In fact Dick Cheney in a 1994 interview predicted not only the possibility of a war between the Kurds, and the Turks, but also the war between Sunni, and Shiite if we invaded Iraq. It would become a "quagmire", he said with Iraq desintegrating into regions controlled by Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd "strong man".

It is troubling for me to see every pre-war warning become a reality. It is even more troubling to find out that our so called "leaders" knew perfectly well what the outcome of an invasion to Iraq was going to be, and did it anyway. It is for this reason that In my opinion Dick Cheney and George Bush are either traitors to this nation at worst, or the biggest idiots in God's creation.

arguments pro and con a Kurdistan have been made since the fall of the Ottomans. And yes, Iraqi Kurdistan is where about half of Iraq's oil is to be found.

So what are the good arguments either way, either from a USA realpolitik perspective or a decency perspective?

I knew there is oil in Iraqi Kurdistan, what I wasn't sure about is the Kurdish area controlled by Turkey.

If Turkey *did* apply -- and I am inclined to think they should -- then the allies would have to either respond, or send a message to the smaller allies that attacks on them don't matter much when it's in the U.S. interest to ignore said attacks.

I tend to agree. The Membership might be inclined to argue that a small border incursion by a terrorist-guerrilla element doesn't warrant a group response, especially if WWIII is a foreseeable outcome. But, yes, I think Turkey has every right to bring this before the Council.

That reading would mean that, unlike every other NATO member, Turkey has no redress for attacks on a substantial part of its territory. (The only other application that comes to mind would be an attack on Hawaii, but that's much less substantial a part of the U.S.)

However, if you click the footnote, you'll see that the language was modified when Turkey joined, to cover an attack

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer

If Turkey *did* apply -- and I am inclined to think they should -- then the allies would have to either respond, or send a message to the smaller allies that attacks on them don't matter much when it's in the U.S. interest to ignore said attacks.

Given the looming presence of neo-tsarist Russia, I'd imagine that would cause the price of NATO shares to tumble, so to speak.

The attack was on the Asian part of Turkey, not its European territory, so theoretically Article 5 doesn't appl

An interesting point. Turkey wasn't an original Member, so clearly that caveat wasn't considered. Presumably, the wording simply allows NATO to opt out of colonial wars. An attack on a Member state itself, however, would be difficult to exclude.