Roundup: Beware Guiliani, Iraq & Turkey, Problems For Iran, and more!!

It's been a while but the roundup should be ok. I'm tired and I'm not sure why now...just assumed it was lack of food plus the drinking in the previous few days, but today I'm still sleepy even when I just wake up. Even took a big nap in the afternoon and still woke up tired (though not as much). Weird, huh? So, please excuse any fogginess in though, it probably won't be 100%. j/k (well, mostly)

Anyways, the roundup will follow in a similar fashion to previous ones. If your not sure what that is, see any other post (except in the Myspace blog...look down past the previous two in that case). This will be organized in the following way (in order)

- Bush's Failed Foreign Policy
- Beware a Rudy Giuliani Presidency
- Turkey's Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq
- Iraq
- Iran
- Threats of Torture and Government Censorship

------

Bush's Failed Foreign Policy

There is one piece, written by noted Middle East scholar and expert Juan Cole that I believe everyone should read. It is the perfect preamble, it is the perfect piece to read in order to give everyone here the proper context in which to read all the other links that follow this, especially the Rudy Guiliani stuff. This is a must read and it's only two pages long...seriously go read it now!! Well, OK the link is below.

Juan Cole -- The Collapse of Bush's Foreign Policy -- Now read it all. But here are some interesting parts:

The Bush administration once imagined that its presence in Afghanistan and Iraq would be anchored by friendly neighbors, Turkey to the west and Pakistan to the east. Last week, as the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to deteriorate, the anchors themselves also came loose.

On Sunday, just days after the Turkish Parliament authorized an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurdish guerrillas ambushed and killed 17 Turkish soldiers inside Turkey. In Karachi, Pakistan, a massive bomb nearly killed U.S.-backed Benazir Bhutto, who was supposed to help stabilize the country. The Bush administration's entire Middle East policy is coming undone -- if it even has a policy left, other than just sticking its fingers in the multiple, and multiplying, holes in the dike. (snip)...

Cole's conclusion puts it all together nicely. Explaining the complete failure and crumpling of Bush's foreign policy:

Along with the failed state in Iraq, which has neglected to use any decrease in violence temporarily provided by the recent U.S. troop escalation to effect political reconciliation, the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan raises the specter of a collapse of both of Bush's major state-building projects. The turmoil in Turkey and Pakistan damages U.S. relations with two allies that are key to shoring up the countries under American occupation.

After Sept. 11, when the Bush administration launched its global "war on terror," the United States enjoyed some clear assets in fighting the al-Qaida terrorist network. In the Middle East, the United States had the support of secular Turkey, a NATO member. The long relationship of the powerful Pakistani military with that of the United States enabled Bush to turn the military dictator Musharraf against the Taliban, which Pakistan had earlier sponsored. Shiite Iran announced that it would provide help to the United States in its war on the hyper-Sunni Taliban regime. Baathist Syria and Iraq, secular Arab nationalist regimes, were potential bulwarks against Sunni radicalism in the Levant.

Like a drunken millionaire gambling away a fortune at a Las Vegas casino, the Bush administration squandered all the assets it began with by invading Iraq and unleashing chaos in the Gulf. The secular Baath Party in Iraq was replaced by Shiite fundamentalists, Sunni Salafi fundamentalists and Kurdish separatists. The pressure the Bush administration put on the Pakistani military government to combat Muslim militants in that country weakened the legitimacy of Musharraf, whom the Pakistani public increasingly viewed as an oppressive American puppet. Iraqi Kurdistan's willingness to give safe haven to the PKK alienated Turkey from both the new Iraqi government and its American patrons. Search-and-destroy missions in Afghanistan have predictably turned increasing numbers of Pushtun villagers against the United States, NATO and Karzai. The thunder of the bomb in Karachi and the Turkish shells in Iraqi Kurdistan may well be the sound of Bush losing his "war on terror."

I have nothing to add to this brilliant piece by Professor Cole.

I mentioned that the above piece is important in that it helps properly view all of the links that follow, and I mean it.

-----

Beware a Rudy Guiliani Presidency

Why is the collapse and utter failure of Bush foreign policy so important to note when it comes to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani? Quite simply, it is because when it comes to matters of foreign policy and terrorism policy Guiliani is nearly identical or worse than President Bush on the very same issues.

I've had a video on my profile of Giuliani taking on neoconservative foreign policy advisors (some too crazy even for the White House) (here the link from TPMTV), a very important thing to note, especially for a potential president with very little foreign policy experience and thus increasingly reliant on his advisors.

What is no doubt a little disconcerting about Giuliani to those who follow politics (except for Republicans of course!) is how eerily similar to President Bush he is

Rudy Giuliani, to quote a Democratic rival, would be like President Bush on steroids in the way he would go about protecting the U.S. from terrorists. In reality, Giuliani doesn't seem very different from Bush on the issue.

The former New York mayor says the government shouldn't be shy about eavesdropping on citizens. He is prepared to use military force to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and root out terrorists in Pakistan. And he opposes a U.S. pullout from Iraq.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, a Giuliani friend and adviser on homeland security issues, said in an interview: "I would say they're very much joined at the hip on these policies, and particularly the mind-set and commitment of both the president and Mayor Giuliani to stay on offense."

And given how "well" these policies have worked out for us the past 7 years, this observation is a very serious cause for concern. Do we really want another 7 years of Bush, or worse, "Bush on steroids" as Democrat John Edwards opined? Do we really want more Guantanamo's, more Abu Ghraibs, an indefinite occupation of Iraq, a new war in Iran and possibly Syria...do we really want someone who is so like our current President? A candidate for President so blinded that he would undermine our very Constitution (in much the same ways as our current President) and all that makes America America in order to "protect you."

In such a way as to give people the false dichotomy and choice that freedom MUST be sacrificed for security. That is a false choice: While some risk is always inherent in any system (and thats the price we pay) with many freedoms, our protection is always achievable within the bounds of our rule of law.

How is it that America lived through the most dangerous times; the Revolution, the War of 1812, fought off one of the most dangerous foes to freedom (fascism) during World War II, and faced off against an enemy with the capability of annihilate us in a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War without having to sacrifice our core American ideals, and our core Constitutional order?

The terrorist do not pose anywhere near the same level of existential threat as earlier ones yet some overreact to it and propose policies unthinkable during yet worse threats!! Why!?

It brings to mind a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

Anyways lets get on with this Rudy section...I need to further detail the crazy.

More on and his aggressive foreign policy

Bad huh? But it gets worse. Mr. Giuliani asks to have a briefing from Neoconservative godfather Norman Podhoretz on the war....World War IV.

That is NOT a typo

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Check out what nattering nabob of neoconservativism Norman Podhoretz, a top foreign policy adviser to Rudy, has just confided to The New York Observer about a recent private conversation he had with the candidate:

Norman Podhoretz believes that America needs to go to war soon with Iran. As far as he knows, Rudy Giuliani thinks the same thing.

“I was asked to come in and give him a briefing on the war, World War IV,” said Mr. Podhoretz, a founding father of neoconservatism and leading foreign policy adviser to Mr. Giuliani. “As far as I can tell there is very little difference in how he sees the war and how I see it.”

