 |
October 21, 2007Knife's EdgeI actually believe Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan would really prefer not to have to mount a major cross-border incursion into Kurdistan, but to better understand the pressure he's under of late this quote from a retired Turkish General is rather instructive: "(w)ith this incident, the arrow left the bow, and no room is left for the government to hesitate, postpone or fail to launch a cross border operation...If the government resists ordering a military operation, such a step would endanger its existence and credibility." And while it's true that Armagan Kuloglu (the quoted analyst & former military man) has tended to want to have a strong Turkish presence in the north of Iraq for quite some time now, I very much suspect his sentiments are shared by most currently serving members of the Turkish General Staff (for those who might not follow Turkey much, suffice it to say--and this is an understatement--the views of the Turkish military on such matters are quite consequential). So while Bob Gates might just be right that a major Turkish response isn't "imminent", no one can plausibly deny that Iraq's northern frontier this Sunday evening is rather on a knife's edge. In short, the negative regional implications of the Iraq disaster continue to proceed apace. Instead of trying to contain the growing conflagration per the Baker-Hamilton approach, we're pursuing 'bottom-up' victory-is-near-maximalist 'surge' nonsense in tribal lands west of Baghdad (I'll have an interesting side-note on this soon, I hope). Meantime innocent Shi'a children are reportedly being killed in Sadr City because of too indiscriminate use of American air-power. It's not too hard to see the Kurds and Shi'a turning on us down the road, no? The former as we'll mostly side with Ankara's crack-down on the PKK, which could well escalate so as to drag the peshmerga in (who in turn will increasingly resent tacit American support of the Turks), while the Shi'a will get more frustrated with our attempts to blunt crude Shi'a majoritarianism to protect our new Sunni friends in Ramadi, not to mention too growing hostility resulting from more frequent episodes of "collateral damage" (think of Sadr City as our very own Gaza, you might say). This adventure has proven to be rotten from the very get-go, and I fear it's going to end even more nastily than all the collected tragedy and folly we've witnessed to date, unless dramatic course corrections are implemented with great skill, both within Iraq and regionally, and soon. But there's a fat chance of that happening, not only with this Administration, but also with many of the potential successors too. Something is indeed rotten in the state of Denmark. Such a confluence of gross incompetence, vapid chest-beating, manifold ignorance and provincial paranoia doesn't conspire to create such abysmally poor policy every day, after all... Comments
what are relations like between the PKK and Iran and/or Syria? certainly smacks of something out of their playbook... Posted by: neill at October 21, 2007 05:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
The Kurds hate the governments of both Iran and Syria with a passion, having been brutally repressed there as well. Anyone who says "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" knows nothing about the Mideast. (Of course, Bush says it quite frequently...) Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 21, 2007 05:28 PM | Permalink to this comment
Granted that this also pretty much blows to smithereens my own long-time hopes that we could at least retain a strong presence in Kurdish Iraq. Still, maybe Krauthammer and company can blame it all on Nancy Pelosi's Armenian resolution, which they're currently cranking up to do. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 21, 2007 05:37 PM | Permalink to this comment
"This adventure has proven to be rotten from the very get-go, and I fear it's going to end even more nastily than all the collected tragedy and folly we've witnessed to date, unless dramatic course corrections are implemented with great skill, both within Iraq and regionally, and soon." Greg, with regards to the GOP's handling of Iraq, you have an unfortunate tendency to refuse to acknowledge what is really happening in that country until well after someone as informed and intelligence as you should. That time for "dramatic course correction" that could avert a complete disaster in Iraq passed last summer, thanks to the oh-so-honorable General Petraeus. His strategy of support for Sunni terrorists (as long as they didn't call themselves al Qaeda) sealed the deadly deal -- in order to put a big dent in what constituted 5-10% of the Sunni insurgency, we've allowed the other 90% to regroup, re-organize, re-train and re-arm.... and they're eager to commence hostilities against the Shiite majority with the aim of installing a neo-Baathist regime in Baghdad the minute we indicate we're ready to leave. There is literally nothing that we can do to stop a disaster in Iraq now -- we can merely delay it by throwing more American lives and dollars at the situation. None of that matters to Petraeus, of course -- he'll leave Iraq relatively peaceful... and be in position to run for President as a Republican based on his "success" in Iraq (and the inevitable failure of the Democratic president to avert the catastrophe he designed) in 2012. But we mustn't make any such personal criticisms of Petraeus -- despite his consistent record of sycophancy and 'falling up'. Petraeus is 'honorable', and 'a good man' and all that crap... right? Posted by: p_lukasiak at October 21, 2007 06:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
