 |
January 04, 2007U.S. Troops In Kurdistan?Its become something of an article of faith among a certain bien pensant foreign policy set that we should pull out of Iraq, save leave U.S. troops in Kurdistan. This includes observers whose views on Iraq I typically respect, like Andrew Sullivan, who writes: I'll wait to hear what the president has to offer in detail before making a clear decision in my own mind. But my view right now is that we should withdraw most combat troops by the middle of this year; and leave a remaining force in the Kurdish region and along the Iraq-Turkey border. Protecting the fledgling democracy in Kurdistan and reassuring Turkey should be our top priorities. But here's the rub folks. The Turks don't want us to put troops up in Kurdistan, or near their border. It won't "reassure" them at all. Quite the opposite, in fact, especially talk of NATO'izing a foreign troop presence there (the Turks will panic this is a precursor to an independent Kurdish state). Meantime, and frankly, is Kurdistan really a "fledgling democracy", as Andrew writes? I suspect one of the great under-reported stories of this war is all the reverse Arabization going on up in the North of the country. It's not all peachy clean up there, truth be told, and Kirkuk of course remains a mega tinderbox. It's likely about as "fledgling" a democracy as the rest of Iraq, all told, albeit of course enjoying less endemically poor security conditions. The reality is that the Kurds (who were petrified by the ISG report, which calls for more equitable sharing of oil revenue, and less federalism than Gelb-Biden)--must swallow painful concessions, or the risk of Turkey militarily intervening will likely become at least as high (probably higher) than Saudi and Iranian cross-border military meddling on behalf of their Sunni and Shi'a, respectively, proxies. (And, as I said, U.S. troops garrisoned in Kurdistan are no panacea, indeed they would likely cause a major crisis, worse than the '02-'03 one, in Turkish-American relations, probably unacceptably high tensions). Again, all this is no longer about "victory", but containing the damage from what could yet prove the biggest blunder in U.S. foreign policy history (if it hasn't already). And sure, let's call containing the worst spill-over, if this team is capable of it, "success", if that makes POTUS happier. But let's keep focused now on realistic goals, not Alice in Wonderland stuff, OK? This means we won't be presiding over some glorious trinity of Shi'a, Sunni and Kurdish "moderates" singing kumbaya simply because we "surge" into Baghdad--whilst slaying the Iranian Beast for good measure on our off hours. Indeed, any surge, if it comes to that, must be viewed not as some Grand Push to Victory, but as a way to provide critical breathing space for intensive diplomatic and political efforts to somehow allow for an imperfect settlement to be broached that avoids A) a massive, full-blown civil war in Iraq, and B) major interventions in Iraq by regional players like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey. Our goal in Iraq, put simply, is to douse the raging fire our hubris and ineptitude set alight, as best and cleverly and forcefully (given our limited resources) that we can, hoping and praying our efforts at damage control can make some difference at this advanced hour, and keeping in mind we're stuck with a national security team that has distinguished itself by its manifold blunders (save Gates). Important to keep in mind, as well, the reason the ISG is recommending a massive region-wide diplomatic crisis management effort involving Tel Aviv, Ramallah, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, Riyadh, Cairo, Teheran, and Amman, among other capitals, is because the region is in such a state of brewing chaos that any sources of further instability and conflict must be dampened down to keep the regional temperature under control, wherever and however possible. Yes, the situation is this bad. MORE: An excellent read from Scowcroft here. Remember, he called all this correctly initially. Let's now take very seriously the advice of those who were on the right side of this debacle, not the wrong one, no? Posted by Gregory at January 4, 2007 05:06 AMComments
The comments on the problematical aspects of the current situation in the Kurdish provinces to the north of Iraq are apt. Of course Ankara will be highly upset at any moves by the USA to shoreup the regional Kurdish authority. On the other hand, if (as it seems likely) the USA does need to withdraw from its more exposed positions in Iraq, while not completely wishing to employ a policy of scuttle, than retaining or building up, a presence in the Kurdish areas (as well as perhaps the desert areas southwest of Basra near the Kuwaiti border) are a sine qua non. As per Anakara's reaction to the basing of American forces in Kurdistan, well, perhaps they might complain, indeed complain mightly, but, the long and the short of it is: a) as a practical matter, Ankara is not in the a position to do more than issue verbal complaints, it is obviously not going to invade the three Kurdish provinces [which it has stopped doing since March of 2003] while American forces are based there; b) while Turkey is a 'key' American ally, the fact that the relationship has not been good since 2003, is a pointer that a Turkish 'non possumus' is not ipso facto, a reason for the USA to not carry out certain actions. The fact of the matter is, that from the direct assistance (not a lot but still some), to IMF and World Bank loans, Turkey is substantially in the USA's debt, and, is not in a position to veto aspects of American foreign policy; c) and, following from the last, a possible sweetner for Ankara by Washington, is that the latter might promise or at least try to claim to the former that it is only the presence of American forces which prevents the Kurds from going the whole hog and declaring de jure, and, not just de facto, independence. Not much admittedly, but still it should be enough to enable Ankara to swallow any depolyment. Nota Bene: in the prior posting ("Talk of the Town"), there is a bit of confusion: it was Sir Robert Thompson (the Permanent Secretary), rather than Sir Gerald Templer (the High Commissioner), who drew up the planning which helped to defeat the insurgency in then British Malyasia in the 1950's. For an overview of the background and the history of the tactics that the British used, see: "Historical Perspective - Malayia 1948" in www.globalsecurity.org/military/library. Posted by: Charles Coutinho, PH. D. at January 4, 2007 10:46 AM | Permalink to this comment
you decry 'alice in wonderland' schemes and yet in the end consign our fate to 'hoping and praying' that our efforts will - not make things worse. Turkey is going to be pissed off no matter what happens and so pissing them off shouldn't stand in the way of stationing troops in Kurd territory - which is not to say that's a good idea, only that your objection to it seems feeble. Besides, they want in the EU [good luck there] so it's not like they're not constrained. I don't know how one avoids the inevitability that no matter what happens it's best long term that the US gets to keep troops, bases in Iraq - the only scenario where that wouldn't be desirable or necessary is if Iraq is a stable, independent democracy - and so there is no scenario where it wouldn't be desirable or necessary. Kurdistan seems to make the most sense - although I still believe given the way things are going that the Sunnis will be forced to form a military alliance with the US - after of course the country is broken up as consequence of a civil war. In fact I think US strategy should be based on this inevitability. Posted by: cull tech at January 4, 2007 01:07 PM | Permalink to this comment
