Turkey approves military operations in Iraq, Syria
Source: AP
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) Turkey's parliament approved a motion Thursday that gives the government new powers to launch military incursions into Syria and Iraq and to allow foreign forces to use its territory for possible operations against the Islamic State group.
Parliament voted 298-98 in favor of the motion which sets the legal framework for any Turkish military involvement, and for the potential use of Turkish bases by foreign troops.
Meanwhile, the militants pressed their offensive against a beleaguered Kurdish town along the Syria-Turkey border. The assault, which has forced about 160,000 people to flee across the frontier in recent days, left Kurdish militiamen scrambling Thursday to repel Islamic State extremists pushing into the outskirts of the northern Syrian town of Kobani, also known as Ayn Arab.
Turkey, a NATO member with a large and modern military, has yet to define what role it intends to play in the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State group.
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/Turkey-considers-Iraq-Syria-incursions-5795550.php
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)One of the most vibrant economies, the most liberal of Islamic countries, and a proud, proud nation.
Baclava
(12,047 posts)- but don't tell them that unless you want to start a brawl
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)atreides1
(16,079 posts)The Kurds and the Turks have their own squabbles that have yet to be dealt with! And the Turks aren't doing this out of the "kindness" of their NATO hearts either!
Edrogan is going to request a real big favor from his NATO allies, which I think will include a little autonomy when it comes to dealing with his Kurdish neighbors.
That's my theory anyway...we'll just have to see how it plays out.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)karynnj
(59,503 posts)Turkey has been exceedingly anti Assad, but the coalition is - at this point - working on ISIL only and they are "deconflicting" with Syria. Go back to the McCain whines about this at the hearing, where he lobbies for being simultaneously against both Assad and ISIL at the same moment.
It is significant that the administration defined it as they did. I think they mean it when they say there is only a political/diplomatic solution. I wonder if ISIS and the AQ linked terrorists are degraded whether a unity government including people from the Assad government and some moderate rebels might become more feasible.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Who say they are going to use it to fight Assad, too.
If the US is spending half a billion bucks to make more war in Syria as part of a "political/diplomatic solution," I'd say that's pretty darned cynical of us.
Assad--and the significant portion of the population he represents--isn't going anywhere. If the US actually recognizes that and works to find a political solution to the civil war that includes Assad, that would be a good thing.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)I also note that many times in the past, money was appropriated ... then never actually used for the rebels. The time line assumes a very long time for "vetting" and then training. I would not be surprised if the "vetting" does not become more vetting for finding a political cadre that could be the Sunni part of a unity government as well as vetting for troops to fight ISIL. (I would assume that even if there is a political solution, ISIL will still be a local problem and it should be the SUNNIS in the government who take the lead in going after them to keep it from being sectarian.)
(To give credit for any hope fro a unity government - I tried to find a Guardian article from a few weeks ago that had influenced my thinking on this, but could not recall enough for a pointed enough google. Their point was that the reason the Assad forces might consider a unity government is that they need SOMETHING to prevent a vacuum of power in the Sunni areas that would quickly be filled with something else bad. )