So what does Podhoretz have to say about our Middle East policy?

America should be working to overthrow governments in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt and “every one of the despotic regimes in that region, by force if necessary and by nonmilitary means if possible,” he said. “They are fronts of the war. You can’t do everything at once. And to have toppled two of those regimes in five years or six years is I think a major achievement. And maybe George Bush won’t be able to carry it further, but I think he will. It may have just been given to him to start act one of the five-act play.”

Giuliani is surrounding himself...personally asking for advice and briefings, from a freakin' maniac!! Seriously, if Giuliani somehow wins the presidency (I doubt he will) than I will literally crap my pants in terror...seriously. Now, I don't know if it's possible to actually crap yourself in disgust as well, but I'm sure there will be some disgust mixed with that terror. Not sure how it works but I sure I'll manage it somehow.

But enough about my bowels, lets move on to Northern Iraq

---------

Turkey's Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq

Iraqi govt and US rhetoric against PKK militants have stepped up in recent days. Promises by Iraq's central government and the regional government to promise to shut down PKK offices have been met with skepticism and doubt. Likely because previous promises only led to the re-opening of such offices the very next day in another location.

Turkey sees Iraqi Kurdish authorities as very lax on stopping Kurds in their territories and lax on border enforcement

I saw an interview either yesterday morning or this morning with the Turkish ambassador to the United States and he more or less expressed that these assurances are not enough to satisfy Turkey or nearly enough to stop their drive to invade northern Iraq...they want more, and I'm not sure there are practical things the US or Iraqi forces can do that will satisfy the Turks.

This pressure seems to be getting to the US though because it recently has been reported that President Bush has offered to bomb PKK positions in Iraq

No doubt stemming from the desire not to move troops into Kurdish regions and out of other regions. I think he sees this as a way to thread the needle and satisfy Turkish rage, while not pissing of Kurds who would likely object to seeing US soldiers in their territory.

I'm honestly not sure if this will do, but it's actually possible that this could satisfy the Turks. The article offers up other alternatives: US forces (not gonna happen), or convincing the Kurdish regional government to use their security forces (Peshmerga ) to surround PKK camps and prevent them from moving beyond their mountain camps.

I'm not sure how likely it is, but the threat of invasion may just be enough of a fear that it provokes the normally lax Kurds to turn on fellow Kurds (Turkish Kurds).

Then again, this doesn't exactly fill me with confidence...no doubt it has the same effect on Turkish observers. Iraqis aren't exactly cracking down like they say they would.

Despite Turkey’s demand that the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq clamp down on the PKK, there was no sign of any action against them.

On our way to the mountain, every checkpoint manned by the Iraqi army waved us through, and cheerfully provided directions on how to get to guerrilla positions.

Nor have the supply lines been cut. Several four-wheel-drive vehicles steered by toothless old men crawled along the tracks ahead of us, piled high with sackfuls of food.

If this is the result of future Iraqi assurances, than a Turkish invasion is much more likely to occur.

--------

Iraq

"I Don't Think This Place IS Worth Another Soldiers' Life" - (Washington Post)

The subheading says it all: "After 14 months in a Baghdad district torn by mounting sectarian violence, members of one U.S. unit are tired, bitter and skeptical."

Some troops just aren't seeing the point of 'being a bouncer between two brawling customers'. An interesting read.

10 anti-al-Qaeda sheiks are kidnapped - (CBS news) Pronouncements of Al-Qaeda's demise aside, this goes to show that AQI should not be counted out or written off just yet if they can still pull something like this off. Although in actuality AQI is not the most dangerous actor in Iraq, even among the Sunnis and never was.

--------

Iran

Khamenei vs. Ahmadinejad - There's some interesting internal Iranian political games being played which makes for intriguing reading. "Khamenei" of course refers to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who is considered more of the true power in Iran than Iranian President Ahmadinedjad (or any person who holds the title of President in Iran).

But with the firing, which Larijani learned through news reports rather than directly, Ahmadinejad is challenging Khamenei's authority over Iranian state matters. Ahmadinejad knows that Larijani is an agent of those who actually want to resolve Iran's nuclear situation in a constructive way while Ahmadinejad benefits from the crisis and tension with the US and Europe...(snip)

There has been fragile but real deal making going on -- and it is progress on this front that Larijani wanted to have the government announce -- but Ahmadinejad refused.

More on this soap opera later -- but the big story here is that Ahmadinejad is challenging Khamenei directly and openly with Ali Larijani's firing. It will be interesting to see if Khamenei turns the other cheek or further undermines the "Dick Cheney of Iran" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I'll definitely need to follow this story

-------

Threats of Torture and Government Censorship

I have to concur with the sentiment expressed by the author: Holy Shit!!

Basically, the FBI coerced an innocent man into confessing by threatening his family with torture, eventually the man's innocence became clear and an appeals court ruled in his favor, but the opinion was swiftly pulled off the web. Then up came a new version:

A new version that conceals and censors the fact that...you know...the guy was coerced into confessing using threats of torture against his familiy.

People tell you anything you want to hear under circumstances like that, as well as under actual physical and psychological torture too. That's why as a practice (which doesn't touch how horribly immoral and wrong it is), torture and even rough tactics as threatening relatives should not be practiced.

Anything we learn is highly suspect. In worst-case scenarios we may base important decisions and policy, decisions with large-scale implications, on the "evidence" gathered from desperate people who just want to protect their family, or just want the pain to stop. And that would be a disaster.

-----

Good night folks, that's all for tonight.

The Revenge of the Link Dump - Another Political Roundup

There were so many articles left after yesterdays post, and new ones from today, that I decided to do today's post in a similar "link dump" roundup style. In other words, many links...easy on the analysis for most of them (well a little more than yesterdays).

Once again I've divided the post in groups for easy browsing: (in order)

- Iraq
- Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq by Turkey
- Iran
- Oil and the Rising Threat of Conflicts Over It

------

Iraq

Recent violence statistics in Iraq have shown some decrease, although it appears to be more of a decrease in one area and the beginnings of an upswing in others.

The Groups News Blog does its homework and compiles its stats and finds that large increases in violence in Baghdad are covered over by the large reductions in the al-Anbar region and some southern regions where US troops are beginning to leave from.

Interesting stats although they make conclusions based on these statistics that I don't think I can really agree with:

No, what we are seeing here is a shell game. The violence is not dropping. Its ending. It's ending wherever we withdraw from and spiking were we are digging in. It only appears to drop because violence in Al Anbar, Basra, Najaf, Karbala, Wasit, Dhiqar, etc, etc, has ended. This drop obscures the spike in Baghdad....(snip)

This information shows a trend up in the Baghdad region and shows that Iraq does not devolve into civil war when the US pulls out. Does not let al Qaeda take over in their absence. In fact the complete opposite, the local security forces quickly run to ground AQI and end them. It seems once the US forces leave the area the score settling and inter-tribal violence ends. Life seems cheap with tanks and machine guns on every corner. Remove those visual and physical reminders and people work out their differences with something other than a pistol and a power-drill. So when some tells you we have to stay, ask them why.