The Kurds wouldn't be the first "fledgling democracy" to practice ethnic cleansing. The Czechs did exactly that after World War II to the ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland. The Kurds see themselves as kicking out settlers foisted upon them as part of an attempt to dilute their power by Saddam. Coutinho: You sure use a lot of words to say very little. The Turks could do a great deal to interfere in Kurdish areas without resorting to overt military force. Posted by: Tom S at January 4, 2007 03:03 PM | Permalink to this comment
I found Nicholas Kristof's op-ed last weekend profoundly irritating. He list ed ten things that Bush could do to save his presidency. The net effect of implementing that list would be to fire Cheney (one of the items) appoint Gore, and resign. Likewise, the idea that the reason for escalating the conflict is to permit a full court diplomatic press is Alice in Wonderland thinking when put into the context of this administration. If Bush had spent the time between the decision to escalate and announcing his pretext for the escalation putting together a foreign policy team that could engage in such a full court press, maybe I'd buy this. It's perfectly clear (although I hope I'm wrong) that the plan is to keep doing the same thing, while lengthening the tours for troops in Iraq. In six or nine months, when it is clear that adding forces hasn't made a difference, commission another study group, and then run out the clock until January 09. That's the plan. And if Senate republicans won't call him on this, there will be fewer Senate republicans in 2009. Posted by: jayackroyd at January 4, 2007 03:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
Three words scuttled the Isreal Palestinian negotiaitions of 2000 --"Right of Return". Scowcroft hinges the future of the middle east on the Palestinians dropping this issue, or the Isrealis surrendering their identity. Is this really realism? Is there evidence the Palestinians are willing to settle for 1967, and not try and redo 1948? And, if the whole future of the Middle East hinges on them, will they sell themselves so cheaply? Posted by: Appalled Moderate at January 4, 2007 04:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
I don't believe so. What does it have to do with this thread? Posted by: David Tomlin at January 4, 2007 04:39 PM | Permalink to this comment
MORE: An excellent read from Scowcroft here. Remember, he called all this correctly initially. Let's now take very seriously the advice of those who where on the right side of this debacle, not the wrong one, no? one major problem with scowcroft's analysis is that it relies upon a resolution of the Israel/Palestine issues as a means of isolating Syria and Iran -- and both Syria and Iran have sufficient influence with Hamas (not to mention Hezbollah, and other anti-Zionist radicals) to throw a monkey wrench into any attempts to negotiate a settlement under the current circumstances. In other words, Scowcroft is having his own little "Alice in Wonderland" moment. The odds of resolving the Israel/Palestine issue while the US remains in Iraq --- and continues to threaten both Syria and Iran -- are practically nil. Posted by: p.lukasiak at January 4, 2007 05:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
Appalled Moderate: Scowcroft hinges the future of the middle east on the Palestinians dropping this issue, or the Israeis surrendering their identity. This is a false dilemma fallacy, as well as a lame Zionist propaganda cliche. AM: Is there evidence the Palestinians are willing to settle for 1967, and not try and redo 1948? Yes. You have to be wearing some pretty heavy ideological filters to not have noticed. Anyway, how would they try to 'redo 1948'? Even if the Israelis didn't insist on a Palestinian state being 'demilitarized', it wouldn't be able to create an army capable of conquering Israel. Posted by: David Tomlin at January 4, 2007 05:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
Right of return, as defined by the Zionist entity known as the BBC. Given the demographics, how does Isreal exist with a right of return? But, apart from the right or wrong of the issue, how can any realist credibly believe that we will be able to make significant progress on Isreal without the Palestinians withdrawing on this issue? I agree (as keeps happening these days -- I don't understand this trend) with Luka. Scowcroft is indulging in Alice in Wonderland visioning of his own. And the fact any mention of the unreasonableness of the Right of Return of the descendents of refugees of a war fought 58 years ago will cause the dread word Zionist to be deployed ought to make this point clear. (By the way, DT, I think Isreal ought to be negotiating. I just remain unconvinced that anyone with control in the Palestinian Authority is willing to let this issue go. We'll see.) Posted by: Appalled Moderate at January 4, 2007 06:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
Mate, A bit of realism - two way realism - is necessary here. The Palestinian's attachment to the right of return is one of their stronger cards to play at a negotiating table. As much as the Israelis have little reason to trust the Palestinians, the reverse is true (e.g. the settlements, taking some of the best West Bank agri lands). What is tedious is the partisans on both sides of the equation blindness to the general bad faith posturing on both sides. When I was working in the area (in investments, FDI), the blind madness drove me bloody batty. Take it as a bloody given that neither side, before sitting down at the table is going to rationally want to give up any cards, nor does either side have a smidgen of trust. So, one can piss and moan about one or the other and complain and whinge on until the end of the world, or one can bloody well take their current positions as given, and force both sets of bloody minded fools into a negotiating room to start some real horse trading. Really quite simple. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 4, 2007 06:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
Lounsbury: All true, but all that said, do you want your centerpiece for solving all middle eastern woes to be a single negotiation? This is what Scowcroft seems to be advocating. And this seems utter folly. The Palestinians, after having gone through utter Hell for the last six years, may be in a different frame of mind than they were in 2001, and willing to give up some Aces in a 2007 negotiation. But, given the track record, this is not something I would base a policy on. That's all I'm saying. Really, the west bank issue is up to Isreal and the Palestinians to solve. We should not stand in the way of a solution (nor should we, as has been reported, be opposing Syria-Isreali talks). But one of the great errors of Iraq is that we have staked the success of our diplomacy on people and nations we cannot ultimately control. Why repeat the error? Posted by: Appalled Moderate at January 4, 2007 07:05 PM | Permalink to this comment
Given the demographics, how does Israel exist with a right of return? They recognize the right in principle, in return for which the Palestinians agree to numerical limits on the implementation. This has long been understood. Have you not researched the subject at all? . . . the dread word Zionist . . . Why do you dread the word? Posted by: David Tomlin at January 4, 2007 07:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
