Why all the noise?

US military support to NATO ally Turkey is useful but limited. Actionable intelligence-sharing has been offered since last November, following a meeting between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and President George W. Bush at the White House. US diplomatic support is conditional, though -- a "swift conclusion" to military operations and a focus on a more "comprehensive solution" are consistently emphasized. But even the current relatively modest responses to years of desperate Turkish requests have brought about a lot of noise from Iraq. And, probably because of that, effectively delivered by Turkey-hater lobbies in Washington, we are seeing American officials increasingly making noise about the operations. That isn't fair.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, on behalf of the Bush Cabinet, spit it out before he dropped by Ankara: "It's very important that the Turks make this operation as short as possible and then leave. They have to be mindful of Iraqi sovereignty … I measure 'quick' in terms of days, a week or two … not months."

It's interesting to receive time management lessons from a government that invaded two "sovereign" nations, Afghanistan and Iraq, on the premise of fighting terrorism, with little or no prospect of leaving those lands any time soon. But who says life is fair, especially when it comes to international relations?

Last time I checked, Turkey had made clear that the military operations are short-term and only target the PKK. Why all the fuss then? Don't such distrustful remarks play into the hands of those who want a deeper rift between Turkey and the US? (Shall I start the list with the Iranian government? Or ultra-nationalist elements in Turkey?)

It would have been nicer if Americans had negotiated with Turks privately and publicly, saying: "We have been assured this would be a limited incursion. We trust our ally and friend Turkey." I can't believe that after all that has been done to facilitate relations there still remains a dialogue of the deaf between the two governments.

The Bush administration took a step in the right direction when it finally agreed to help a little with the northern Iraq portion of Turkey's war on terror. I am sure they will collect returns in terms of enhanced strategic cooperation and improved public goodwill -- as long as they don't squander it by giving the false impression that they are so easily consumed by Turkophobia.

Washington reiterates the importance of stability in northern Iraq and Iraq as a whole, as if Turkey doesn't already know this or is working against it. It's obviously what's in the best interests of both Turkey and the US. The PKK nuisance there actually undermines stability, hurting both countries' national interests. That's one of the reasons the US joined Turkey in declaring the PKK as an enemy. The real problem here is not Turkey's well-conducted self-defense operations, but whether Baghdad and Arbil fully understand that a hands-free PKK is a destabilizer. If they are so sensitive about their sovereignty and stability, they should work harder to eliminate a war machine that undermines the sovereignty and stability of a neighboring nation, Turkey. Especially given that neither so-called Kurdistan nor Iraq as a whole would have enjoyed the present relative stability without this neighboring nation's support. I hope Washington is conveying these facts to its self-centered friends in Iraq.

Turkey can and will speak directly with the Kurdish regional administration in northern Iraq, not only because of the constant US urging, but because its own national interest necessitates it. However that can only happen when Kurdish leaders empathize with Turkey a little bit and prove by their conduct that they are not providing safe haven to the PKK within their "sovereign" borders. Kurdish and other Iraqi officials care about their own domestic public opinion, but they often forget Turkish people's sentiments.

Since the US indirectly confronts the PKK by cooperating with Turkey militarily, they should also have a say on how to deal with the Kurdish question more effectively. Therefore, I don't have any problems with the US talking about the need for a comprehensive solution. In fact there seems to be momentum in that direction within Turkey. A favorable security situation would actually make it much easier for the Turkish government (especially the civilian branch) to implement some domestic reforms. There are no short-run and clear-cut solutions. Just like a comprehensive solution to anti-American terrorism, dealing with the root causes of anti-Turkish terrorism might require the work of generations, accompanied with painful self-criticism.