No, no, you've got it all wrong. As Bill Kristol said today, the only thing that could possibly cause the Iraq War to be a failure now is Iran. They are all that stands between us and the sweet smell of victory. And if Bill Kristol says it, you can take it to the bank. Let the bombing commence immediately. Posted by: Pug at October 21, 2007 06:53 PM | Permalink to this comment
For the US to retain a strong presence in Iraqi Kurdistan, it needs to keep good relations with both Kurdish players -- which is not difficult, as they have traditionally enjoyed buddying up to the US -- and it needs to at least appear to side with Kurdistan against Turkey -- and herein lies the rub. The US, having destroyed one secular regime in the Middle East (Iraq), and alienated the population of another (Egypt), risks alienating and potentially pushing to tyranny a third (Turkey), which has been traditionally a faithful ally of the US, if the US tries to play along on the sides of the Kurds against Turkey. Turkish passions are going to be easily inflamed against the US, with obvious allegations that the US is both fomenting and using terrorism against Turkey -- indeed, several notorious incident allegations have already spread wildly, including the movie. It is not very good situation for the US, I think. Posted by: Striada Helfathi at October 21, 2007 08:57 PM | Permalink to this comment
Re If Bill Kristol says it .. More significantly, Bill Kristol, also said with a straight face that we are winning in Iraq and the only impediment to final victory is Iran's interference. So there you have it. The ministry of truth. Posted by: CSTAR at October 21, 2007 10:53 PM | Permalink to this comment
Although this situation is obviously bad for the US -- and the region -- one nevertheless does have to admire the strategic acumen of the Kurdish separatists --- those who want an independent Kurdistan have seized a historical moment when action has the best chance of achieving their goal. By provoking an attack by Turkey, the central Iraqi government (and its US sponsors) will be forced to choose sides. A US/Iraqi failure to come to the defense of the Kurds will justify a declaration of independence by the Iraqi Kurds. Of course, neither the Iraqi Army nor the US military has the resources (nor the inclination) to take on Turkey militarily at this point, so a declaration of independence seems inevitable. The peshmerga could easily sustain a low intensity war with Turkey, while simultaneously going on the offensive to claim Kirkuk and its environs as Kurdish territory. Because the Iraqi military would have to respond in Kirkuk, any such Kurdish offensive would signal the Sunni insurgents to get back to business. One can easily see a deal being struck between the Sunnis and the Kurds -- an independent Kurdistan that includes Kirkuk with the rest of Iraq under control of the Sunnis. Meanwhile, the US would be diplomatically and militarily paralyzed -- stuck with a commitment to a weak central Iraqi government whose only other major ally in the region is anathema to the current administration, while the groups we have been working with most effectively attack that government. I see two possible eventual outcomes -- a rapid US withdrawal, followed by a takeover of Iraq by Iraq with the co-operation/acquiescence of Turkey and Syria, or an independent Kurdistan and a Sunni controlled Iraq that is supported by the US, but which will be in a constant state of civil war with the Shiite majority supported by Iran. The former is more likely, because while the Bush regime would doubtless prefer the latter, by the time the decision is made Bush will no longer be in office, and the American people will be demanding disengagement from Iraq at any cost.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/resistance-is-futile.htm please read this, and his past dispatches to get a LITTLE perspective for what is really going on. Posted by: neill at October 22, 2007 08:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
...in Iraq. these threads have a through-the-looking glass quality to them for anyone who regularly reads blogs of embedded citizen journalists like Yon and michael totten at michaeltotten.com Posted by: neill at October 22, 2007 08:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
I have. Note that he's talking entirely about the Basra area; there's not a word in that column about what's happening elsewhere, and particularly about the status of the Sunni/Shiite clash. And for some word on that, then -- as John Cole says over on "Balloon Juice" -- compare Yon's column with that of "Riverbend, who, you know, lived in the place: Een where the Shiite areas are concerned, I wonder how much of that peace that Yon currently observes is just due to al-Sadr and company keeping a low profile for now (as they are, in fact, voluntarily doing) while planning to turn up the heat again as soon as the US largely leaves? They have, after all, all the time in the world. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 22, 2007 09:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
