Incirlik, Turkey: Launchpad to points East?
The huge NATO airbase complex at Incirlik, Turkey, played a key role in the Cold War, in the Persian Gulf War, and in enforcing the northern “no-fly zone” against Saddam.
Now it’s being prepared to provide logistical support for potential “operations” to the east. The article says Afghanistan and Iraq. But other nations may read this quote from Defense News in different ways– peacekeeping requires logistical support (eg, the UN faces a huge logistics burden when it deploys 10,000 peacekeepers to Sudan later this year). Iran will read it as a building military threat. Kyrgyzstan may see it as either a peacekeeping lifeline– or the launchpad for western troops. Syria is only “slightly east” of Adana (more south, actually).
What the report means is that Turkey and the US are preparing “operational options.” It also says the contretemps –wrought by Turkey’s refusal to allow US troops to base out of Turkey in the March 2003 attack on Saddam– is now history.
Here’s the report from Defense News (March 24), by Umit Enginsoy:
Turkey is planning to accept ?very soon? a U.S. request to use the critical air base at Incirlik in southern Turkey as a logistical hub for operations east of the country, a Turkish official said late March 23.
?I expect a Turkish government decision on Incirlik very soon. I don?t know exactly when, but very soon,? said Murat Mercan, deputy chairman of Turkey?s ruling party. He spoke at a panel of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.
Mercan did not elaborate, but other Turkish officials in Washington said that Ankara was preparing to accept Incirlik?s use as a logistical hub for U.S. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan…
…Incirlik?s future has been under discussion between Ankara and Washington since early last year. Ankara earlier rejected informal U.S. requests to deploy two Germany-based squadrons of F-16 fighters to Incirlik and to conduct training flights for U.S. fighters in central Turkey.
Built in 1954 in Turkey?s Adana province on the eastern Mediterranean coast, Incirlik has been hosting U.S. military aircraft for nearly five decades. But after Turkey refused to allow U.S. forces to deploy on its soil for use in the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military removed its fighter jets.
Combine that with the news that 3 aircraft carriers will be in the gulf region soon and this is very interesting indeed.
Comment by Nick — 3/25/2005 @ 8:56 am
I sure hope we didn’t sell the Kurds down the river again.
Comment by Mrs. Davis — 3/25/2005 @ 9:28 am
That coinciding witht the arrival of 3 carrier battle groups and the presence of a MEU (SOC)? Hmm…. something is a foot…
Comment by TZ — 3/25/2005 @ 10:38 am
Paranoia I think is the best explanation. Why would Turkey, who turned down a vital American interest when it refused landing rights to the 4th ID on the eve of the 2ed Iraq war, all of a sudden allow America to use its territory to attack one of its neighbors? Syria? Iran? Russia? Turkey has been working hard to improve its relations with all those countries while at the same time downgrading US-Turkey relations to levels unseen since 1945. This story is questionable at best, raging paranoia at worst.
Comment by mercury — 3/25/2005 @ 10:55 am
Exactly Mercury.
Comment by Mark Buehner — 3/25/2005 @ 11:07 am
“I expect a Turkish government decision on Incirlik very soon. I don’t know exactly when, but very soon,” said Murat Mercan, deputy chairman of Turkey’s ruling party. HA HA HA HA. “very soon”. Ho Ho Ho Ho. It’s deja vu all over again! I’ll belive it when I believe it!
Comment by anonymous — 3/25/2005 @ 12:20 pm
As a point or reference, the 173rd Airborne is currently staging forward from Caserne Erdele (Vicenza) Italy to Afghanistan. They’re a NATO tasked unit, and Incirik would seem to be on the way.
Comment by ed in texas — 3/25/2005 @ 12:30 pm
Turkey turned down our earlier request for use during the Iraq war because they were treated insultingly and takend for granted. Colin Powell travelled the least of any modern Secretary of State - he was a good man in the wrong job. They are now back in the fold because they were approached as the allies the were with talk of joint security and such.
Comment by John Hay — 3/25/2005 @ 12:45 pm
Iran dies soon
Comment by chris — 3/25/2005 @ 12:51 pm
I too question a Turkey for Easter. The Turkish PM (I forget how to spell his name) is an old time Islamic hard liner. When he was PM last time he built a ton of Wahabi Madrassas/Mosques, allowed vicious anti-US speakers on college campuses etc. It was our ignorance of his anti-Western stance that was at fault for our failure to invade using his country. Turkey is now very anti-American, the hadj is worn openly on campus (it had been banned for 50 years), and with the EU hating us I just don’t see any chance that Turkey will suddenly love us for what we did for them twenty years ago. They would love to wipe out the Kurds in a micro second if they could get away with it.
