The Belgravia Dispatch: Oh My...

January 13, 2007

Oh My...

David Rieff sends this article, and quips via E-mail: "So that's it, then: the conquest of Baghdad."

An Iraqi army brigade based in the northern Kurdish region is undergoing intensive training in urban combat and will be dispatched to Baghdad as part of a new joint U.S.-Iraqi security drive in the sprawling and violence-ridden city, the commander said Saturday. The brigade is one of two coming from the Kurdish region and a third brigade will come from southern Iraq. The second Kurdish brigade will come from the northern city of Sulaimaniyah.
"We will head to Baghdad soon. We have 3,000 soldiers who are currently undergoing intensive training especially in urban combat and how the army should act inside a city," said Brig. Gen. Nazir Assem Korran, commander of the 1st Infantry Brigade, 2nd Division of the Iraqi army that is based in the city of Irbil. [emphasis added]

Anyone else feeling dread at the thought of peshmerga running loose through Baghdad (despite all the training on how one "should act inside a city")? This will probably blow-back and explode in the Kurds face, don't you think? And ultimately, the U.S. won't be there to protect them. Le plus ca change....

MORE: Somewhat related:

Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Friday reaffirmed Turkey's right to send troops into Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels there and chided U.S. officials for questioning it.
"The Turkish Republic will do whatever is necessary to combat the terrorists when the time comes, but it will not announce its plans in advance," Erdogan told a news conference after a meeting of his ruling AK Party.

"We say we are ready to take concrete steps with the Iraqi government and we also say these steps must be taken now."

In sharp language underscoring Turkish anxiety about the chaos in Iraq, Erdogan said it was wrong for Washington -- "our supposed strategic ally" -- to tell Turkey, with its historic and cultural ties in the region, to stay out of Iraq.

"We have a 350 km border with Iraq. We have historic relations ... the United States is 10,000 km away from Iraq, and yet is it not intervening in Iraq's internal affairs?" he said.

Maybe the Kurds shouldn't send too many forces down to Baghdad!

Posted by Gregory at January 13, 2007 09:08 PM

Comments

For whatever vague value it has Al Hayat has a report based on Iraqi sources indicating a February Baghdad offensive against both Shia and Sunni "extremists' bases."

Most ambiguously it indicates Maliki undertook to "occupy himself with the Mahdi army."

In the end, it all depends who the General will in fact take orders from.

Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 13, 2007 09:49 PM | Permalink to this comment

Why in the world would the Kurds agree to this? I would have thought that their interests lie in sitting back and watching the Shias, Sunnis, and Americans kill each other. Maybe there is some secret promise we don't know about?

Posted by: blah at January 13, 2007 09:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

The Al Hayat article's thrust would suggest there are intra-Iraq maneuvers.

Who the Kurdish officers will actually be listening to, that is the question.

Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 13, 2007 10:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

Isn't it just a matter of the Kurds wanting to stay on the good side of the U.S.? The U.S. and Israel are their only allies.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 13, 2007 11:27 PM | Permalink to this comment

I think that what we're really looking at is the state sanctioned ethnic cleansing of Baghdad -- and having suffered mightily at the hands of the (primarily) Sunni Baathists, the Iraqi Kurds have no problem participating.

The Shiite "death squads" in Baghdad came into being in response to increasingly agressive tactics by the Sunni insurgency against Shia in Baghdad, and the lack of an effective response by "the authorities" (and that lack of an effective response was driven in part by US desire to not alienate Sunnis in the hope of creating a true "moderate" coalition.) Now that the authorities are taking on the Sunnis, one can expect to see a significant decrease in Shiite "death squad" activity.

I would suggest that this is part of a "grand bargain" struck by Maliki and al-Sadr --- Maliki would get US support for Iraqi Army and police units to take over the work being done by the Madhi Army, in exchange for a decrease in Sadrists inspired "death squads". Maliki has no intention of disarming any of the Shiite militias however -- especially not the Sadrists.

Once Baghdad is sufficiently "pacified/ethnically cleansed" and Bushco tries to make a move into Sadr City, Maliki will block it -- pointing out that the Sadrists are no longer a problem in Baghdad, and that US combat forces would be better deployed elsewhere in Iraq.

Its the 80% solution -- while Baghdad is being pacified, "civil war" will intensify in other provinces --- at which point the Iraqi Army will go in and "ethnically cleanse" the area of "insurgents and their supporters" (i.e. Sunnis). Since this is essentially an Iraqi operation, the US will have little choice but to go along.

So don't expect Iran to respond to US provocations --- they're already getting what they want (an Iraq completely dominated by Shiites that is going to throw the US out of their country once they've established sufficient control).

Posted by: p.lukasiak at January 14, 2007 01:12 PM | Permalink to this comment

Didn't China bring in troops from a far away province when the soldiers who were from local areas refused to roll their tanks over the Tianamen Square protesters? This sounds like the same thing.

