[NYTr] Boeing Could Lose Big Bucks, US Could Lose Military Access, to Turkish Wrath

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[The story credited to Forbes on Google about Boeing is not available
at the Forbes URL listed, but a search indicates that Boeing is already
in big trouble with Turkey over delayed deliveries and other business
disagreements that could result in fines to Boeing of $150 million or
more.  The State Department is apparently using the financial risk to
Boeing as one of its arguments against the Armenian genocide
resolution.  

Turkey, of course, has been threatening to stage raids against the PKK
inside Iraq for many months, and has been demanding action from the
US to stop armed PKK militants from their raids in Turkey. But, as the
Army Times notes: "Despite the  massive U.S. presence in Iraq, it has
no forces of any significance in the country’s most northern reaches..."

The real fear of the Bush Reich is that they will lose access to
northern Iraq via Turkey, perhaps even use of their "old faithful,"
the airbase at Incirlik, which they've had access to for decades.
See the Army Times story below for details.  -NY Transfer]

Forbes via Google - Oct 11, 2007
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/10/11/boeing-turkey-congress-markets-equity-cx_bw_1011markets40.html

Turkey May Punish Boeing Over Genocide Vote

Forbes

Boeing could lose more than a billion dollars worth of defense
contracts with Turkey if the House of Representatives adopts a
resolution to label as genocide the killing of Armenians by Ottoman
Turks nearly a century ago, a State Department official ...

[The story was not available at the Forbes URL listed by Google.]


                          ***

Army Times - Oct 11, 2007
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/10/military_turkeyiraq_071011w/

Key Iraq ally Turkey angered by House move

By William H. McMichael - Staff writer

A valued ally in the U.S. war on terrorism could be on the verge of
turning its back on that effort over what the Bush administration says
is an ill-timed House resolution condemning the 1915-1917 mass killings
of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks as “genocide.”

And Turkey may be taking its own war on terror across the Iraqi border,
where Kurdish rebels who hope to create an independent socialist state
in the greater region are said to be hiding. The Associated Press
reported today that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has suggested
that his parliament could hold a vote next week to allow cross-border
military operations.

AP reported Wednesday that Turkish warplanes and helicopters were
already striking positions along Turkey’s southern border with Iraq in
an attempt to rout the rebels of the Kurdistan Workers Party, which the
U.S. and others have labeled a terrorist organization.

The New York Times reported today that a recent uptick in violence
blamed on the rebels has prompted the action. More than 20 years of
Turkish conflict with the separatist group has produced some 30,000
total casualties, according to the U.S. State Department.

“The violence that has been undertaken by the PKK is an enormous
challenge,” Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq,
told AP Thursday. “It’s really a strategic issue. So we are again very
understanding of the concern [the Turks] have over these terrorists who
are up in the very, very high mountains that straddle the border there.”

Despite the massive U.S. presence in Iraq, it has no forces of any
significance in the country’s most northern reaches, controlled by
Kurdish militia forces allied with the U.S.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Thursday he was unaware of any
increase in U.S. force presence in the Kurdish-controlled north.

Whitman said the U.S. wants to get Turkey and Iraq to work on a
“long-term solution to what has been a problem for some time. And the
long-term solution is not ... military action along the border.” He
said the best way forward would be a “political and diplomatic
agreement on a way forward.”

Turkish anger over the continued rebel presence and the resolution
places the U.S. in an extremely awkward position. Turkey, a NATO ally,
plays a key role in the U.S. war in Iraq. According to Defense
Secretary Robert Gates, 70 percent of American air cargo bound for Iraq
passes through Turkey, as well as 30 percent of the U.S. fuel.

“We are concerned about that,” Petraeus said. “A lot our supplies come
through Turkey. ... To maintain that commercial exchange is hugely
important through the border crossing at Habur Gate. And we hope that
will continue.”

In addition to basing rights at Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base, Turkey has
commanded two security force rotations in Afghanistan and is a partner
in the Joint Strike Fighter project, according to Gates. Sixteen U.S.
Navy ships also made port calls in Turkey last year.

Turkey has not yet said whether or how the resolution could affect its
support of the U.S. war. But AP reported that Turkish President
Abdullah Gul warned of “serious troubles” if the measure was adopted by
the full House. U.S. officials underlined such sentiments.

“The Turks have been quite clear in saying that they will think very
carefully about some of the measures that they have to take if this
resolution passes,” Gates told reporters in London today. “I think it’s
worth noting that the French parliament passed a similar resolution and
there were a number of steps taken by the Turkish government to punish,
if you will, the French government.”

State Department spokesman Tom Casey added today, “Turkish officials
have made clear their very strong concerns about this and have raised
questions about potential consequences in the event that this
resolution passes.”

Turkey’s U.S. ambassador was ordered back home Thursday for discussions
about the measure, and cited a private Turkish TV network report that
Turkey’s top naval officer cancelled a planned trip to the U.S., AP
reported.

On Wednesday, the House Foreign Relations Committee passed a
non-binding resolution condemning the 1915-1917 killings as genocide —
something long and widely acknowledged by historians but vehemently
denied by Turkey, which says the killings were not government-sponsored
and which claims that hundreds of thousands of Turks also died in
fighting during the era.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., whose district has large numbers of
Armenian Americans, has long backed the measure, which is co-sponsored
by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. It also has the support of two
Democratic presidential contenders, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York
and Barack Obama of Illinois.

U.S. administration officials acknowledge the tragedy but said the
resolution needlessly sparks outrage over an issue of high emotional
significance to a strong ally.

“I think we all recognize there were mass murders 95 years ago, 1915,”
Gates said. “The problem that we have is that this is clearly a very
sensitive subject for one of our closest allies, and an ally that is
incredibly important to the United States in terms of our operations in
Iraq.”

Pelosi acknowledged the “very strong relationship” the U.S. has with
Turkey and told reporters today that “this isn’t about ... the Erdogan
government. This is about the Ottoman Empire.”

As to why the issue was being pressed now, she replied, “There’s never
a good time. And all of us in the Democratic leadership have supported
our making — reiterating the Americans’ acknowledgement of a genocide.”

Gates said the timing was poor.

“I think we all have to take into account the cultures and history of
individual countries,” he said. “And all I can say is that a resolution
that looks back almost 100 years to an event that took place under a
predecessor government — the Ottomans — and that has enormous
present-day implications for American soldiers and Marines and sailors
and airmen in Iraq is something we need to take very seriously.”

Casey agreed. “We don’t believe that passage of such a resolution is
helpful either to the cause of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation or to
U.S. national security interests. ... The determination of whether
these events constitute genocide is something that we believe should be
a matter for historical inquiry, not for political debate.”