Hmm, that sounds like a real dubious interpretation of these statistics. First, it's hard for me believe that physical reminders of US occupation are the main driving force behind the sectarian fighting. My observations of the Iraq situation tell me that the US presence has been acting of late as more of a limiter of how intense a civil war there is. Without US soldiers, I see a full-scale civil war...the Iraqi's themselves seem to expect such a power struggle so I tend to side with them.

Second, they ignore the reasons for the draw down in US troops in Al-Anbar province and thus confuse the chain of causation:

US soldiers didn't leave al-Anbar and then violence went down. In fact, violence went down in al-Anbar and then US soldiers were able to leave. That difference tells me that their interpretation is wrong.

The drop in violence in al-Anbar has its own region specific reasons (the al-Anbar Model), which I go into in a previous post (I don't want to get sidetracked). This same previous post also details why what the US has fostered in al-Anbar is dangerous and counterproductive. It's a good read...and yes that is shameless promotion of my old works!! lol

I'll add that the al-Anbar model - where Sunni insurgent groups (some) have worked to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) - has done wonders to eliminate their ranks.

So says the Generals as well - In that previous post just mentioned above I more or less see that AQI is likely to be wiped out by Sunni groups (part of the al-Anbar model), but as I note, those same Sunni groups have vowed to return to attacking Americans should AQI really be down for the count...so, not exactly a good thing. I myself think they are exagerating and undersestimating AQI staying power. AQI is not that large of an actor, but it would be foolish to underestimate them.

- Reinforcing the drop in violence with Sunnis is this Washington Post article that tells us that US planners are seeing the Shias as a rising threat.

Gen. 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...(snip)

"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.

The stats seem to bear out the relative increase in importance of the Shias, although as I have noted, this lull in Sunni attacks against US forces is temporary, as these same groups have promised to resume attacks once AQI has been dealt a sufficient blow. And not all Sunni insurgent groups have turned on AQI, nor have all of them stopped attacking US soldiers.

There are 3 types of Sunni groups (as I see it)

1) Insurgents still working with AQI and attack US soldiers
2) Insurgents working against AQI but still vowing to attack US soldiers
3) (formerly) Insurgent groups working with the US against AQI...who nonetheless promise to resume attacks once AQI is dealth with.

None of that bodes well for the US. They are too happy about progress that really isn't progress when looked at closer.

In reference to the final bolded part about them seeking political accommodation to stop the violence: That has not happened. Nor do Iraqi's expect it to happen. Without success here, the military missions (success and failures) have no meaning or positive effect.

------
Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq by Turkey

-The ambush yesterday did not act as the straw that broke the camels back...er...it didn't cause the Turkish invasion. It added to the public pressure in Turkey for such action though, but the Turks have promised to hold of a bit.

-But the Turkish government has not stopped its mobilization of troops and equipment massing on the border between Iraq and Turkey.

- Kurdish (PKK) Rebel leader to declare a cease-fire (AFP) - Certainly a good development. Although I'm not convinced it will neccessarily stop Turkey from acting against the PKK. I heard the Turkish Ambassador speak this morning on this development and he didn't exactly seem molified. It seems such a ceasefire means little to them. What they want is assurances that either the US will eliminate the PKK in Iraq or that Iraq forces or the Kurdish Regional Governments forces will eliminate northern Iraq as a safe have for the PKK. And I do not believe the US nor the Iraqi's or Iraqi Kurdish regional govt will likely do it. So at this point I'm still leaning in the direction of conflict...but the ceasefire does make me think that perhaps it's not inevitable at this point. I hope it is not.

-------

Iran

- VP Cheney heats up the rhetoric against Iran, using rhetoric earily familiar to its 2002-3 pre-war rhetoric against Iraq. A choice snip:

If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." The vice president made no specific reference to military action.

"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.

Cheney's words seemed to only escalate the U.S. rhetoric against Iran over the past several days, including President Bush's warning that a nuclear Iran could lead to "World War III."

"We will not allow" implies there is a line that cannot be crossed. That a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. I have no doubt that they believe it is more dangerous to let Iran go nuclear than the consequences of an war with Iran. I could not disagree more. The consequences of invading a third Muslim nation, while still bogged down and stretched thin in the first two...against a larger and more militarily sophisticated nation...it would be madness!!

While I would not like to see nuclear weapons in Iran's hand, ultimately there is less threat from such a development.

Iran, like all nuclear powered nations can be deterred: There is no reason to believe that Iran would suicidally lob a nuke at the US or Israel or anyone else and risk being utterly destroyed in the nuclear retaliation from thousands of US nukes. Iran can still be deterred, although it would hamper our ability to bully and do what we want with Iran...one of the reasons nations get nukes in the first place.

Perhaps that's the real reason Cheney doesn't want to see Iran get nukes. It would certainly hamper our power to influence Iran and increase Iran's power in the region. And protecting the US global hegemony (look it up) is one of the most important goals of all neoconservatives - as Dick Cheney is.

- Joint Chiefs Chairman not so thrilled about war with Iran - The Joint Chiefs Chairman is a position that is tasked by law to be the President's (and the National Security Principals) chief independent adviser on military matters. Under this presidency this role has been circumvented often with the appointment of "yes-men" and/or pushovers to the position. We have to also remember that his job is to advise, it is up to the president to listen...something he has done little of when it involved hearing things he did not want to hear. And he does tend to listen to Cheney and his group more often.

- US supported terrorist groups attack Iran - Ironic isn't it? Hypocritical too given the type of lip service this administration and its neoconservative actors have paid to fighting a war against terrorism. But, it seems, when the targets of the terrorist group happen to be Iran...well how bad can they be they seem to think.

------

Oil and the Rising Threat of Conflicts Over It

Steep decline in oil production brings risk of war and conflict - Discovering and shifting to alternative forms of energy as well as promoting more conservation are not simply issues of the environment (although global warmings effects will also increase conflicts over resources). Finding alternative energy is a neccessity not only for the survival of the planet, but for ensuring we have less reasons (than we do now) to fight wars. Interesting read.

Reminds me of an interesting Pentagon-commissioned study from 2003 which saw increased conflict due to abrupt climate change.

The reasoning is that such change will drastically limit and decrease the "carrying capacity" of food, energy, and water. And that these shortages, along with increases in population, economic slumps will lead to more wars and conflict over control of the precious little resources left. And that spells trouble (duh).


But read the actual Pentagon report - found here on the Greenpeace website


Good night.

Link Dump - Otherwise Known as a Roundup

I've had a pretty eventful weekend. I had little time (and sleep) for blogging until tonight, and even now this is more of a link dump than hard-core analysis. Rummage around the post...see a link you like or think is interesting and follow it and presto...you're that much smarter!! lol

I've broken it up into 5 different categories for easy browsing: (In order)

-Iraq
-Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq by Turkey
-Iran
-The War on Terror / Case Against Torture
-Immigration / Illegal Immigrations Effects
-------

Iraq

-"The Real Iraq We Knew" (Oct. 16) - An Op-Ed in the Washington Post written by 16 Army Captains who have all served in Iraq. They all paint a very stark and none-too-optimistic picture of the situation on the ground on Iraq as they saw it and as they see it now. A choice quote:

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.