Mate All true, but all that said, do you want your centerpiece for solving all middle eastern woes to be a single negotiation? Want has fuck all to do with it. It is. The reality is that the Occupied Territories issue is one of the key points of major irritation in region - something that I hear cited from Arabs (I speak the language fluently, so I don't just the stuff for foreigners' ears) with respect to the "injustice" of the Americans. Sadly, its a whole lot more bloody tractable than Iraq is going to be any time soon. So choice, again, has fuck all to do with, it's the reality Americans either bite down on, or one can go whinging on wishing for an alternate reality. I rather expect the current American administration will continue for option II. Won't get anything done, but there it is. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 4, 2007 07:28 PM | Permalink to this comment
p.lukasiak: . . . one major problem with scowcroft's analysis is that it relies upon a resolution of the Israel/Palestine issues as a means of isolating Syria and Iran . . . Sorry to say, that's a pretty severe misreading. Only Iran is to be isolated, and weaning Syria away from Iran is part of the process. Of course that won't happen. The U.S. isn't going to pressure Israel into a deal over the Golan or give Syria a free hand in Lebanon. I don't expect anything less than that to win over the Syrians. Posted by: David Tomlin at January 4, 2007 07:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
I dunno David T, I think the Golan could go a long way towards "flipping" the Syrians some out of Teheran's orbit, not necessarily the Golan AND a "free hand in Lebanon" (whatever that means, precisely). Posted by: greg djerejian at January 4, 2007 07:56 PM | Permalink to this comment
DT: If it had been possible to finesse that issue in 2001, it would have been finessed. Clinton desperately wanted a deal, as did the Isreali PM. That's not propaganda, friend. Now, I surely may have missed something that's popped up in the interim (it's my right as a commenter to be cheerfully underinformed). But a link blowing me out of the water would be appreciated. As for the word "Zionist" -- isn't that the same in some circles as calling someone a racist? Lounsbury: Just as here in the American South, protesting about special rights for minorities or complaining about affirmative action or immigrants is simply a proxy for complianing about the the existence of Mexicans or black people, complaining about the Isreali occupation of the West Bank, or the great wrongs done to the Palestinians is a proxy for complaining about the existence of Isreal. Removing the "irritant" (which, let me say, justice and decency requires) would certainly be useful. But a fair portion of those folk would still resent that Isreal was carved out of Arab land in 1948, and still resent the US for supporting it. I suspect you, from your skill with the language, know this. In other words, be better if US policy does not DEPEND on settling the West Bank, because there an awful lot of people not interested in the settlement. Better too not to expect too much in the way of results of such a settlement. Better to have some other policy options going. Really, the easiest way to solve our current Iraq problem is to get our ^&%ing troops out of there. These indirect Rube Goldberg careful negotiation approaches are ulikely to work on that problem, even if Kissinger were doing it. In Iraq, they don't hate us because we like Isreal. They hate us because we are there.
David T writes: Sorry to say, that's a pretty severe misreading. Only Iran is to be isolated, and weaning Syria away from Iran is part of the process. I'm afraid that I must stand by my statement, given what Scowcroft has actually written As for Syria and Iran, we should not be afraid of opening channels of communication, but neither should we rush to engage them as negotiating “partners.” Moreover, these two countries have differing interests, expectations and points of leverage and should not be treated as though they are indistinguishable. In other words, Scowcroft sees "progress on the Palestinian front" as a prerequisite to engaging Syria -- Syria doesn't get "added to the mix" (i.e. remains isolated from the settlement negotiations until there has been [an implied "considerable"] progress. Thus, insofar as my point was that real progress "on the Palestinian front" cannot be achieved without engaging/including Syria and Iran, I stand by it. Posted by: p.lukasiak at January 4, 2007 08:42 PM | Permalink to this comment
Brent S wrote: >>>>An American withdrawal before Iraq can, in the words of the president, “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself” would be a strategic defeat for American interests, with potentially catastrophic consequences both in the region and beyond. Our opponents would be hugely emboldened, our friends deeply demoralized In fact we HAVE already suffered the greatest strategic defeat in the history of the US. And the consequences are already "catastrophic" in the region. And the "consequences" are only beginning to manifest themselves. In fact our opponents are 'hugely emboldened'...and our "friends deeply demoralized". Admitting such...whatever the political consequences at home, is the first step in putting things right. But the powers that be (and I don't mean Bush alone) know, or suspect, the price they will pay for a long time into the future if they admit the situation they have got the nation,and world into. So Brent S et al are going to continue to suggest that the building is not on fire yet...but may become so in the future. While the building burns. Its time to yell fire! Posted by: jonst at January 4, 2007 08:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
Mate Just as here in the American South, protesting about special rights for minorities or complaining about affirmative action or immigrants is simply a proxy for complianing about the the existence of Mexicans or black people, complaining about the Isreali occupation of the West Bank, or the great wrongs done to the Palestinians is a proxy for complaining about the existence of Isreal. I am utterly untinterested in monolingual Americans telling me about this subject. Frankly you know fuck all about the situ and understand fuck all about it. The analogy is bloody crap. Stupid bloody crap. Indeed there is some percent of proxy complaining in English, but mate, I bloody well speak Arabic fluently, and do fucking business in the language so I ain't talking about delicate proxy complaints, me gots direct access in spoken language, since I bloody well know both dialect and formal Arabic; unlike complaining about bloody coloured populations by idiots in the US South, there are real and substantial direct issues, and it is bloody well clear when one has direct acce3ss (internal shall we say?) to the conversations, that the Arab-Islamic world is genuinely, not merely as a proxy, aggrieved by the situ. Of course, a certian % shall not be pleased by anything less than wiping Israel out, however, in my experience that is a minority. So to return to the issue, US policy in MENA fucking has to depend on settling the fucking bloody issue because it is bloody well key to resolving a key point underming (i) American image, (ii) an issue where only the US has proper leverage, (iii) key to the genuine feelings of both "street" and Arab decision maker's feelings and perceptions in reacting to general American initiatives. In short, you don't have fucking traction regardless of your fucking excuse making. Anything else, mate, if fucking magical wishful fucking thinking. Period. You can fucking explain and wish away the problem as much as you bloody well want, with excuses and whinging on about the Arabs (or the Israelis for that matter)l, or the US can bloody well pony up some political capital (that it is pissing away regardless) to try to go for a resolution, as despite current whinging, even the image of making a genuine effort (i.e. twisting both sides arms, not just the ill-loved Arabs) will generate political capital, even if failing. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 4, 2007 11:05 PM | Permalink to this comment
