erdogan abadi
Erdogan and Abadi.
In October 2014, the Turks gave themselves a mandate to send in their military against terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. While this was done without the support or permission of Assad's government, they did have Iraq's limited permission. But last December, Turkey deployed an additional 150 troops and 25 tanks into northern Iraq, 19 miles northeast of Daesh-held Mosul, this time without Iraqi permission. Iraq responded, calling it "a serious breach of Iraqi sovereignty" and demanding the troops' withdrawal. During the coup attempt in Turkey in July, there were reports that Erdogan had recalled troops back to Turkey from Iraq. But if that was the case, it wasn't all of them. In addition to the troops still holding the training base in Bashiqa near Mosul, Turkey has a number of "military advisers" in the region, likely numbering in the thousands. And the Iraqi government is still angry at the unilateral violation of Iraq's sovereignty.

Recently, on October 1st, the Turkish parliament backed a proposal to extend Turkey's mandate in Syria and Iraq for one year. On October 4th, the Iraqi parliament adopted a resolution protesting the continued presence of the troops near Mosul, prompting the Turkish foreign ministry to condemn the resolution and to summon the Iraqi ambassador. Turkish Deputy PM Kurtulmus responded by saying "no one can object to Turkish presence in Iraq. Our soldiers are there with the consent of northern Iraq's [Kurdish autonomy] administration." Foreign Minister Cavusoglu claimed that the resolution "does not reflect the thinking of all of the Iraqi people", adding that Turkish troops there have killed 750+ Daesh terrorists so far, and are needed there because Iraq cannot maintain its own security and stability. PM Yildirim was unequivocal: "Turkey will maintain its presence in Iraq", adding that Turkey has "no hostile intentions toward the Iraqi territory and territorial integrity."

Iraq decided to take it a step higher on October 6th by requesting an emergency session at the UN Security Council.

Yesterday, Iraqi PM Abadi said, "Turkish forces will not be allowed to participate in the liberation of Mosul under any circumstances." Everyone involved in the region seemingly wants a stake in Mosul. If taken by the Iraqi Kurds, they may want to keep it, establishing an expanded Kurdish foothold in northern Iraq that Baghdad will not be happy about. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar want to make sure Sunnis control the city, and that it is not left vulnerable to the Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Units, which are predominantly Shia. They've been accused of harsh mass retributions against Sunnis in towns they've helped liberate from Daesh, but these claims are not so black-and-white, and Ankara's "worries" are likely just "humanitarian cover" for some ulterior motive.

Today, Turkish President Erdogan lashed out at Abadi, saying he should "know his place" and that Turkey will not take orders from Iraq:
"The Iraqi prime minister is insulting me."

"You are not my equivalent, you are not of the same quality as me," Erdogan continued. "Your screaming and shouting in Iraq is of no importance to us."
He also insisted that the Turkish army will participate in the liberation of Mosul, just as it did in Jarablus, Syria.

Aziz Barzani, a professor of political science at Salahaddin University in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan, thinks that "Russia could help defuse tensions between Baghdad and Ankara":
"The operation to liberate Mosul, scheduled to start shortly, would undermine the terrorists' positions also in Syria, which is very important to Russia and President Bashar Assad," Barzani said. ... "With Daesh gone, the city will no longer belong to Baghdad because the Sunni Arabs and Kurds want autonomy rights. As a result, the city could be divided into four parts where Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Christians and Shiites would live separately from one another, while the city authorities will be reporting to Baghdad. Another option is for Mosul to become a federative region, as stipulated by the 2005 constitution. And, finally, Mosul and Erbil could have confederative relations with Baghdad, just like what they now have in Bosnia-Herzegovina," Barzani added.

He said that Iraqi Kurds and Sunni Arabs in the north identify themselves more with Ankara than with Baghdad where Shiites rule supreme. "We have better relations with Turkey than with the central government in Baghdad. Mosul will gain much from cooperation with Turkey which, in turn, would have a chance to rebuild the city," Barzani noted, adding that, rich in oil and other mineral resources, the region could sell them globally via Turkey. "Therefore, links between Turkey, Iraqi Kurdistan and Sunnis in Mosul will only strengthen after the city has been liberated from Daesh," Aziz Barzani said in conclusion.
Turkey would surely benefit from such an arrangement. Baghdad wouldn't.

Is Turkey playing a similar game in northern Syria? Turkey claims to have resettled 5,176 Syrian refugees to liberated Jarablus. They say their troops plan to leave Syria eventually, but only when the terrorist threat to Turkey is eliminated. As long as they label the Kurdish militias in northern Syria as terrorists, that could be forever. Yildirim is now saying that Operation Euphrates Shield could be taken east of the Euphrates: "if terrorists continue operating to the east of the river, we will take relevant measures there." With that in mind, consider Yildirim's response to Hillary Clinton's suggestion during the 2nd presidential debate that she would arm Kurds in Syria and Iraq:
"What does arming Kurdish groups mean? Isn't the US our ally? Clinton's comments have once again proven the correctness of our worries."
It doesn't look like she'll be too popular with the Turkish government either.

So what is Turkey is up to? Turkey has a long term Kurdish problem in its own country; the creation of an autonomous Kurdistan in Iraq, brokered or helped along by Turkey, would go a long way to resolving that problem, with many Kurds in Turkey likely choosing to move there. The US appears to have been attempting to encourage the creation of a Kurdistan not just (or even) in Iraq but rather across the entire north of Syria, all the way to the Mediterranean (incorporating part of Aleppo Governate), securing oil and gas reserves offshore for a new Kurdistan, brokered and controlled by the USA in the process. The Turks were determined not to allow this to happen because

a.) those off-shore gas reserves would be controlled by the US and its corporate allies and would not use Turkey as a transit point to Europe and

b.) because Turkey finally saw the light after the US-backed coup in July this year and is much more inclined to work with Russia on giving both nations a controlling interest in the region's natural resources. Everything that has happened in Syria over the last 5 years (and in the region for the last 15 years) is due to one single factor: oil and gas supplies to Europe and beyond (China for example), and who gets to control them. If Russia emerges as the major resource broker in the region, it will consolidate its position as Europe's energy supplier of choice. Along with that position comes significant 'realpolitik' political influence. Such an outcome is, of course, an existential problem for the USA.

In terms of already-established Western interests in Iraqi Kurdistan - the area of Iraq that was strangely (or conveniently) quiet during the entire US invasion of the country - for several years now, the following companies have been exploring for/extracting oil in Iraqi Kurdistan: Exxon, Total, Chevron, Talisman Energy, MOL Group, Genel Energy, Hunt Oil, Gulf Keystone Petroleum, and Marathon Oil (all but one is American or European).

The means by which all of these moves are being attempted is, of course, 'defeating Daesh'. Initially the US, Israeli and Saudi-sponsored jihadis were meant to overrun Syria and facilitate the installation of a Western-compliant regime. But since Russia's intervention in Syria (for very good reasons that are not really related to 'fighting terrorists'), the initiative has been deftly stolen from Washington, using their own 'anti-terror' ploy to boot! The goal for all parties now is controlling the corridor across Iraq and Syria, from Iran to the Mediterranean. Whoever kicks 'Daesh' out of that particular area, gets to control that area. Hence the almost comical rush by all parties to take part in the really big battle to "retake" Mosul.