How the loss of bases in Turkey raises invasion risk

American and British military planners will be forced to adopt high-risk strategies for an invasion of Iraq if Turkey cannot be persuaded to reverse its refusal to allow in US troops.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the leader of the governing Justice and Development Party, said yesterday a fresh motion might be put to parliament to let in the 62,000 troops that Washington wants to open a northern front against Saddam Hussein's regime. On Saturday the measure was narrowly rejected. More than 90 party deputies voted against the government at the weekend, and public hostility means that the proposal might not be put to the vote again for another two or three weeks.

Turkey is also refusing to allow British troops on its soil, apparently because of lingering resentment at Britain's role in detaching the Mosul and Kirkuk oilfields from the Ottoman Empire in the 1920s and incorporating them into Iraq. A formal request six weeks ago from the Ministry of Defence for British troops to land in Turkey has been ignored.

Even if the troops of the US 4th Mechanised Infantry Division were to be allowed into Turkey, they would probably need at least two to three weeks before they were ready to fight. With the parliamentary delays, that could postpone the launch of an invasion of Iraq well into April. Instead, planners are looking at much riskier alternatives, including an airborne assault on Mosul and Kirkuk or switching the 4th Infantry Division to Kuwait, from where they would be asked to make a long and dangerous dash around Baghdad to reach Republican Guard divisions protecting President Saddam's home region of Tikrit.

Even the original plan, based on 20,000 ground troops crossing into northern Iraq from Turkey, was complex and difficult. The mountainous terrain would have required some elements to leapfrog ahead of the main body to secure the northern oilfields and prevent the regime setting them ablaze. Another important aim would be to secure Kirkuk, claimed by Turkey as well as Iraq's Kurds, who see the city as the capital of what they hope will one day be an independent state. Failure to do so would create a risk of fighting breaking out between Turks and Kurds behind the American advance.

The main objective would be to confront the Republican Guard in Tikrit and prevent it falling back to defend Baghdad.

Without the use of Turkey as a jumping-off point, American and British plans will have to incorporate a much larger airborne element. If paratroops could secure airfields in northern Iraq, giant C-17 Globemaster aircraft could rapidly bring in enough armour and artillery to form a strong northern front. One analyst argued, however, that this might not be necessary. "The US has cargo aircraft which can land on dirt strips with an Abrams tank on board," he said. "It is outdated to think that it needs big runways or land borders to mount an invasion of Iraq."

Although far riskier than deploying through Turkey, the airborne option still appears less dangerous than a deep strike across land from Kuwait. The forces involved in such an operation would be exposed and have long supply lines.