Thousands of Assyrian Christians and Sunni Arabs have fled the sectarian fighting elsewhere in Iraq for Kurdistan. Large numbers of Shi'a Arabs who were settled by Saddam's regime in Kirkuk go to Sulaimani every day to work on building sites there. In addition, there has not been one attack on the U.S. military in Iraqi Kurdistan. Posted by: Apostolou at January 4, 2007 11:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
I am utterly untinterested in monolingual Americans telling me about this subject. Frankly you know fuck all about the situ and understand fuck all about it. The analogy is bloody crap. Stupid bloody crap. While I do think the analogy is, as you put it, "bloody crap", I do think that you have seriously misinterpreted and over-reacted to Appalled Moderates comments. I don't think that AM would disagree that "US policy in MENA fucking has to depend on settling the fucking bloody issue because it is bloody well key to resolving a key point underming (i) American image, (ii) an issue where only the US has proper leverage, (iii) key to the genuine feelings of both "street" and Arab decision maker's feelings and perceptions in reacting to general American initiatives." its just that AM does not see settling the Palestian/Israeli issue is key to resolving the current US policy regarding the occupation of Iraq. Instead AM feels that "the easiest way to solve our current Iraq problem is to get our ^&%ing troops out of there".
What a sobering thread. From Coutinho to The Lounsbury, thanks. Posted by: SomeOtherDude at January 5, 2007 12:00 AM | Permalink to this comment
I agree with the EU notion. The Turks are looking to legitimise themselves as a "secular Muslim" nation by joining the EU. Though their largest hurdles right now are concerning Northern Cyprus and acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, there is little doubt that negotiations are going to touch on normalising relations with Kurdistan, as well as treating their own Kurds with respect. They might just bite the bullet with this one. Posted by: one person at January 5, 2007 01:30 AM | Permalink to this comment
Re: US Troops in Kurdistan? I believe the most persuasive argument here is from Mr. Coutinho who points out the reasons Turkey would have to live with a US decision to secure Kurdistan with ground forces. As the worst case scenarios all come true at once (insurgency on top of civil war on top of the corruption/incompetence of the Maliki government), the US will have to examine options other than complete scuttle and "surge and stall." Eventually it will become clear that the only viable military options for the US, having created chaos and having depleted the Army/Marines, is to deploy what ground forces we have let for conventional warfare: i.e., deter conventional Turkish forces from intervening in the north; deter Sunni adventurers from the south and west. The main long term difficulty with "surge" is that it only postpones reckoning with the current impossible security situation -- useful perhaps to Bush's ego for the next 24 months, but of no use to America's interests. After the "surge" is exhausted, the US will be back exactly where it is today, but even weaker militarily and closer to the cliff edge of regional war. The sooner US troops are redeployed to deter regional war using conventional force, the more will be salvaged from the disaster of Bush's Iraq policy. Posted by: John Carragee at January 5, 2007 02:37 AM | Permalink to this comment
The issue I have yet to see addressed about a redeployment to Kurdistan, despite my asking advocates of doing so repeatedly, is how we supply large numbers of troops there. We aren't going to supp,y them through Iran. If we are pulling our troops out of most of Iraq, we aren't going to supply them from Kuwait. That leaves Turkey as the only option. It isn't a question of whether Turkey will tolerate our presence in Kurdistan. It's a question of whether they will facilitate it. Posted by: J. Michael Neal at January 5, 2007 06:16 AM | Permalink to this comment
You gotta be impressed with a guy who simultaneously expresses his respect for someone and also puts him in the bien pensant set. Posted by: mike at January 5, 2007 07:18 AM | Permalink to this comment
The problem with all of these plots for separating off Kurdistan from the rest of Iraq is that, in the eyes of Middle Eastern observers, it suggests that "Anglo-Saxon" policy towards the Middle East has changed very little since the days of Lawrence of Arabia. For example, Saddam Hussein's chief grievance underlying his invasion of Kuwait is that the Britain split off the oil-rich southern portion of Iraq into a seperate country in order to control the oil and keep the rest of Iraq weak and divided. Splitting off oil-rich Kurdistan from Iraq now is only going to prove to Iraqis that Saddam was right about Kuwait all along. In my view, any successful American long-term strategy in Iraq needs to keep Iraq unified: we need to sell the future prospect of a strong, unified, democratic Iraq. Posted by: Joseph Roser at January 5, 2007 09:00 AM | Permalink to this comment
Exactly. Amateurs fuss over strategy, while pros think about logistics. Posted by: David Tomlin at January 5, 2007 09:06 AM | Permalink to this comment
Lounsbury: Frankly, much of your argument strikes me as akin to a chickenhawk argument and gets about as much respect from me. If the elimination of Isreal were not a thread (not a predominent thread, but visible in the op eds) in the English langauge Arab Press such as Arab News, Dawn and the Daily Star, as well as English language Arab bloggers such as the Angry Arab, I wouldn't raise it by analogy. I am deeply skeptical of an argument that you "must do something" before you can do anything else, and I am challenging it. It strikes me that you are replacing one silver bullet for another. As Luka notes, my main argument is that it sure as hell does not fix Iraq. Iran, Syria, Turkey and Sadr are not going to like us better because we start doing shuttle diplomacy. (The Saudis. Egypt and Jordan might, but they aren't our biggest worries right now.) And as this is an administration that is intellectually challenged at best, the best thing they could do is take their political capital and go home until it's time to go to Crawford for good. But just as you find me, and probably most of America, tone deaf about Middle East, I find you rather tone deaf about what American interests might be, and what American politics might demand. Like it or not, cutting off Isreal until they go to the table is not politically possible here. Our Liberals would suddenly turn all Jesse Helms if it were suggested. And our fundamentalists -- the current political base of the administration -- have some wierd identification with Isreal which prevents them from making any sane judgment. Which means, really, for there to be a settlement with the Palestinians, the Isrealis have to generate the willpower and decency to promote it, and the Palestinians have to swallow hard, give up some nationalist pride, and accept it. And maybe your friends, without resorting to conspiracy theories, need to withdraw from their silver bullet that, if the US would just come in and bash their little tools, the Isrealis, some, there would be Peace on precisely the terms the Palestinians would demand. And, yes, I find the Right of Return demand unrealistic. I promise, when Castro dies and the old emigres here in Miami come up with the same sort of demand (restoration of property they abandoned), I will find it similarly unrealistic. Posted by: Appalled Moderate at January 5, 2007 02:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