I wonder if Rush Limbaugh has gotten around to calling these former Army officers "phony soldiers" yet...

Iraq has recently finished its own investigation of the Nisour Circle shooting involving Blackwater mercenaries and the deaths of many innocent civilians.

-Iraq's has concluded its own probe of the incident and concludes that Blackwater mercenaries randomly shot at civilians without provocation...and they want Blackwater out

That conforms with other investigations into that incident that I've read about...but I can't seem to find that link so don't take my word for that just yet.

Blackwater likely to be out of Iraq (Oct. 17) - According to this (which may be outdated by now) Blackwater may well be on the out but that it would be a while for that to happen. I say good ridance. Of course, if its not Blackwater it will be another mercenary company filling the gap. And no doubt many former Blackwater employees in Iraq will suddenly become "DyneCorp" or some other private army's employee. Same crap different label, so it's more like PR.

Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq by Turkey

Kurdish regional government (Iraq) vows to retaliate if Turkey enters Iraq - While Turkeys aim (supposedly) is to kill and stop PKK terrorist who take refuge in northern Iraq, no one could really have expected the Kurdish regional government (which is just about autonomous from Iraq proper) to simply take it without some kind of response.

Rising tensions on the Turkey-Iraq border are snowballing into a possible outbreak of war, as the president of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq said his people will defend themselves if Turkey attacks Kurdish rebels based in Kurdistan.

Turkey has put forward a condition for staying away from confrontation, saying that the Iraqi government should eradicate Kurdish rebel bases and extradite rebel leaders. However, Baghdad, already battling a bigger enemy in the mainland, has expressed its helplessness by saying that the country does not currently have the resources to defeat the guerrillas.

And what will the US do? Defend the Kurds from an attack and you lose a longtime ally and fight a fellow NATO member (among the dozens of bad repercussions). Stand by and the Kurds will certainly remember that abandonment with some resentment (to what effect I don't know).

Well, I deal with this issue more in my last post, I don't feel like rehashing it all here.

Kurds in Northern Iraq protest Turkish Parliaments force authorization (Oct. 20) -

Rebel leader threatens strike on oil pipelines if attacked - Turkey stands to be hurt bad economically in case of a strike in northern Iraq. It would be bad to see Turkey's economy go sour.

The flames of conflict are being flamed, and attempts to peacefully solve this situation seem dimmer and dimmer.

The fact that 12 more Turkish soldiers are killed by Kurdish rebels will only further flame pressure for an incursion. I say again that I sincerely doubt the Turkish leadership truly wants to enter into northern Iraq (who the hell would?). The article notes that the resolution of force may be attempts at leverage to get the US or Iraq to do something to stop the PKK, but as I have said before in my previous post, such action is unlikely on the part of the part of the US and Iraq. Then what?

Iran

Iran polls are interesting. They show that the America people are not interested in war with Iran. And the issues of WMD's, nuclear programs, and supposed support for terrorist groups killing US soldiers does not change that. The sentiment for no war is very strong. A couple interesting ones (hmm...doesn't let me copy and paste so check out the first poll). In previous months the feeling had been for more support of aggressive action against Iraq, but the trend in America is against it.

The War on Terror / Case Against Torture

FBI is having trouble bringing cases against terror suspects due to the suspect nature of evidence and intelligence gathered through torture. Its pretty well known that tortured evidence is highly suspect...people literally will say anything, admit to anything under torture, which is why most nations (including ours) do not accept evidence gathered by it. Remember, the Spanish Inquisition managed to produce an astounding amount of "confessions" back in the days. Were they really that good at catching heretics or where they just really good at torturing their victims into "confessing" their heresy? hmm....

Immigration / Illegal Immigrations Effects

In yet another study detailing the effects of immigration (including illegal immigration), we find that in Arizona, immigration of all types has been good for the Arizona economy - (Daily Kos diary by Duke 1676 citing the study)

We can now add Arizona to the long list of states in which recent studies prove that the current influx of immigrants, both legal and undocumented, have contributed far more to the economy and tax base than they receive in government services.

Joining studies from California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Washington DC, and Long Island, NY, a new report from Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona looks at the contributions and costs of Arizona's immigrant population and finds not only an overall net gain for the state, but that the loss of this population would likely cause long term economic problems....(Snip)

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated $2.4 billion, of which about $1.5 billion came from for non-citizens. Balanced against estimated fiscal costs of $1.4 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $940 million.

An economic reality that some cities have come to realize the hard way when they attempt to get tough on illegal immigration. I'm reminded of the case of Riverside, New Jersey, who had to pull back on its "tough" immigration laws, in part, due to the heavy economic blow their city took in the wake of passing its tough immigration laws. A law it never enforced, but that nonetheless prompted an exodus by illegal immigrants, and exodus that economically hurt the town.

Although no fines were levied, the impact was severe on this former industrial town, which in recent years has seen an influx of Portuguese and Brazilian immigrants. Residents and business owners said that many in the immigrant population scattered in fear when the law was passed, leaving vacant storefronts in a once-thriving downtown.

“This is a pretty busy day,” Ed Robins, the owner of Scott Street Music, said on Tuesday afternoon. He was pointing to a nearly empty Scott Street, Riverside’s main business district. “It took $50,000 a week off our streets. That’s what was being spent by the Brazilians and Spanish.”

Many localities of late have tried to crack down on illegal immigration, prompting similar exodus' out of their cities. They are likely to similarly start feeling the hurt. I'll keep up with those stories...

That's it for the night. It's off to watch some Adult Swim or maybe finish reading that 'Blackwater' book I've been reading at a snails pace. Maybe some Fruity Pebbles first...well, anyways. Good night

Turkish Parliament: Troops into N. Iraq When (If) Given Order

As expected, the Turkish Parliament passed the resolution officially authorizing any troop incursions into northern Iraq. And it passed by an overwhelming margin:

Turkey's parliament voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow the government the year-long right to send troops to neighboring northern Iraq to crush Turkish Kurdish rebels there. House speaker Koksal Toptan said 507 lawmakers in the 550-seat parliament voted in favor of a government motion seeking authorization for military action in northern Iraq; only 19 voted against.

Of course, it should be noted (and Turkey has taken pains to point out) that the passing of this resolution in no way means that a troop incursion is about to happen or even inevitable, it simply means that there is official authorization for it when it is deemed right.


So, technically nothing might happen...but, and this is a big 'but,' it is going to take some serious action on the part of the United States to convince Turkey not to do something their leaders and its population are practically demanding they do.

I'm not sure the Kurdish authorities can be counted on to crack down on PKK separatists, and as big of a mess as this could be for the US (especially since this has been the most 'peaceful region in Iraq so far), it has few options that are likely to mollify the Turks .

If it clamps down on the PKK and sends troops up north there are several drawbacks:

1) It reduces the number of troops it other necessary areas that continue to be violent areas: Baghdad, and al-Anbar...but mostly Baghdad area

2) It will inflame and anger Kurds up north who so far have proven pro-American and have not attacked US forces. Putting troops in the north increases the possibility of conflict with the Kurds, stirring up a hornets nest. I doubt the US want trouble there.

