"The cons of this decision seem to be more than the pros. The government took a very serious risk as none of the benefits it expects are guaranteed," said Hasan Unal, scholar of international relations at Bilkent University.

Overriding vocal opposition to a Turkish deployment both at home and in Baghdad, Erdogan's Islamist-rooted government pushed through parliament Tuesday a motion allowing for the dispatch of troops to Iraq in a bid to make up for its failure to back the US-led war.

Proponents say Turkey will obtain some leverage over Iraqi Kurds, whom Ankara suspects of planning to break away from Baghdad, a prospect that could reignite separatist violence among their Turkish cousins across the border.

Ankara also hopes that helping the United States will encourage Washington to clamp down on an estimated 5,000 armed Turkish Kurd rebels hiding in mountainous northern Iraq, who last month called off a unilateral ceasefire with Ankara.

"The Kurds are the essential problem. It is not clear how much trust Turkey should have in the United States as in today's world interests change very quickly and US ethics are dubious," said Huseyin Bagci from the Middle East Technical University.

Commentators agreed that a 8.5-billion-dollar loan to Turkey granted by NATO ally Washington last month in return for its cooperation in Iraq had a pivotal role in Ankara's decision.

"If the government had failed to get the 8.5 billion dollars, the markets would have toppled it in a couple of months. It was obliged to say 'yes' to everything," Unal said in reference to the rife economic problems the government is battling.

The left-leaning Cumhuriyet daily published a cartoon showing Erdogan blindfolded with an American dollar.

Underscoring growing objections by the Iraqis to a Turkish involvement, critics warned that Turkish soldiers could end up being bogged down in the turbulent country where foreign troops are already the target of daily attacks.

"If Turkish soldiers sink into a quagmire, the government's grassroots will remember their religious and nationalist sensitivities and turn against it," the Vatan daily cautioned.

"The government had to decide between dying abruptly from poisoning (by rejecting the US request for help) and dying slowly from cancer (by sending troops). They chose the second option," Unal said.

Supporters of Tuesday's vote said it was a "historic decision" that would give Ankara a say in future developments not only in Iraq but the whole Middle East.

"Turkey cannot protect itself against security risks in the region by standing by and watching. The risks of staying inactive are higher," the Milliyet daily wrote.

"This decision amounts to jumping on the last carriage of the train that we missed on March 1" when parliament rejected a US request to use Turkish soil to invade Iraq, sparking a severe crisis in US-Turkish ties, Hurriyet said.

Despite welcoming Ankara's move, US officials here appeared cautious, saying Tuesday's decision was "vague."

The parliament authorized the dispatch of troops to Iraq for a maximum of one year, but left the decision on the size, location and timing of the deployment to the government. However, a figure of up to 10,000 has been mentioned by Turkish officials.

"The Turkish government wants to use the motion as a bargaining chip in the talks. This is not received very well here," a US source said.

WAR.WIRE