Yeni Şafak’s Fehmi Koru supports Baykal’s comments and thinks that the criticism of Baykal is not fair. He refers to past events where Baykal’s political stance has proven very useful for Turkey. If Baykal had not reacted harshly to a motion in Parliament allowing the deployment of 62,000 US soldiers in Turkey for the invasion of Iraq, the motion could easily have passed. "We owe Baykal a debt of gratitude for keeping Turkey away from the failure in Iraq, which Bush has to admit today," Koru asserts. A debt of gratitude notwithstanding, Koru says it is hard to understand Baykal’s current pro-war attitude. Despite the pressing problems in Iraq -- the country’s disintegration, Kirkuk, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) -- Koru asserts that Baykal’s "military intervention" is not a good solution. He thinks a possible Turkish intervention in Iraq will strengthen the hand of Iraq’s invader, the US. Such an intervention would divert people from the real problems in Iraq and make Turkey the central focus of attention. "Turkey needs ‘peaceful’ policies in the region, keeping in mind that it is one of the region’s main components," concludes Koru. Vatan’s Can Ataklı agrees somewhat with those who think Baykal’s call for a military intervention in Iraq is too nationalist. He evaluates Baykal’s call from a different perspective and claims that Baykal developed an oppositional game by speaking in the AK Party manner. "The AK Party has long used populism in many subjects, and now Baykal is trying to use the same method. It is not very good as a policy, but it is for the sake of being against the AK Party," he says. Ataklı explains that because of the prime minister’s recent signals about a cross-border operation in Iraq, Baykal is now testing the AK Party’s sincerity on this. He thinks Erdoğan is trying to win the sympathy of the public with challenging statements to the US. So Baykal is trying to make Erdoğan take it to Parliament. "If he does not, his bluff will be called," Ataklı asserts.
Milliyet’s Güneri Civaoğlu thinks that although this seems to be an attempt to corner Erdoğan, by offering support for a military intervention in Iraq the CHP is presenting the prime minister a very strong card on a silver plate. Civaoğlu brings to mind the CHP during the parliamentary discussion on allowing the US military to base its soldiers in Turkey for the Iraq invasion. He thinks that the AK Party should not assume that the CHP’s call for intervention is a trap because a consensus between the political parties in Turkey on the issue might be more influential than Erdoğan’s daily speeches. He adds that the CHP’s support would be followed by the right, the True Path Party (DYP) and the Motherland Party (ANAVATAN). Civaoğlu claims if the main opposition party did not support such an important decision -- a decision to intervene militarily in northern Iraq -- it would spell trouble for Turkey.