But what can it do?

It's a case of damn if you do and damn if you don't

They can't defend the Kurdish north from an incursion using the US military. Frankly that would be the worse outcome.

It would destroy our longstanding alliance with Turkey and put us in the uncomfortable and unthinkable position of having two NATO alliance members fighting each other. US supply lines which run through Turkey would likely be cut (and they still may be even if it doesn't come to blows), making keeping our soldiers armed and ready would be much more difficult.

Ultimately, I hope something will stop the Turks but if the Turks do send troops into northern Iraq, it is my belief that the US ultimately will stand by and not interfere. No doubt the Iraqi Kurds will remember that with some resentment (how that will effect future Iraq I don't know).

Things aren't looking very good...here's to a peaceful resolution.

I'll keep updating here.

PS: For you car people, you may start feeling the effects of this drama pretty soon. Fear of an incursion into norther Iraq have sent crude oil prices to $88 dollar/barrel and would only go up if they were to enter. Kirkuk - in norther Iraq - is rich with oil deposits and it should also be noted that the main transit point for Kirkuk oil runs through (you guessed it) Turkey.

PPS: I'm trying to shorten up my posts so I may post more often from now on. That way I can deal with the same amount of info but make it easier to read.

Turkey to Invade Northern Iraq? What's Behind It and What Does It Mean for the US?

By now some of you might have heard about the very real threat of Turkey sending in troops to Northern Iraq's Kurdish region.

This development is by no means a sudden and out-of-the-blue thing; This tension has been steadily building up for a while now. I myself have been keeping tabs on the situation at least as far back as July of 2006 but I know that this tension has been building up since before that.

Kurdistan
First a map of "Kurdistan", in quotes because although so named, its not actually a nation. It encompasses 3 nations and therein lies some of the problem. They are an ethnic group with no nation, so there are some movements for "separation" to create their own state...obviously existing nations who would lose land don't exactly like that idea.


Short Summary of the Situation
A short and overly simplified explanation for the situation is:

Kurdish separatist militants of the Kurdistan Workers Party (The PKK is the local acronym) (considered a terrorist group) undertake separatist activity in Turkey that often involve acts of terror such as ambushes and explosions killing Turkish politicians and innocent civilians.

These Kurdish seperatists often escape to northern Iraq's Kurdish region where they have a safe haven from attacks my Turkey's military, and they are free to train and use norther Iraq as a base of operations for attacks in Turkey.

The Kurdish authorities have done little if anything to crack down on the PKK, angering Turkey, and the US has not done anything to curtail the PKK, further angering Turkey.
[At this point it should be noted that Turkey is a long running ally of the United States dating back to the Cold War, and that Turkey along with the US are members of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) who's defining principal is that 'if one member nation is attacked, it is as if all were attacked']

So officials in Turkey are so fed up with this situation that they are mulling sending in troops to Northern Iraq to deal with the Kurdish separatists.

For a good, and less simplistic, overview of the situation I urge you to read "What's Behind the Turkish Threat to Send Troops to Iraq"by noted Daily Kos diarist DHinMI.

It is not too long and will help you understand the news you see or hear better.

If you've done that (hell, even if you haven't) I can move along to the subject at hand.

----------
The Unfolding Situation

Things seem to be coming to a head, and the next few links will detail this unfolding situation

First, Turkey's top political and military leaders 'authorize' troops to enter Iraq to fight the rebels (NY Times)

ISTANBUL, Oct. 9 — Turkey took a step toward a military operation in Iraq on Tuesday, as its top political and military leaders issued a statement authorizing troops to cross the Iraq border to eliminate separatist Kurdish rebel camps in the northern region. (snip)
Turkey moved toward military action in the face of strong opposition by the United States, which is anxious to maintain peace in the region, one of the rare areas of stability in conflict-torn Iraq. But more than two dozen Turkish soldiers have been killed in recent days, and the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan seemed far more determined than before to act decisively.

A government official without authorization to speak publicly on the issue who asked not to be identified by name, said preparations were under way to seek parliamentary approval for a cross-border military operation, a request that would be the first formal step toward an offensive.

The Associated Press reported that the request would be submitted to Parliament as early as Wednesday.

Government offices and institutions have been ordered “to take all economic and political measures, including cross-border operations when necessary, in order to end the existence of the terror organization in a neighboring country,” said the statement, which was released by Mr. Erdogan’s office, after he met with political and military leaders in Ankara.

A Turkish military offensive into northern Iraq, while unlikely, would have far-reaching consequences for the United States. Turkey is a NATO member and has the region’s most powerful army.

As the article notes, such an offensive would have disastrous repercussions for Iraq and for the United States. (I'll go into some of those negative repercussion later on in this post).

For now I want to shift your attention to the final bolded part of that excerpt where the NY Times seemingly asserts unilaterally - without reason or source - that "A Turkish military offensive into northern Iraq [is] unlikely..."

Again, the times makes such a bold claim without explaining the reasoning behind its assertion, nor does it even cite 'anonymous officials' or "X expert" or whatever to explain it either.

Especially confusing because subsequent articles and events are pointing in the direction of ever increasing likelihood of a Turkish incursion into Iraq.

What's my reasoning?

-------

All subsequent events since the initial announcement of "authorization" for the incursion has pointed in the direction of escalation, not deescalation.

First, it has been reported that the ruling Justice & Development Party (in Turkey) promised that a motion to allow Turkish soldiers to cross over into Iraq will be ready to be voted on by next week. Giving the "authorization" previously mentioned the legislative legitimacy needed. And, given the extreme public pressure on the Prime Minister and on other MP (Ministers of Parliament...think similarly to US Representatives even if not exact matches) to do something about Kurdish separatist problems that has claimed the lives of so many civilians and soldiers, it stands a good chance of passing.

Officials of the ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party said a motion allowing Turkish forces to conduct a cross border operation into Iraq could be ready for a voting in the Parliament by next week while the Bush administration says such a measure will create more complications and that border security concerns can be better addressed by working with the government in Baghdad. Meanwhile, NATO remains silent.

And in what has to be one of the more ironic things to come out of the mouths of Bush Administration officials, we have this:

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is under domestic pressure to act against PKK militants whose attacks have killed 15 Turkish soldiers since Sunday. Some Turkish lawmakers say they are following the example of President Bush, who often says U.S. troops are fighting terrorists inside Iraq so they do not have to fight them at home. While the United States considers the PKK a terrorist group, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says the president does not support unilateral Turkish military action in Iraq.

Ha!! The US is stuck in an awfully awkward position of its own doing. It is in the position of trying to tell Turkey to not unilaterally invade another nation...a nation that just so happens to also be Iraq! Though it's kind of hard to have any moral position to tell another nation not to undertake an action that they themselves asserted the unrestrained right to do just a few years ago.

What's even more ironic is that Turkish politicians have taken to using one of the very same rationales - fighting the terrorists - that the United States did in its justifying of invading Iraq.

Oh, irony of ironies!!....

And in actuality, Turkey can make a much better and legitimate case for its incursion into northern Iraq on those grounds that the United States ever could on the same grounds (the terror links were patently shown to be non-existent and that was know by the non-partisans in the intelligence community even before the US invasion).