neil, It seems to me, that Michael Yon & Michael Totten are only conserned with keeping the war fever on hot. Acting as if these warmongering "journalists" are exposing "facts" shows your faith-based bias. Next, you'll be warning us of Hussein's vast arsenal of WMD. Posted by: somedude at October 22, 2007 09:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
Speak of the Devil. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101577.html : "U.S. Planners See Shiite Militias as Rising Threat" "David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker have concluded that Shiite extremists pose a rising threat to the U.S. effort in Iraq, as the relative influence of Sunni insurgent groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq has diminished drastically because of ongoing U.S. operations. "This judgment forms part of the changes that Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, approved last week to their classified campaign strategy for the country, which covers the period through summer 2009. The updated plan anticipates shifting the U.S. military effort to focus more on countering Shiite militias -- some backed by Iran -- that have generated new violence as they battle for power in the south and elsewhere in Iraq, said senior military and diplomatic officials familiar with the plan. " 'As the Sunni insurgents quit fighting us, the problems we have with criminality and other militia, many of them Shia, become relatively more important,' said a U.S. Embassy official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan is not finalized. "The plan also acknowledges that the U.S. military -- with limited time and troops -- cannot guarantee a wholesale defeat of its enemies in Iraq, and instead is seeking 'political accommodation' to persuade them to end the use of violence, the officials said. "In the political arena, the campaign plan no longer upholds the passage of specific laws by Iraq's parliament as the main measure of reconciliation among religious and ethnic factions. It instead emphasizes the need for government leaders to take concrete, practical steps in areas such as sharing oil revenues or hiring ex-Baathist officials. 'We want to have more focus on these results . . . not on the technical legislation,' said the embassy official. [The reason for this shift, of course, is that Iraq's parliament has made it clear by now that it has no intention of passing any actual laws encouraging reconciliation -- Moomaw.] " Crocker and Petraeus are in broad agreement over the campaign plan changes, summarized in a 20-slide presentation that they approved in a meeting last Wednesday. However, officials identified frictions over elements of the plan -- in particular, the pace and scope of future troop withdrawals -- between Petraeus, whose priority is stabilizing Iraq, and senior leaders at the Pentagon, Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional commands concerned about the risks of conflicts elsewhere... " 'Centcom, the Joint Staff and OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] would be happier with more forces coming out, and if they could order us to redeploy forces more quickly they would do it,' said a senior official familiar with the plan. 'But the president is on the CG's [commanding general's] side.' "Senior Pentagon and military officials say the tensions emerge from commanders' different responsibilities. 'The concern in Baghdad is a lot more restricted, as their mission only includes Iraq,' said a senior military official. 'At the end of the day, Iraq is Iraq. It's very important, but there are other problems in the world,' such as Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Horn of Africa, the official said... "The campaign plan's recognition that Shiite extremists pose a relatively greater threat comes as rival Shiite militias have increased their attacks throughout southern Iraq in recent months, including the assassination of two provincial governors. A quarterly Pentagon report on Iraq released last month concluded that the instability in some southern provinces reflected the growing strength of the Mahdi Army, the militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. "Even so, officials said, the targeting of Shiite militias is far more sensitive for the Shiite-led Iraqi government than is the U.S. effort against the Sunni group al-Qaeda in Iraq. 'When hitting on these militias, you are getting close to home for these Shia politicians . . . so it's a lot more delicate,' said one military official... "Some military analysts doubt that Iraqi security forces are impartial enough to enforce the local cease-fires being negotiated around the country, and think that large numbers of U.S. troops will be needed to police such accords for at least another year. 