate action but may rather wait to see if the US and the Iraqis crack down on the PKK bases in northern Iraq. "If you're against it, make your attitude clear and do whatever is necessary," the prime minister said. "If you cannot do it, then let us do it."

Pressure has mounted on Erdogan this week after 15 soldiers were killed over the weekend in the mainly Kurdish southeast of Turkey. The bloodshed continued on Wednesday -- one policeman was killed and several people were injured when a bomb was thrown into a tailor's shop in Diyarbakir, the largest city in Turkey's southeast.

There's little doubt that if the Americans don't act, Turkey will send it's army across the border. This would unfortunately spoil the president's attempt to portray the Kurdish north as an Iraqi success story. It's not obvious which side the Americans would end up fighting for, but considering his own saber rattling against states giving aid and shelter to terrorists, you might think he'd have acted on this years ago.

The PKK is designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

Secular and religious parties in Turkey continue to struggle over the presidency

Turkey, which faced the threat of a coup a few months ago, and continues in a face-off with Iraqi based PKK separatists, continues to be divided over how it's president will be elected.

The power struggle gripping Turkey became even more intense on Friday. Using the final political tools available to him, the country's secular president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, called for a referendum to determine whether his successor should be elected by popular vote instead of in parliament. At the same time, he said he would ask the country's high court to nullify a May 31 vote in parliament paving the way for a popular presidential election.

However the debate over the legalities of the conflict overshadows the fact that the AKP's pro-Islamic tendencies are massively popular in Turkey. The party has repeatedly insisted it is not interested in establishing an Islamic state and has led Turkey on a path of reforms in order to prepare the country for potential European Union membership. Nevertheless, Sezer has vetoed a record number of bills proposed by the AKP, many of them aimed at weakening the church-state separations put in place by modern-day Turkey's founding father, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

Turkish author Ahmet Altan describes the two societies in Turkey today:

The first group has been despised, discredited, and pushed around throughout the years of the Republic. Now this group has become politically organized. It is large. And it now has the political power to win every election.

The second group is in the minority. And it currently has no chance of ever winning another election.

In Altan's description, the first group are the religious members of society, the second group are the secularists.

Turkey and the Kurds still on the edge

CIZRE, Turkey, June 7 — Turkey is stepping up its presence along its border with Iraq to levels not seen in years in an effort to root out Kurdish separatist guerrillas who take refuge in northern Iraq.

And while reports this week of a large Turkish military push into Iraq seem to be untrue, the army is acting with greater urgency here in the southeast, home to a large part of the Kurdish minority, which accounts for one-fifth of Turkey’s population.

That group, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, has carried out violent attacks in Turkey since the 1980s, fighting for a separate Kurdish state. It has recently stepped up attacks against Turkish soldiers. Militants killed seven on Monday by hiding in a food delivery vehicle. Three forest rangers were killed Thursday in a land-mine attack.

However amplified the oratory, the militants pose a serious threat. In April and May alone, 30 Turkish soldiers were killed in attacks, and in the first nine months of last year, about 600 people were killed in militant-related violence, according to official Turkish figures. Turkey is trying to become a member of the European Union, and navigating a violent fight with armed separatists has proved difficult.

Turkey is threatening to invade Iraq

As Iraq continues to fracture and Americans are focused on battles between the Sunni-Shiite factions, many forget that the Kurdish areas are also sources of conflict which could draw Iraq's neighbors into the war.

Turkish patience is running out over the cross-border raids by Kurdish militants based in northern Iraq. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has urged caution, but Ankara is openly debating an incursion to root out the rebels. And it plans to take its case for action to the UN this week.

The signs have become increasingly ominous. For weeks, Turkey has been building up its military presence on its south-eastern border with Iraq in response to cross-border raids by Kurdish rebels. Potentially more concerning, Ankara has been openly considering an incursion into Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq in an attempt to root out members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) based there.

Turkey, a NATO ally, striving for membership in the EU, battled with Kurdish separatists for decades and worry that an independent Kurdish state on it's border would threaten to provoke a civil war. The PKK was a particular threat.

The main characteristic of PKK attacks was the use of indiscriminate violence, and PKK guerrillas did not hesitate to kill Kurds whom they considered collaborators. Targeted in particular were the government's paid militia, known as village guards, and schoolteachers accused of promoting forced assimilation. The extreme violence of the PKK's methods enabled the government to portray the PKK as a terrorist organization and to justify its own policies, which included the destruction of about 850 border villages and the forced removal of their populations to western Turkey.