Posted by: Ugh at January 14, 2007 03:22 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« Shearman, Cleary, Etc: New Enemies of the State! \| Main \| "We Don't Feel Any Pressure" » January 13, 2007 Oh My... David Rieff sends this article, and quips via E-mail: "So that's it, then: the conquest of Baghdad." An Iraqi army brigade based in the northern Kurdish region is undergoing intensive training in urban combat and will be dispatched to Baghdad as part of a new joint U.S.-Iraqi security drive in the sprawling and violence-ridden city, the commander said Saturday. The brigade is one of two coming from the Kurdish region and a third brigade will come from southern Iraq. The second Kurdish brigade will come from the northern city of Sulaimaniyah. "We will head to Baghdad soon. We have 3,000 soldiers who are currently undergoing intensive training especially in urban combat and how the army should act inside a city," said Brig. Gen. Nazir Assem Korran, commander of the 1st Infantry Brigade, 2nd Division of the Iraqi army that is based in the city of Irbil. [emphasis added] Anyone else feeling dread at the thought of peshmerga running loose through Baghdad (despite all the training on how one "should act inside a city")? This will probably blow-back and explode in the Kurds face, don't you think? And ultimately, the U.S. won't be there to protect them. Le plus ca change.... MORE: Somewhat related: Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Friday reaffirmed Turkey's right to send troops into Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels there and chided U.S. officials for questioning it. "The Turkish Republic will do whatever is necessary to combat the terrorists when the time comes, but it will not announce its plans in advance," Erdogan told a news conference after a meeting of his ruling AK Party. "We say we are ready to take concrete steps with the Iraqi government and we also say these steps must be taken now." In sharp language underscoring Turkish anxiety about the chaos in Iraq, Erdogan said it was wrong for Washington -- "our supposed strategic ally" -- to tell Turkey, with its historic and cultural ties in the region, to stay out of Iraq. "We have a 350 km border with Iraq. We have historic relations ... the United States is 10,000 km away from Iraq, and yet is it not intervening in Iraq's internal affairs?" he said. Maybe the Kurds shouldn't send too many forces down to Baghdad! Posted by Gregory at January 13, 2007 09:08 PM Comments For whatever vague value it has Al Hayat has a report based on Iraqi sources indicating a February Baghdad offensive against both Shia and Sunni "extremists' bases." Most ambiguously it indicates Maliki undertook to "occupy himself with the Mahdi army." In the end, it all depends who the General will in fact take orders from. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 13, 2007 09:49 PM \| Permalink to this comment Why in the world would the Kurds agree to this? I would have thought that their interests lie in sitting back and watching the Shias, Sunnis, and Americans kill each other. Maybe there is some secret promise we don't know about? Posted by: blah at January 13, 2007 09:50 PM \| Permalink to this comment The Al Hayat article's thrust would suggest there are intra-Iraq maneuvers. Who the Kurdish officers will actually be listening to, that is the question. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 13, 2007 10:20 PM \| Permalink to this comment Isn't it just a matter of the Kurds wanting to stay on the good side of the U.S.? The U.S. and Israel are their only allies. Posted by: David Tomlin at January 13, 2007 11:27 PM \| Permalink to this comment I think that what we're really looking at is the state sanctioned ethnic cleansing of Baghdad -- and having suffered mightily at the hands of the (primarily) Sunni Baathists, the Iraqi Kurds have no problem participating. The Shiite "death squads" in Baghdad came into being in response to increasingly agressive tactics by the Sunni insurgency against Shia in Baghdad, and the lack of an effective response by "the authorities" (and that lack of an effective response was driven in part by US desire to not alienate Sunnis in the hope of creating a true "moderate" coalition.) Now that the authorities are taking on the Sunnis, one can expect to see a significant decrease in Shiite "death squad" activity. I would suggest that this is part of a "grand bargain" struck by Maliki and al-Sadr --- Maliki would get US support for Iraqi Army and police units to take over the work being done by the Madhi Army, in exchange for a decrease in Sadrists inspired "death squads". Maliki has no intention of disarming any of the Shiite militias however -- especially not the Sadrists. Once Baghdad is sufficiently "pacified/ethnically cleansed" and Bushco tries to make a move into Sadr City, Maliki will block it -- pointing out that the Sadrists are no longer a problem in Baghdad, and that US combat forces would be better deployed elsewhere in Iraq. Its the 80% solution -- while Baghdad is being pacified, "civil war" will intensify in other provinces --- at which point the Iraqi Army will go in and "ethnically cleanse" the area of "insurgents and their supporters" (i.e. Sunnis). Since this is essentially an Iraqi operation, the US will have little choice but to go along. So don't expect Iran to respond to US provocations --- they're already getting what they want (an Iraq completely dominated by Shiites that is going to throw the US out of their country once they've established sufficient control). Posted by: p.lukasiak at January 14, 2007 01:12 PM \| Permalink to this comment Didn't China bring in troops from a far away province when the soldiers who were from local areas refused to roll their tanks over the Tianamen Square protesters? This sounds like the same thing. Posted by: Ugh at January 14, 2007 03:22 PM \| Permalink to this comment		About Belgravia Dispatch Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries Lunch w/ the FT... Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search Search this site: The News Financial Times New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books American Scholar LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner Wine Terroirs The Burgundy Report Richard Kelley Andrew Jefford Archives Browse Archives Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2010 Belgravia Dispatch