'If we are leaving and expecting the Iraqi security forces to enforce these cease-fires, we are in deep, deep trouble,' said Stephen Biddle, a military expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who has advised Petraeus." Well. Thank God Michael Yon is there to tell Petraeus, Crocker and all the rest of our top military officers what's REALLY happening in Shiite Iraq. (Especially since the fact that those Sunni militias have "quit fighting us" for the moment is also an extremely changeable fact itself, and that in any case it doesn't say a thing about their apparently negligible willingness to stop fighting the Shiite-controlled government.) Note also that "Centcom, the Joint Chiefs and OSD" -- that is, Fallon, Mullen and Gates -- are extremely unhappy about the same thing that has always been my primary worry about our entanglement in Iraq: we're wide open to a military crisis anywhere else -- specifically, any involving the nuclear states of Pakistan and North Korea. To say nothing of having been largely stripped by our Iraq involvement of any ability to restrain Iran's nuclear progrem either militarily or diplomatically. Sure enough, Adm. Mullen announced today ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/washington/22mullen.html?ex=1350705600&en=0bc37de8fe1d3e7c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss ): "The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff plans to press Congress and the public to sustain the current high levels of military spending — even after the Iraq war — arguing for money to repair and replace worn-out weapons and to restore American ground forces he described as 'breakable,' though not yet broken. "The new chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, expressed deep concerns that the long counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have so consumed the military that the Army and Marine Corps may be unprepared for a high-intensity war against a major adversary. "He rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops. "With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region 'has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it.' The military option, he said, should be a last resort... "One of the few Vietnam War veterans remaining in the most senior officer corps, Admiral Mullen expressed worries that the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan had undermined the military’s ability to fight big wars — and distracted the armed forces from preparing to face other threats... "Assessing the impact of long, repeated deployments for the ground forces in Iran and Afghanistan, he said, 'The ground forces are not broken, but they are breakable.' " I myself would put it another way: given the enormous importance of trying to put an end to Iran's Bomb program -- and the fact that at least a plausible threat of military force is likely to be a crucial part of that -- shouldn't we be asking ourselves whether reserving our military strength for THAT purpose may not be more important than trying to pacify Iraq?
...or in other words, for those who want us to attack Iran: "with what and what army?" Posted by: grumpy realist at October 22, 2007 11:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
...or in other words, for those who want us to attack Iran: "with what and what army?" we aren't going to attack Iran with our army, but with our Air Force and Naval carrier groups, silly. Just because the men and women on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan will find themselves in the middle of a Shiite dominated killing field after we attack Iran is of no consequence to the idiots who think an attack on Iran is a good idea. Remember, these are the same bozos who had no rational plan for post-Saddam Iraq---and they still have jobs and considerable influence. They've learned no lessons, because they've incurred no damage themselves. Do you think they've considered the repercussions of an attack on Iran? Posted by: p_lukasiak at October 22, 2007 11:55 PM | Permalink to this comment
> Do you think they've considered the repercussions of an attack on Iran? Are you referring to repercussions on election results in 2008, or some other type of repercussions? :) Posted by: Peter Fillmore at October 23, 2007 12:02 AM | Permalink to this comment
This bunch doesn't seem to do "repercussions", period. Note Dennis Ross' note today on one of the most bizarre aspects of their Iraq invasion ( http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6ce9e35e-8a14-4d52-8b30-d928b3403a78 ): "With the supposed weapons of mass destruction... the administration talked up the threat, creating an objective massive enough to pull us into war. But it didn't commit enough troops to seize all the reputed sites of WMD, much less prevent the WMD materials from being smuggled out of the country if they had been there." And this after the CIA had urgently warned him about it the previous October. (As Brad Delong has been saying for a long time, thank God Saddam DIDN'T have chemical or biological weapons.) There are times when I find myself seriously considering the possibility that our political leaders have been possessed by evil aliens. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 23, 2007 02:37 AM | Permalink to this comment
Ah, yes, Bill Kristol has seen the Future and It Works!