Yet another repercussion of our Iraq invasion: Nations will emulate the US thinking, "if the US does it....so can I"

Don't believe me? Here's what the Prime Minister of Turkey had to say to a crowd of cheering Turks:

"We don't need anyone's advice on northern Iraq and the operation to be carried out there," Erdogan told a cheering crowd in Istanbul, after saying that the United States "came tens of thousands of kilometers and attacked Iraq without asking anyone's permission."

What kind of argument can the Bush Administration possibly use in response without being branded the worlds largest hypocrites?
-----
A second development that points in the direction of increasing escalation is the fact that Turkey's warplanes and gunships have already begun attacking suspected PKK targets on and around the Iraqi border.

Turkish warplanes and helicopter gunships attacked suspected positions of Kurdish rebels near Iraq on Wednesday, a possible prelude to a cross-border operation that would likely raise tensions with Washington. The military offensive also reportedly included shelling of Turkish Kurd guerrilla hideouts in northern Iraq, which is predominantly Kurdish.

So they have begun air attacks in Iraq, the next step is the ground troops. And this little piece tells you how possible that Turkish parliament resolution of force is of passing:

An opposition nationalist party said it would support the proposal.

If parliament approves, the military could choose to launch an operation immediately or wait to see if the United States and its allies decide to crack down on the rebels, who have been fighting for autonomy in southeast Turkey since 1984 in a conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives.

When the ruling party and those in a opposing nationalist party are seeing eye-to-eye, you have some trouble. Of course, nationalist, being nationalists, are usually the most jingoistic when it comes to using force. And of course there must be other opposition parties who are not quite so nationalistic...I'd really like to know where the other parties stand.

And how serious is the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan: Apparently, serious enough to claim that he is ready for a US-Turkey split (Washington Post) in the aftermath of an incursion.

Now, is he really serious about that, I simply don't know. It is indeed possible that this sharp language is the Prime Ministers attempt to get the U.S. and Iraq to finally do something themselves to stop the PKK terrorist group in northern Iraq.

I sincerely doubt that Turkey really wants a military engagement on their hands, as well as a significant blow to relations with one of Turkey's oldest ally (and fellow NATO member) the United States. But Turkey will only accept so much...if it doesn't see the U.S. or Iraq doing anything to reign in the PKK, Turkey may just go ahead and enter northern Iraq....

And the consequences are many

Possible Consequences

As mentioned before, the US has had a long standing alliance and relationship with Turkey. They are both NATO members and it will be interesting to see where NATO and its North Atlantic Council stand on the issue of one member invading where another nation is involved in.

What worries me is that Turkey with its its predominantly Muslim population has nonetheless managed to retain a more secular society that is balanced with more moderated Islamic sentiments, and we risk Turkey drifting apart from US. This drifting away from the US is not being helped by the fact that the Senate recently passed a non-binding resolution that calls the mass-killing of Armenians by the old Ottoman Empire (precursor to the nation of Turkey) a "genocide". What horrible timing on the part of Democrats...

[Turkey has vehemently denied it was a "genocide" (it IS a genocide I don't care what they say) and is very very touchy about the issue for them. Don't know why they are so touchy...the genocide was the work of a regime and Empire that no longer exists, and that the founders of the modern Turkish nation fought against...why deny the crimes of a regime they fought against? But I'm an American looking at this from an American perspective so where the hell do I get off]

Turkey although not perfect, in many ways is the type of majority Muslim nation that more closely resemble that "model" that some see for the Middle East at large. It would be very regrettable for the US and Turkey to drift farther apart due to this, yet what can the US do?

Northern Iraq has been one of the relatively peaceful spots in Iraq and I seriously doubt it wants to stir things up in Northern Iraq and potentially make enemies with the Kurds who so far have proven much more pro-American than the other sectarian groups in Iraq. And sending in troops to the by the US has the potential to create drama that the US does not need any more of.

They already have their hands full with the myriads of Sunni and Shia groups fighting the US, fighting themselves, and fighting each other... I doubt the US wants to make the situation any worse.

But if they cannot come to some agreement that placates the Turkish government, Turkey may just go in themselves and stir things up in a region that up till now has been relatively peaceful.

And a breakdown in US-Turkey relations has serious repercussions on its own, especially as it regards the Iraq mission:

From previously cited article (AP):

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that 70 percent of U.S. air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkish air space. About a third of the fuel used by the U.S. military in Iraq also goes through Turkey.

"Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and Turkey reacts as strongly as we believe they will," Gates said.

Turkey has raised the possibility of impeding logistical and other U.S. military traffic now using the airspace.

We depend heavily on Turkey for maintaining our presence in Iraq, and a split could seriously complicate the mission in a very abrupt manner.

So, stay tuned and pay attention to the news because things might get a little more "interesting" (not good interesting either) in the near future. And I'll be here, keeping track on my own and reporting here.

------

Your Thoughts?

So, what are your thoughts? Based on what you've read here, what you've heard, seen or read elsewhere, or just on your gut...What do you guys think?

Will Turkey enter Northern Iraq? What will the US do? What's going to happen? etc..etc...

I'd really like to know what you guys think.

Latest From Iraq: Stats in Doubt, Reconciliation is Dead, The Army is Exhausted, Mercenaries Are Scum + More

There's a lot on my plate today in terms of interesting articles and news to share.

So lets begin where so much of my attention seems to always be in - Iraq

Iraq

So how are things going in Iraq these days? The 'Surge' is in full force and we're supposed to be creating an environment for political reconciliation to occur...is it? A relevant question to ask given that the whole purpose of this much debated 'Surge' was to bring about just such progress.

According to the Washington Post (Oct. 8), Iraqi's do not think reconciliation is attainable and are instead preparing for a power struggle

For much of this year, the U.S. military strategy in Iraq has sought to reduce violence so that politicians could bring about national reconciliation, but several top Iraqi leaders say they have lost faith in that broad goal.

Iraqi leaders argue that sectarian animosity is entrenched in the structure of their government. Instead of reconciliation, they now stress alternative and perhaps more attainable goals: streamlining the government bureaucracy, placing experienced technocrats in positions of authority and improving the dismal record of providing basic services.

"I don't think there is something called reconciliation, and there will be no reconciliation as such," said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd. "To me, it is a very inaccurate term. This is a struggle about power."

Humam Hamoudi, a prominent Shiite cleric and parliament member, said any future reconciliation would emerge naturally from an efficient, fair government, not through short-term political engineering among Sunnis and Shiites.

Stacking the government with technocrats (who are though of nonpartisan experts in their field) might be a good idea but where are they going to find these experts when so many of the great minds of Iraq have fled the carnage of post-Saddam Iraq? Those with the experience and skills and education have been pouring out of Iraq, so there is but one problem.

Second, how are they going to choose these people and how will they be accepted by rival groups in the context of a power struggle?

As to what a future reconciliation emerging from "an efficient, fair government" I ask: How the hell do you expect an efficient and fair government to emerge out of a power struggle? Because, in power struggle someone is usually a winner and another a loser (relatively) and the winners definition of what is fair may not exactly coincide with what the loser thinks is a fair government. In fact that's a lot of the problem Iraqi groups are facing today.