Scowcroft is living in fantasyland as are most of the "foreign policy experts" paraded around here and on TV This notion that the US has to save "the global perception of the reliability of the United States as a partner in a deeply troubled world" is just nonsense and symptomatic of the thought processes that got us into this mess to begin with. We squandered any opportunity to be considered a "reliable partner" over the past 2 centuries as we've shown our imperialist side. A "reliable partner" shows genuine concern for the common good, creates "win win" situations, and considers other interests in addition to its own. This country has never hid its desire to pursue things in its own interests, everyone else hop on board or be damned. The rest of the world feels this way and deals with us only out of necessity, not because of some altruistic sense of "partnership". Let nature take its course in Iraq without our interfering. Who cares if the terrorists beat their chests a little more than they have already been doing since 9/11? Why is ego playing any role in this whatsoever? What "friends" of ours would be demoralized? If he's worried about transit points for oil, focus our military resources on protecting them rather than policing Iraq. Posted by: Man Coulter at January 5, 2007 03:39 PM | Permalink to this comment
Good point about supplying U.S. troops in Kurdistan. The number of troops would have to be limited to those who could be supplied by air. Refugees are and will be attracted to Kurdistan. We could help the Kurds with nation building with more cooperation than we are getting in other parts of Iraq, where, if the Mahdi army is not disarmed, it will be the predominant military force in Iraq, apart from the Kurdish militia. Posted by: James K. Bachmann at January 5, 2007 06:36 PM | Permalink to this comment
Well. Lounsbury: Frankly, much of your argument strikes me as akin to a chickenhawk argument I haven't the vaguest idea what this bloody means. If the elimination of Isreal were not a thread (not a predominent thread, but visible in the op eds) in the English langauge Arab Press such as Arab News, Dawn and the Daily Star, as well as English language Arab bloggers such as the Angry Arab, I wouldn't raise it by analogy. Threat? Whanking is whanking, rather like Americans blithering on about al Qaeda as a threat to civilisation as such (rather than being like the Red Army, a dangerous irritation, but not in any rational sense a real existential threat). I am deeply skeptical of an argument that you "must do something" before you can do anything else, and I am challenging it. You're engaging in the typical magical bloody thinking wishing away your key challenge. Go right the fuck ahead, it's worked so bloody well these past six years, beating your thick heads against the wall can only get more productive. It strikes me that you are replacing one silver bullet for another. What the bloody fuck are you talking about? There isn't any bloody silver bullets nor any guarantees. But realists know that certain problems have to be dealt with to reduce up front costs. Investing up front political capital in pushing for a resolution to the Occupied Territories issue has zero down side for the US at this stage, failing merely leaves one in the present condition, and if actually an honest effort with an appearance of fair-handedness, gets one some political capital at both official and street levels. If it wins, well tant mieux, major baraka. Not addressing, not making the effort has the immediate cost of (i) continiuing the perception that the US is fucking with the Arabs and Muslims, (ii) is dishonest and working for hegemony. Not a silver bullet, but a key obstacle to overcome. Or you can pretend it is not a real issue and general barrier because, well, fat-bottomed Americans don't want it to be. As Luka notes, my main argument is that it sure as hell does not fix Iraq. Iran, Syria, Turkey and Sadr are not going to like us better because we start doing shuttle diplomacy. Nothing fixes Iraq or Syria or Iran - Turkey of course has fuck all to do with it either way. It does give you street cred and inside Gov cred. An investment as it were. And like any goddamned investment, it's a gamble - but also at least one knows one is investing in an actionable area with clear payoff as well as clearly actionable results, with known costs etc. Whereas pissing and moaning about the bad bad Syrians and the Iraqi civil war gets you fucking jack. (The Saudis. Egypt and Jordan might, but they aren't our biggest worries right now.) They bloody well should be, your bloody stock in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon etc. is really pretty fucking low. and that - surprise, surprise, feeds into Iraq and Syria, etc as well. This thing called pan-Arab TV - innovation, you might have heard of it. And as this is an administration that is intellectually challenged at best, the best thing they could do is take their political capital and go home until it's time to go to Crawford for good. Well, perhaps yes. They are complete incompetents, but one presumes in any such conversation that there is some minimal chance that a glimmer of competence might show through. But just as you find me, and probably most of America, tone deaf about Middle East, I find you rather tone deaf about what American interests might be, and what American politics might demand. I don't give a bloody fuck about American domestic politics. I do care about American international interests, because if you fuck up, the world gets a nasty problem. I like America, I am generally hopefull that American economic models will influence in a positive fashion the world. That is not going to happen if the US is percieved as a grossly incompetent imperial pretender. Ergo, I'd like for the US to shape up and get a bloody clue. What that takes domestically, well, that's your fucking problem, not mine. I don't pretend to give advice on issues that I am not informed in. Like it or not, cutting off Isreal until they go to the table is not politically possible here. Our Liberals would suddenly turn all Jesse Helms if it were suggested. And our fundamentalists -- the current political base of the administration -- have some wierd identification with Isreal which prevents them from making any sane judgment. Well, then you're fucked into a cocked hat, ain't you? Pissing and moaning about Syria and Iran is more or less pub whanking then. Which means, really, for there to be a settlement with the Palestinians, the Isrealis have to generate the willpower and decency to promote it, And I wish I had two nice Arabian pure bloods....