*FUBAR -Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition Note: Would be careful about using Riverbend as a source. Her family were either Bath Pary members or sympathisers that profited very well under Saddam. She is as biased in being against everything that has happened since the US-led Invasion as someone like Iraq the Model is in favor of it. Posted by: David All at October 23, 2007 12:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
that dispatch focuses on Basra, but most are from Anbar, which has become.......drumroll, please......boring. yon has been credibility because he doesn't shrink from criticising the military or the administration, letting the chips fall where they may. there are distinct and measurable positive changes on the ground there resulting from the change in strategy --- nothing like the "surge math" that doesn't add up 'calculated' by our fearless host. facts don't matter to you guys. political agenda dictates your spin, plain and simple. Your reference to Riverbend as even a remotely objective source exposes your bias.
Anbar is boring, but it is boring because tortured and decapitated bodies in the streets and overflowing morgues are the status quo, and go on endless, apparently.
Actually, Neill, Anbar is boring because the local Sunni Sheikhs -- although they're as implacably hostile to the Iraqi government as ever -- have sensibly decided that it makes more sense to stop fighting American soldiers, and instead have us actually fork over more arms to them which they can then use to shoot at the Shiites the moment we leave (since the only price they have to pay for this is to get rid of a small number of al-Qaeda fighters who were counterproductive nuisances to them anyway). In fact, they're willing to actually talk publicly, and routinely, about how they have no intention of ever placing themselves under the authority of the Iraqi government: http://www.newsweek.com/id/42453 . You know, Neill, even the King's Men finally realized that it was cost-ineffective to keep trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again. Particularly since they were needed more for other tasks. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 23, 2007 06:15 PM | Permalink to this comment
the sunni sheikhs realize by now that a way,way uphill fight against the marjority and ruling shia and the Americans is way bad for bidness. the pie, and their slice, will be much larger if they stop fighting us. (along with the fact that the retina scans and personal info of their entire 'army' is now in the US military's database) why do you think al-Douri is now negotiating with the Government? THAT fight-fight is over. now its talk-talk. Posted by: neill at October 23, 2007 10:18 PM | Permalink to this comment
http://article.nationalreview.com/q=ODRiNTI5NWU4NmEyNzRmYjk4YjNiNzBlYmIzNTZhMDY more michael yon Posted by: neill at October 24, 2007 01:34 AM | Permalink to this comment
Getting back to the subject at hand.... Does anything think that the reported US offer to bomb the PKK is going to have any impact at all -- not, IMHO, with the PKK holding eight Turkish soldiers prisoner. But it looks like things could get very, very ugly very quickly, because "official" Kurdish forces are on their way to the Border. About 100 red beret-wearing members of the official defense forces of Iraq's Kurdish region were headed Wednesday for a camp near the border city of Dahuk, 260 miles northwest of Baghdad. What 100 militiamen is going to do against the large numbers being assembled by the Turkish Army is negligable militarily, but 100 dead peshmerga will mean a whole lot politically. Sending these troops to the border is as clear a sign as you could want that the Iraqi Kurdish leadership is behind the PKK 100%....
> Iraqi Kurdish leadership is behind the PKK Was there any doubt? I mean, isn't the existence of the Iraqi Kurdish movement due in large part to the long-term terrorist tactics of the PKK -- as with many other liberation and freedom-fighting movements? Or have I bought too much into PKK propaganda somehow?
Post a comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
"Serious Consequences"
Knife's Edge Enough Denial, Please Our Sunni BFF's (Or Perhaps Not...) Brutish Nightmare, or Kaganite Reverie? Cooling Your Heels at the Dacha... Thanks, But No Thanks... Beneficent Sanctuaries "Mr. Secretary, I Got An Interesting Question..." Cheeky Bull
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 Ross Douthat Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Innocents Abroad 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 Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Columnists
Anne Applebaum
Tony Blankley David Broder David Brooks Roger Cohen Jackson Diehl Maureen Dowd Thomas Friedman Bob Herbert Fred Hiatt Jim Hoagland Richard Holbrooke David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Nicholas Kristof Paul Krugman Howard Kurtz Sebastian Mallaby Robert Novak The Reliable Source Frank Rich Mark Steyn John Tierney John Vinocur Washington Whispers George Will
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice
Archives
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 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