Comment by Howard Veit — 3/25/2005 @ 12:54 pm
Turkey could be hedging its bet on the EU or trying to leverage the EU. The main players in the EU are not keen on letting Turkey in. Are we seeing a giant ruse being played out here. Recall the Sy Hersh article about US special forces and CIA types casing out Iranian nuke sites. I would be shocked if that were actually going on (if it really is going on the person who leaked it should be tracked down and be given a swift dose of lead poisoning). I think it is playing with Mad Mullah’s heads more than anything. Yet another possibility is people in the know see the people rising up against the Mad Mullahs and want to be ready to support the uprising. I don’t see it being used to support Iraq or Afghanistan as those two areas are not subject to massive amounts of logistics need and I don’t see any such need coming up. Interesting!
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — 3/25/2005 @ 1:15 pm
Turkey not only wants to pressure the EU, but as has been intimated they are extremely concerned about the ridse of the Kurds. By inviting the US to depend on it once again for a major part of logistics and air resources projected east it will make it much harder for the US to turn around and take a tough stance in support of the Kurds if events take a turn for the worst in Iraq.
Comment by SeanX — 3/25/2005 @ 3:02 pm
Sean X, Good point about how the Kurds fit into this. This is one thing that crossed my mind when Turkey stiffed us regarding the 4th ID. Well in return we will give the Kurds much more autonomy. It seems Turkey realized the Kurds are going to be kingmakers in Iraq so it behooves them to have the only nation that can influence the Kurds friendly with them [The Turks].
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — 3/25/2005 @ 3:18 pm
Isn’t there a fairly large Kurdish population in Syria? Turkey doesn’t want to lose real estate to a new Kurdish nation that would encroach on Iran,Iraq, Turkey and… Syria How about supporting a peaceful uprising in Syria ? Just a thought. In the meantime; A lot of Naval air power will be concentrated in less than a few weeks in the eastern med. Is Hizb’allah going to continue to car bomb in Beirut right up to election day?. –> ! Iranian troops may come under air attack in the Bekka valley
Comment by Airedale — 3/25/2005 @ 7:24 pm
If the US has big plans to use 3 carrier battle groups how likely is it that the US would take Turkey into the equation after they caused, as Rumsfeld as claimed, the US to lose thousands of dead and wounded in Iraq because they refused the 4th ID access to Northern Iraq? Anything the US is planning by way of offensive operations will be conducted without Turkish involvement, knowledge, or active assistance. If the US were to attack Syrian positions we can do it easily from the Med with carrier planes or from the west from airfields in Iraq. We have ample ground assets based within Iraq to attack all along the Syrian border with Iraqi based logistics. A highly unlikely US attack on Iran would be delivered by B-2’s with their unique abilities to attack over 30 targets with one ship during one mission. Follow-on attacks would carrier based with Iraq supplying additional airfields and support facilities. As far as US needs, Turkey dealt itself out of the game 2 years ago, they’ve become more trouble than they’re worth.
Comment by mercury — 3/25/2005 @ 10:03 pm
Yes, but we’d not have to rely on long legs with rickety old KC-135 refuelers if we attacked Syria from the east from airfields in Iraq. ;OP
Comment by Mr. Beamish — 3/26/2005 @ 1:30 am
Very Interesting? Could be a way of adding pressure on Syria, and at the same time help with rebuilding US, Turkish relations. Another turn of the screw for Syria and Iran and a hand on the shoulder for all of their dissidences. Real close to Lebanon? I’m happy just to let Assad and the Mullahs sweat it.