And the Israelis as well, mate (Judea, Samaria and massive investment in beautiful settlements in lands you don't own...)- you fucking fools in the US keep forgetting that. But what the fuck, you're pissing away billions for your non-saving selves, why not wish for magical ponies as well?
My friends? I don't have friends, I have interests. Else, see supra, bloody fool. Your fucking debt you're pissing away. And, yes, I find the Right of Return demand unrealistic. I promise, when Castro dies and the old emigres here in Miami come up with the same sort of demand (restoration of property they abandoned), I will find it similarly unrealistic. Et alors? Judea et Samaria and the settlements are unrealistic, but what the bloody fuck, always fun to critique the guys you don't like, eh? I don't like either set of fucks, happy to call them both fools. One set, of course, gets massive subsidies from the richest country in the world, the others are grossly incompetent fools who get some leavings. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 5, 2007 10:52 PM | Permalink to this comment
Lounsbury--Just a small, mini-favor, if don't mind. Could you please try to restrict use of the word "fuck" (and its various derivations) to 6 or fewer per comment, if at all possible? Otherwise, by all means, please carry on w/ the back and forth! Cheers, Greg Posted by: greg djerejian at January 5, 2007 11:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
About a sizeable US force in kurdistan -- Clearly, we couldn't supply it through iran, iraq, syria, or turkey, and kurdistan is landlocked. The natural conclusion is that we could only have a force supplied by air. But this is defeatist thinking. What if we could manage a limited war with iran, and at the end of it kurdistan was not landlocked? Then we could supply a US force in kurdistan. This doesn't look plausible to me. But it might look plausible to people who want to save kurdistan and also want a war with iran. It might be part of the actual plan.
I don't give a bloody fuck about American domestic politics. "Like it or not, cutting off Isreal until they go to the table is not politically possible here. Our Liberals would suddenly turn all Jesse Helms if it were suggested. And our fundamentalists -- the current political base of the administration -- have some wierd identification with Isreal which prevents them from making any sane judgment." Well, then you're fucked into a cocked hat, ain't you? Yes. We are. Pissing and moaning about Syria and Iran is more or less pub whanking then. Well, see, we haven't gotten over the idea that we're the world's only superpower yet. We want to think we can tell the rest of the world what to do and they'll do it or else. Back in the days when that was sort of true, we had a strong sense that we were supposed to be the good guys, and a lot of americans got upset when we did things that made us look like bad guys to ourselves -- unless it was over quick. Like, we invaded panama, and we killed a moderate number of people, and we held relatively small numbers of people in little quickly-built chicken coops under rather humiliating and unsanitary conditions, and some americans got a bit upset about it. But very quickly the new panama government took over and we officially turned things over to them, and the upset people had no suggested course of action to keep complaining. Like that. But now, the more desperate we get, the more the desperate people say we should take the gloves off and show the world our raw power. Never mind being nice guys. We can go back to being nice guys when we aren't threatened. So the less weight we have to throw around, the more intent we get on throwing it around. Fear makes us stupider. So here we are. There's no possible way we're going to straighten out the israel'/palestine mess. It goes like this. When Saddam took kuwait, US TV showed pictures of palestinians dancing around and cheering. And when we attacked Saddam and he sent missiles at israel, US TV showed pictures of palestinians dancing and cheering. And on 9/11 US TV showed pictures of palestinians dancing and cheering. A whole lot of people believe that israel is our friend and that palestinians are our enemies. And there's no possible way they'll accept a solution that punishes israel and rewards palestine. If israel has to withdraw from any land they've settled, that's punishment. If israel allows palestinian borders that antitank weapons can cross, that's punishment. Etc. We're the only world superpower but we're having a bit of trouble just now, and somehow we don't have a lot of friends, and we're going to stand by the few friends we have left. Not turkey, turkey was our good friend until they refused to let us attack iraq through them. Not canada, canada has been rather uppity lately. It's pretty much down to britain, australia, taiwan, and israel. And taiwan is a bit iffy. As our options get narrower, more and more americans will seriously consider the value of nuking the middle east. Well, then you're fucked into a cocked hat, ain't you? Yes. We are.