Iran and Syria have similar worries.

Turkish voters will elect their president directly

Under threat of a coup, the Turkish parliament has overwhelmingly decided to have the voters choose their president:

Turkish presidents, traditionally, are elected in parliament -- but parliament has just voted to give that decision to the people. Behind the reform is an old conflict between Muslims and Turkish secularists.

The current prime minister Erdogan, and his chosen nominee for president, Gül, are members of a conservative Islamic party (AKP). The military, who see themselves as defenders of the secular nation, had threatened a coup if Gül were elected by parliament.

Interestingly, it's Erdogan and Gül who believe they'll win in a direct election. The current president may veto the law to prevent it.

[The current president] Sezer is among critics ... who say the law was rushed through without enough debate. He's hinted at a veto. It's true that the Islamic-rooted, center-right AKP promoted the amendment after its presidential candidate, Abdullah Gül, lost two divisive votes in parliament.

[Gül actually won the votes of more than 60% of the members of parliament, but opponents prevented a quorum by boycotting the proceedings]

The president in Turkey controls the military, and Gül's candidacy last month tore open old wounds between conservative Muslims in the AKP on the one hand, and secularists on the other -- especially secularists entrenched in the military. The army has issued a veiled threat to the government that it may stage a coup if a candidate with Islamist roots -- such as Gül -- is elected president.

In Turkey, it's the AKP that leans towards the West. Erdogan has aggressively pursued EU membership, while secular parties have been more nationalistic.

There's no evidence that the military would not stage a coup against a popularly elected President. Protesters came out in force against the AKP yesterday, but oppose military threats as well.

Veiled threats from generals during Gül's presidential bid inflamed national tensions, and protesters in Izmir carried not just anti-Erdogan banners but also paper hats with slogans: "No to Islamic law, no to military coups: a democratic Turkey."

The nation of Turkey, still under the threat of a coup

From the Economist's report on the struggling democracy in Turkey:

(The country still lives under the threat of a coup by the military if they elect a president from a Islamist party.)

Secularism v democracy

The government's response to the army's ultimatum was unusually crisp. Cemil Cicek, the justice minister, called it “unacceptable” and reminded the generals that they were constitutionally bound to take their orders from the prime minister, not vice versa.

It is not just the army's taste for politics that is worrying. The top general recently said a military attack on Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq was “necessary” and “useful”. Though he agreed that the constitution gave parliament authority over the armed forces, many fear that the army may decide to attack all the same. “They are itching to,” whispers a westerner who observes Turkish security. This may explain why America's response to the political crisis has been so lame. “The last thing they want is a quarrel with the Turkish military,” a European official observes. The nightmare for America is Turkish and American soldiers exchanging fire in Iraq. Based on the past week's events, nothing can be ruled out.

Lessons in Democracy for George Bush

George Bush demonstrates that 6 years into his presidency, he still doesn't understand how the American system works.

"I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job," Bush said. "And I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake."

Of course, politicians in Washington do tell generals how to do their jobs. Generals don't declare wars, and they don't sign peace treaties. They fight where and when they're told. And they stop when they're told. That's how mature democracies operate.

The alternative is what we see in Turkey:

Turkey's military, which has toppled three governments since 1960, warned it may not allow a candidate with Islamist roots to be president. In an election on Friday in parliament where the AKP has a majority, Gul had come within 10 votes of being the first Turkish president with an Islamist past.

The idea that the military might decide who can or cannot be elected is anathema to proponents of true democracy, and we can only hope that Turkey avoids falling into that trap, again.

But George Bush has been a supporter of such autocratic arrangements in the past. Here's Governor Bush's take on Pervez Musharraf a mere month after that General overthrew the elected prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who had attempted to fire him.

Bush said: "The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected – not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the subcontinent."

Our president should be happy that his own generals take their oaths to uphold the Constitution more seriously than he does.



Update: the president's confusion is made clear. He doesn't realize he's a politician. He believes he's "the commander guy":

Our commanders saw this as an opportunity to step up the pressure on al Qaeda. Our commanders made the recommendation from the field that they could use more troops to help secure Anbar. And so I ordered additional U.S. Marines and special operation forces to Anbar as part of our reinforcement package; 4,000 of the troops are going into Anbar.

That didn't make any sense to me, to impose the will of politicians over the recommendations of our military commanders in the field. So I vetoed the bill.

And that's what we do. We put in more troops to get to a position where we can be in some other place. The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear -- I'm the commander guy.

h/t too many blogs to keep track of