Comment by L. E. Kline — 3/26/2005 @ 5:02 am
There are way too many conspiracy theories at work in the comments here. Good or bad timing (depending on your perspective) is why it seems that the Defense News article appears just when US foreign policy in the Middle East is leading to…take your pick: attacking Iran, attacking Syria, combat operations into Iraq out of Turkey, etc. Here are some facts. 1. The request for the logistics hub at Incirlik was submitted formally to the Turkish government last year, in June, 2004. The GOT has not made a formal response since, although they’ve told the US “a response is coming soon” on at least two other occasions. Usually, when Turks take that long to give an answer, the answer is “no”, but as a culture they don’t like say no. 2. Murat Mercan may be correct about Turkey saying “yes” soon, perhaps in conjunction with the charm offensive he and his party leader (Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan) are carrying out to counter growing anti-Americanism in Turkey that the party has done little to dispell (and at times even encouraged. Politicians are the same everywhere.) Mercan and Erdogan will both visit the US in the next couple of months. 3. The Incirlik request is for a transhipment cargo hub, not repeat not, for basing of any fighter aircraft. Currently, US C-130s and C-17s fly out of Iraq to Germany to pick up cargo to take back into Iraq. Because of safety issues (preventing overly long days and providing sufficient rest) aircrews can only make one such round trip per day. With a cargo hub at Incirlik, the same crews with the same number of aircraft can fly two sorties per day, doubling the amount of cargo that can be airlifted into Iraq. The US is currently aircrew and airframe limited. We don’t have more aircrews and cargo aircraft to throw at the problem. 4. Incirlik (”fig orchard”) is a Turkish Air Base, not NATO. It’s home to the Turkish Air Force’s 10th Refueling Wing (KC-135Rs). Incirlik has a significant US presence, but we are tenants there. The US does not have any permanently stationed aircraft at Incirlik. 5. The cargo hub request was separate from any effort to consider permanently basing F-16s at Incirlik. Recognizing that GOT approval for such an action would be extremely difficult to attain under the current circumstances, the US (which never officially requested F-16 basing) has “taken the idea off the table” according to several recent high level US visitors. Additionally, getting basing rights is one thing, having the GOT’s permission to launch aircraft on combat sorties against its neighbors is a completely different matter…
Comment by havapilot — 3/26/2005 @ 5:41 am
dispel vice dispell, sorry.
Comment by havapilot — 3/26/2005 @ 5:44 am
Actually the KC-135 fleet was recently upgraded.
Comment by Bullshark — 3/26/2005 @ 6:23 am
Further reading on my part shows there is need for increased logistical support. It sounds like our “allies” in Old Europe are going to start pitching in and that is going to put more demands on the logistics. As far as not wanting to play ball with Turkey I say phooey on that. There is a high-level rapproachment happening between the US and Turkey. It makes sense Turkey does not want to sit on the sidelines while its neighborhood is being rearranged. Would you? I am seeing much writing out there that suggest our former Secretary of State did not do such a good job of wooing the Turks as he could have. One a related but off topic question. Austin, is there Turkish blood in your veins?
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — 3/26/2005 @ 7:14 am
Saw this. For your perusal. http://www.zaman.com/?bl=columnists&alt=&trh=20050326&hn=17734
Comment by OregonGuy — 3/26/2005 @ 11:55 am
Before heaping blame on Powell it is well to remember that America’s “greatest friend” France had a fairly stiff hand with Turkey in the runnup to Iraq. It is possible, even likely, that the French promised to effectively veto any EU application by Turkey if they let the Americans through. If the potential target is Syria, the French are, more or less, on board and would be running their influence the other way.
Comment by Jay Currie — 3/27/2005 @ 1:31 am
“…being prepared to provide logistical support for potential “operations” to the east.” As a former logistics NCO who recently (within the last five years) sent a unit inot Incirlik on temporary duty to enforce the Northern No-Fly zone, I think this “report” is ludicrous on its face. Anyone who has had to deal with the ridiculous amount of exacting paperwork required by the Turkish government for getting troops into and out of Incirlik (or any other Turkish base) would not believe that that are suddenly turning it into a “logistics and transportation hub.” Turkey (Byzantium) was the original beaurecracy, remember!
Comment by cas — 3/28/2005 @ 1:37 am
I’ve been living on Incirlik AFB for the past two years. To some people out there this isn’t really a very long time. However, for me it’s been the longest two years of my life. I’ve found this country and it’s culture to be disgustingly immoral, two-faced, greedy and thoroughly untrustworthy. I wouldn’t give them one more American taxpayer cent and I would pull our operations out of here to another country that would appreciate the revenue. The Turks want money and that’s all. Ally…not. Rainy day friend…definitely.
Comment by Jchan — 3/31/2005 @ 12:09 am
Paxil
Comment by Paxil — 4/19/2005 @ 1:32 pm