Sunnis see their relative power in Iraq being too low in the Central government and they see the the Shia as dominating the government. So far the Shias have been pretty stingy with the power, no doubt a result of the anger and resentment they harbor against the Sunnis who where the dominant group in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Any compromise or reconciliation will require an efficient and fair government to emerge but it almost inevitably (at least it seems so to me) means that the Shia will need to give up some of the grip they have on the Iraqi central government in order for the Sunnis to really play ball. I'm not too optimistic about that fact but you never know.

The following excerpt makes the same point:

"I, as deputy prime minister responsible for the portfolio of security and services, until now, have never been consulted on any security operation taking place in Iraq," said Salam Z. al-Zobaee, Iraq's second-highest Sunni official. "The Sunnis, even if they've been participating in the government, are still marginalized in decision-making."

The idea of "reconciliation" in Iraq has always been short on specifics. To Sunnis, it tends to mean Shiites will release their grip on decision-making, allow them greater influence in the government, crack down on militants regardless of their sect and promote peaceful cooperation between politicians. Sunnis demand the release of thousands of prisoners who have never been charged, the purging of all militiamen from the Iraqi security forces and influence in military decisions.

To Shiites, reconciliation is a process fraught with risks that Sunni "supremacists" will attempt to seize their former position of authority over the majority Shiites. Many Shiites believe that reconciliation requires punishing those who, during Saddam Hussein's government, ruthlessly killed and repressed Shiites and Kurds.

"It's clearly perceived by the government that reconciliation is clearly a winner for the Sunnis and not a winner for the Shias," said Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief of staff for the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq. "The question becomes: How do you start balancing that scale a little bit?"

Many Shiites, still aggrieved by the crimes committed against them under Hussein, are not ready for new programs or legislation attempting to force a balance into existence.

And that's the problem. When do you think non partisan technocrats will be put in when Shias are not really interested in the system being fairer to Sunnis out of fear and resentment for past mistreatment?

Not to mention that "reconciliation" means very different things to the two groups...it leaves little to be optimistic about.
-----

Making things worse for the already chaotic situation in Iraq is the fact that there is so much internal displacement of Iraqi's [Iraqis forced to leave their homes and reside in other Iraqi provinces].

A travesty on its own that seems to be further fragmenting up Iraq and feeding new recruits to the violent sectarian groups (BBC)

The scale of the overall displacement is unprecedented in the modern history of the Middle East.

There are now an estimated four million Iraqis who have been forced to flee their homes, and the numbers continue to rise, according to the UN refugee agency.

Neighbouring Jordan and Syria, which have borne the brunt of the problem after receiving some two million refugees over the past few years, have now restricted access because they can no longer cope with the influx.(snip)

The refugee problem is also likely to make national reconciliation even more difficult to achieve.

'Recruiting-grounds'

Ghaith Abdul Ahad, an Iraqi journalist, says the areas where displaced Iraqis live have become fertile recruiting-grounds for militants.

"The insurgents in west Baghdad tell me that the hardest fighters are the Sunnis who have been kicked out of their homes by the Shia," Mr Abdul Ahad told the BBC.

There is a real fear that the temporary ramshackle refugee camps that today dot the Iraqi landscape are festering wounds that may take years to heal.

More ominously, they are a breeding ground for violence as well as social and political turmoil.

Outside Iraq, the long-term effect of the exodus is difficult to foresee.

Some analysts have drawn comparisons with the plight of the Palestinians, who were forced to flee after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

And if that analogy is anything to go by, then the Iraqi refugee crisis could become a destabilising factor for the entire region for years to come.

No one can predict the exact impact on the precarious demographic balance in neighbouring Syria and Jordan, which have received the highest numbers of Iraqi refugees.

Insurgencies by their nature require a steady flow of new recruits in order to remain viable due to the very violent nature and high "turnover" of insurgents [yes, that is a euphemism for death]. The cleansing of neighborhoods [making them only 1 sectarian group or another] has created much resentment and anger and resentment and anger are two commodities that have been all to abundant in Iraq.

And notice the unintended consequences of our invasion: We are saddling neighboring Arab nations with millions and millions of Iraqi refugees. The effects of such a large refugee groups in those nations could prove quite bad. The article says it may have a destabilizing influence on the Middle East region in general and that doesn't seem a far-fetched conclusion.

----

And, speaking of insurgents, we get this news that can't be making the US or the Iraqi (Shia dominated govt) too happy.

Iraq Insurgent Groups Form One Council - In reality there are still many groups like the 1920 Brigades who are independent, but even then there appears to generally be a 3-fold split in the Sunni groups.

1) Sunni insurgent groups working with al-Qaeda to attack Americans
2) Sunni insurgent groups (or formerly insurgent), and Sunni tribes working with Americans (temporarily they promise) to attack al-Qaeda
3) Sunni insurgents coalition (like the one in the above link) that want to attack the US and Al-Qaeda

2 out of 3 attack Americans, and the 1 that does not, has already promised to resume attacking Americans once al-Qaeda has been dealt with...none of that is good news for the US in the long term.

Excerpt:

Six main Iraqi insurgent groups announced the formation of a "political council" aimed at "liberating" Iraq from U.S. occupation in a video aired Thursday on Al-Jazeera television.

The council appeared to be a new attempt to assert the leadership of the groups, which have moved to distance themselves from another coalition of insurgent factions led by al-Qaida in Iraq...(snip)

The new groups principles include:

"First, the occupation is an oppression and aggression, rejected by Islamic Sharia law and tradition. Resistance of occupation is a right guaranteed by all religions and laws," he said. "Second, the armed resistance ... is the legitimate representative of Iraq. It is the one that bears responsibility for the leadership of the people to achieve its legitimate hope."

The groups forming the council include the Islamic Army of Iraq, the Mujahideen Army, Ansar al-Sunna, the Fatiheen Army, the Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance (Jami) and the Islamic Movement of Hamas-Iraq.

The step could be a bid by the insurgents for a more cohesive political voice at a time of considerable rearrangement among Sunni insurgent groups and Iraq's Sunni Arab minority.

This group, nor the Sunni group working with al-Qaeda in Iraq, nor the the Sunni group working with the Americas believes in the legitimacy of the Shia dominated central government in Iraq. They are the "legitimate representatives of Iraq."

Some look to the downturn in violence in al-Anbar Province as a sign of progress but if you look more critically and deeper you understand how the "Anbar model" is very dangerous and counterproductive. I went into that in more depth in a past post from September 19

----

The US Army Iraq Exhaustion

According to the Army Chief, the Army will require 3 to 4 years to recover from the strains that the Iraq mission has placed on it.

That's 3 or 4 years in which the US will not be as prepared or ready to deal with other threats or crisis as they pop up in the coming years. The Iraq mission imperils our national security in so many ways that it baffles the mind.

