Former US govt employee: Turkey must strike immediately to take Kirkuk

[TexasLawyer]

Former US govt employee: Turkey must strike immediately to take Kirkuk

The New Anatolian / Ankara
01 March 2007

Turkey must act immediately to secure Kirkuk using even the most extreme measures since any delay would bring Turkey no advantages but many disadvantages, according to Scott Sullivan, a former Washington government employee.

In his article "Turkey must strike immediately to take Kirkuk and Basra" posted on www.petroleumworld.com, Sullivan stated that the longer Turkey waits to take this action, the more Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani can change the facts on the ground by allowing more Kurds to resettle in the oil-rich region. Also if Turkey does not strike, Sullivan argued, the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) will strengthen its combat capabilities in Kirkuk, and it would better be able to coordinate an internal uprising in Turkey with the defense of Kirkuk.

Sullivan cited 10 main reasons for the necessity of a Turkish strike on Kirkuk and Basra.

1. Turkey now knows, if it had any lingering doubts, that the U.S. favors an independent Kurdistan and the Kurdish annexation of Kirkuk, as shown by the favorable U.S. stance on Iraq's oil law, which opens the way to both Kurdish objectives.

2. The U.S. has demonstrated that it is prepared to deceive Turkey about its pro-Kurdish stance, as when the U.S. defends its stance on Iraq's oil law. In other words, U.S. assurances that it will restrain the PKK in Kirkuk are worthless and are humiliating for Turkey, while emboldening the PKK, when Turkey accepts them.

<snip>

http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-23640.html

Reason 7 talks about "taking Kirkuk now" so I think this article is advocating military action and is not being rhetorical. Sheesh, wouldn't this be a mess? This is how I imagine WWIII starting.

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. Basra ??

[unhappycamper]

2. Think oil.

Everything *Co does is centered around money or oil.