Good point about supplying U.S. troops in Kurdistan. The number of troops would have to be limited to those who could be supplied by air. Would so small a force be effective for any of its proposed missions? I suppose at least it would be a 'tripwire' deterrent to a Turkish invasion. Posted by: David Tomlin at January 6, 2007 05:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
Would so small a force be effective for any of its proposed missions? I suppose at least it would be a 'tripwire' deterrent to a Turkish invasion. Turkey has no real territorial ambitions on Iraqi Kurdistan... the only reason they would "invade" would be because the Iraqi Kurds were encouraging a revitalization of the Turkish Kurd insurgency.... I'm actually in favor of an independent Kurdistan carved out of parts of Iraq.... as long as they understood that was the limits of their "homeland", and that efforts to stir up trouble in Iran, Syria, or Turkey would be responded to with overwhelming force... Posted by: p.lukasiak at January 6, 2007 05:51 PM | Permalink to this comment
Turkey has no real territorial ambitions on Iraqi Kurdistan... the only reason they would "invade" would be because the Iraqi Kurds were encouraging a revitalization of the Turkish Kurd insurgency.... I think you underestimate a) how powerful the army is in Turkey, and b) how much its generals despise Kurds and the idea of a Kurdistan. If Kurdistan declares independence, the Turkish generals may well go ape and invade. They really could be that stupid. And, an independent Kurdistan would 'stir up trouble' with the Kurds in Syria, Turkey and Iran by its existence alone. Remember that 'military intelligence' is an oxymoron. Posted by: Klaus at January 7, 2007 08:16 AM | Permalink to this comment
The last thing turkey needs is another 5 million kurds to oppress. They have trouble enough already. If they could get the oil too, that would sweeten it a bit though. And i said the last thing they need, but 5 millioin out-of-control kurds next door might be even worse. I dunno. It's real hard to guess what the turks would do. They might feel like they have no adequate choices, and they have to pick from a bunch of real bad choices. No telling whichi bad choice they'd pick. Kind of like us that way on iraq, what we're doing looks crazy and useless but try to find an acceptable alternative.... Posted by: J Thomas at January 7, 2007 12:17 PM | Permalink to this comment
Lounsbury: Like as not, we'd probably get on fine in real life. I imagine you have been living with many years of frustration about US policy. I have a few less years of frustration than you, but can understand where the f-word is coming from. Look, if the only solution is that the US looks like they are trying to fix the Palestinian problem, then you are going to have to wait for a new administration, and probably three or four new administrations. I don't have the degree of problems with Isreal that you have, but if I were the owner of the policy and had no political consideration to worry about, I would have cut off all military aid long ago, and would have considered sanctions at the time of the Lebanon incursion. (Which got me all F-word.) But frustration cuts both ways. One simple problem with the Palestinian issue is who would you negotiatite with? Hamas? Fatah? If you strike a deal with Abbas, would Hamas still be sending the suicide bombers? These are hard problems, frankly beyond the capacity of Bush and the Bush-like acolyte now running Isreal. And, with the Palestinians, do you have a problem of the past Arafat negotiating style, complete with periodic suicide bombing and disingenuous sounding condemnations of them? And the point Luka makes, which is that the Iranian probably could demolish any negotiation with a suicide bombing campaign through one of its friends in Palestine, is more powerful than I think you are willing to contemplate. So, under the circumstances, we are either just totally f-bombed (as J. Thomas notes) or we have to do something that is possible in the political world we Americans live in. And since we are run by a group who may be very intelligent, but acts like simpletons, the only thing we likely can manage is a simple solution to our problem and get out of Iraq -- hopefully responsibly but more importantly completely. Posted by: Appalled Moderate at January 8, 2007 02:04 PM | Permalink to this comment
One simple problem with the Palestinian issue is who would you negotiatite with? Hamas? Fatah? The obvious thing would be to negotiate with the elected government of palestine. Who else? I suppose we could do everything we could to destabilise the elected government and tell the palestinians they can't have a government unless they elect one that will do what we want. But that isn't likely to get you a palestinian government that can govern, which doesn't leave you with anything you can negotiate with.
J Thomas: Looks like the morons in charge have decided to act as you suggested in the second paragraph of your comment. I'm not sure what is worse here: the evil or the stupidity. But I do feel I am justified in my prior comment -- the best thing we can do is keep these fools from doing anything until their term is up. God. When Rumsfeld looks like the voice of reason... Posted by: Appalled Moderate at January 9, 2007 03:08 PM | Permalink to this comment
Oops. I meant to link to this: http://joshualandis.com/blog/?p=143 Posted by: Appalled Moderate at January 9, 2007 03:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
Oh. My. God. After all these years, the USA is arming palestinians on the assumption they'll kill each other? It might work, but it's so stupid....
Yes, the United States would have been better served if it had cut off all aid to Middle Eastern governments a long time ago. I would have been better served if I could play golf like Tiger Woods. So what? Too many voters in the U.S. don't want that too happen, and they are very unlikely to change their minds. Too many Israelis don't want to give up the settlements, and they are unlikely to change their mind (even, I think, if the U.S. were to apply near-maximum pressure), and too many Arabs, to say nothing of Persians, highly desire that the State of Israel would cease to exist, and they are very unlikely to change their minds (no matter how much this contrasts with the Lounbury's fucking experience ) . Finally, believe it or not, there hasn't been nearly enough death and destruction to shock enough people in any of these groups to reappraise their desires. This sort of stubborness really isn't all that unusual for groups of human beings, as the first half of the last century demonstrated. Five years ago, I thoiught it reasonably likely that we would eventually see violent death totals which approximated, if not exceeded, that which was seen in the first half of the last century. Nothing much has occured in the interim to make me more optimistic. Cheerio! Posted by: Will Allen at January 11, 2007 02:26 AM | Permalink to this comment
Will, it's possible that a lot of people will accept reality. Not totally implausible. Palestinians etc would certainly prefer that israel just go away. But then for 50 years or more a whole lot of americans preferred that the USSR just go away. For nearly 50 years we had a significant number of engineers working on ways to do a nuclear first strike that wouldn't result in us getting killed too, and perhaps sometimes they thought they'd succeeded. But we never got a government that was willing to accept a 50% chance of losing 10% of the US population while destroying the USSR. I think we could easily go 50+ years without any arab nation attacking israel. Israel hasn't been in a serious war since 1973 already, and it could easily go a lot longer. And palestinians have been beaten down quite a lot. If they could get palestine and gaza with open borders and full water rights, it's quite likely that they'd settle down and try to build an economy rather than make futile gestures that would only get them conquered and occupied again. The other side of it is harder. Why should israelis give palestinians water? That water is valuable, worth far more than ending tiny nuisance attacks, worth more than the cost of continuing occupation. Why give back anything when there's the chance it would result in the need for another invasion and occupation? And americans like winners. We really enjoyed plucky little israel winning wars againts 50 times their population. We always like to root for the underdog. Unless it's an evil underdog that does terrorism or doesn't fight fair, like an arab underdog. It isn't as much fun when israel invades other nations and then doesn't completely succeed. There's a possibility that a lot of the american support will dissipate as they continue to lose the underdog-winner appearance. But it isn't anything to count on.
J Thomas, it isn't totally implausible that I will win the lottery next week. So what? I think it quite likely that there is still a large enough element within the Palestinian population which simply will not accept that Israel will not disappear, that any political leader who gave up right of return would not likely die in his bed. Propaganda, disseminated year after year, has real effects. When the enemy has repeatedly been portrayed as sub-human in the mass media, a non-trivial number of people are going to believe it, and they are going to act on that belief. This has nothing to do with any specific quality of the Palestinian people. When the U.S. government, in WWII, made the conscious decison to portray the Japanese as sub-human, more so than they did with the Germans, it resulted in a real difference in regards to how those two groups were treated by members of the American military. Ideas, as always, matter, and many of the toxic ideas which have been disseminated in that region for a very long time have been sufficiently amplified over the past decade or two to make the first prerequisite of political settlement, that opponents see each other as human beings, likely out of reach any time in the near to medium future. I think it likely that any Israeli political leader who proposed ceding water substantially to the Palestinians would lose electorally in short order. Now, it is not on the level of the odds of winning a lottery that technological breakthroughs in desalination over the next few decades might ease this conumdrum somewhat; water scarcity is a big enough issue globally that it is almost certain that there will be some real development in this regard. Unfortunately, counting on these developments to make the situation easier to address is a lot like those who propose that the U.S. wean itself from a petroleum economy, in order to lessen the centrality of Persian Gulf oil to the global economy; it is a decades-long process, and we are enough decades into the era in which the technology of mass destrcutionis increasingly ubiquitous that the former process will not catch up to the latter process in adequate time. The American electorate, and the American electoral system, is such that no candidate for President or sitting President can afford to greatly increase the pressure on Israel, even if the pressure were likely to have the desired result, which I rather doubt. When Hillary Clinton, campaigning in the New York Primary, advocates leaning on Israel for water concessions, lemme know. Until then, we may as well be picking numbers down at our local convienience store. Like I stated above, I think it has been pretty obvious for at least the past 15 years or so that giving any substantial aid to any government or polity in the region did not serve the interests of the U.S.. That no national political figure in the U.S. has said anything along these lines, through both Democratic and Republican Administrations, is an indicator of domestic political realities. Posted by: Will Allen at January 11, 2007 06:31 PM | Permalink to this comment
Will, I have to agree with you on all points. However, there is still a possibility. It's likely palestinians would leave israel alone if they had the opportunity to leave israel alone. And it's vaguely possible israel might somehow agree to a peace. And if not, it's possible the USA might luck out and become irrelevant to the middle east before we suffer retribution for our continuing actions there. That might not seem at first sight like something to hope for, but it's a not-that-unlikely possibility that gives me some consolation.
The key to the whole Israel/Palestinian conflict is that there really isn't room for two densely populated nations between the Mediterranean and the Jordan; and, for Israelis, a unitary state where they'd soon be the minority would defeat the whole point of their state. The outside-the-box solution is for one party to control the whole area, and the other party to leave. In the past, this type of problem was resolved by war, where the victor would get the land. That sort of total victory is military impossible for the Palestinians and politically impossible for the Israelis. The real, outside-the-box solution would be to get one party to leave voluntarily. The tough part of that, of course, is that both groups have strong ties to the land. The Palestinians nurse bitter memories of their grandparents having to leave their homes or orchards during the "Nakhba", and the Israelis have ties and an attachment to the land going back thousands of years. I'd make them both an offer to leave, have the Quartet plus the Arab League put up a large sum of cash to sweeten the pot (and a seperate pot to buy land elsewhere), and have the first pot get smaller the longer it takes for one side to agree to move. To the Palestinians I'd say: lots of people have lost homes in history: Sudeten Germans, Iraqi Jews, etc. We can help you be free and prosperous elsewhere. To the Israelis: You managed to keep your faith and culture as Jews for two thousand years away from this little piece of land. You can do so again. We can find you a refuge elsewhere. Where, is another question, but not an insoluble one. For the Israelis, why not South America? Plenty of land there, and maybe a few democracies that wouldn't mind selling a few thousand square miles to an industrious nation which would likely boost the economy of the whole region. Have the selling country put the issue to a referendum and generously compensate those who would lose their land to the new Israel West (out of the second pot of money). For the Palestinians, why not Jordan? There are plenty of Palestinians there already, and if they moved quickly and accepted the money, they'd all be well off. As for Jordan, it would get cash (helpful since it doesn't have much oil), and stability, by having a place where some its Palestinian majority could emigrate to (the new Palestine East). Posted by: Dave at January 13, 2007 04:28 AM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman
What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times 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 WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice
Archives
March 2009
January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