------

General Petraeus and Iraq Statistics

The NY Times Public Editor recently tackled the issue of the frustrating difference in Iraq violence statistics

Definitely something worth reading, but this stood out. Greg Sargent of the Horses Mouth explains:

Specifically, Hoyt reports that he spoke to one of Petraeus' own advisers, and despite having advised Petraeus he still says that the General's recent testimony to Congress about Iraq may have been misleading in key ways:

Stephen Biddle, a scholar at the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations, said Petraeus's December number was "very high" but was likely the result of "statistical noise" — the tendency of Iraq numbers to jump all over the place. Biddle was an adviser to Petraeus last spring but believes the general's testimony was "potentially misleading" because it didn't discuss all the reasons why the numbers might have improved.

He said the best way to analyze statistics from Iraq is to gather all the numbers from all sources and look for broad trends instead of picking isolated points, as Petraeus did. Biddle examined data from nine sources on Iraqi civilian deaths, including the U.S. military, independent organizations like Brookings and Iraq Body Count and four news organizations. Although the specific monthly numbers varied widely, he said they all showed declines since late 2006.

Did we know that even one of Petraeus' own advisers thinks the General's methodology was suspect? I didn't know it...(snip)

Seems like a subject that deserves some further inquiry. After all, a member of Petraeus' informal brain-trust has now said publicly that the General's testimony was "potentially misleading." And he suggested that it could have been misleading in not one, but two ways. First, because it didn't delve into all the reasons for the shifting security picture in Iraq, thus giving more credit to the surge than it might have deserved. And second, because Petraeus selected December 2006, when civilian casualties spiked, as the basis for comparison to this summer's numbers, thus inflating the alleged decline. Those seem like serious critiques.

Nothing really to add to that except to say that its still a little apples-and-oranges to compare violence statistics from December 2006 to September2007. Comparing them on a year by year comparison from the same time of year [comparing July 2006 to July 2007 for example] is a much better measure for various reasons I don't want to get into again.

---------

Unaccountable, Arrogant Mercenaries in Iraq

Blackwater Mercenaries are definitely no friends to US soldiers and nothing but trouble for the mission in Iraq. This personally pissed me off when I read it:

The colonel was furious. "Can you believe it? They actually drew their weapons on U.S. soldiers." He was describing a 2006 car accident, in which an SUV full of Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee on a street in Baghdad's Green Zone. The colonel, who was involved in a follow-up investigation and spoke on the condition he not be named, said the Blackwater guards disarmed the U.S. Army soldiers and made them lie on the ground at gunpoint until they could disentangle the SUV.

The fucking gall of these arrogant ass mercs!! Who the hell do they think they are!! Not only do they lord it over and treat Iraqi's like shit (and often target practice), but they are so arrogant and think themselves so unaccountable that they feel like they can treat U.S. Soldiers like pieces of shit too!!

Whatever else Blackwater is or isn't guilty of—a topic of intense interest in Washington—it has a well-earned reputation in Iraq for arrogance and high-handedness. Iraqis naturally have the most serious complaints; dozens have been killed by Blackwater operatives since the beginning of the war. But many American civilian and military officials in Iraq also have little sympathy for the private security company and its highly paid employees.

These scum think they own the place, feel free to treat Iraqi and US soldier alike like crap, and to top it off its not abnormal for these mercenaries to get paid in the $100,000 to $200,000 range just to do the job that the US military is supposed to be doing.

But the Bush administration, as with every other thing, likes to privatize everything it touches including much of the US military's traditional duties, and give private security firms (often with close connections to the White House or Republican groups...coincidence?) a shitload of money from us tax payers.

To make matters worse, these mercs treat Iraqi's like shit, and further tarnish the image of the US in Iraq, and undercut its goal of reaching hearts and minds in Iraq...in other words they hurt our mission in Iraq while costing US taxpayers a fucking fortune in the process!! Then they disrespect our soldiers on a daily basis.

Scum.

I try not an curse so much in my posts but...I reeeeeally don't like these mercenaries.

That's all for today, and I'm still didn't even get to Turkey and its threats to invade northern Iraq (what a thing to leave out!!)...tomorrow I guess.

RoundUp - For the past 2 weeks (Part I)

It's such a drag when I put off posting for so long. Usually, it means I have a ton of articles open as separate tags. I had a lot I though might be interesting but I had to cut somethings out for my sake. And that's the reason for the RoundUp style...there will be little substance and analysis on certain links, but at least I'll get all links out for interested people to follow up if they are interested.

That's what happens when you buy a new video game (Legend of Zelda DS in case you're wondering :-) )

So, without further ado, I'll start this Roundup with Iran
------
Iran
Now, this first article (despite its Oct. 8 date) is at least a week old so it's possible some of you have seen or at least heard about this new Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker.

Anyways, in this article Hersh (among other things) details how the Bush Administration has shifted its case for war [the PR part] from the threat of nuclear weapons to emphasizing and exaggerating Iran's role in Iraq, especially when it comes to the deaths of US soldiers . It is a long article but full of great information but I'll highlight some of the parts that caught my attention.

The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.

Look at the first bolded part: The US shifted its focus to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and this ties quite well (and ominously) to a recent action by the Administration. A few weeks back it decided to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is essentially a military organization, a terrorist organization.

That is unprecedented...labeling another nations military a terrorist organization is unprecedented. But that's not the why this is ominous. The reason for alarm is that in 2002, Congress gave the President an Authorization to Use Force (AUF) to do all it could to combat terrorist groups in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The fear is that the Administration, having labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, will go back and use that 2002 AUF as its legal justification for striking Iranian targets. And without having to go to Congress.

Making matters worse is the fact that the Senate recently passed a "Sense of the Senate" (non-binding) resolution designating the same group a terrorist organization...an amendment that Hillary Clinton supported like a stupid child who failed to learn her lesson the first time she voted to give the administration the authorization to go to war in Iraq and now she helps the administration in its attempts to go to Iran...stupid. Thankfully the other top tier candidate who could vote on the issue did not vote for it: Barack Obama.

Now for the second bolded part of the excerpt: It's attempts to strike at Iran are heavily motivated by the increased geopolitical position that Iran is now. But do you get it?

The war in Iraq is precisely what strengthened Iran...and now they want to go to another costly and disastrous war to...that's right...make up for the consequences that their first costly and disastrous war has wraught!

The Republicans, Bush, and the Neocons. Their motto really is: "When you find yourself in a whole (that you created), dig deeper."

Other interesting excerpts:

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

Wow. In an administration known both for its extreme of politics and warmongering...its seems that the warmongering nature of these people is much more powerful than it's concern for the political future of the Republicans. As much as I would like to see Republicans completely eliminated as a national party...I'd much rather that the President not strike Iran and cause a new disaster. Besides, the Republicans are already on the verge of another crushing defeat in the Presidential, Senate, and House elections in 2008 so it really doesn't matter.

Unless that's part of the calculation at the White House: They see a crushing defeat for Republicans who will not control any level of power in 2009, so they want to saddle Democrats with Iraq for 2009, and they want to bring on a conflict with Iran while they can because they know that Democrats will not do so. BTW, this is all speculation so don't look to deep into it...but it has an element of logic to it.

Another one: Apparently our own allies are so afraid of Cheney and Bush using any intelligence as a pretext for war with Iran that...they are afraid sometime to pass it on!!

Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. officer who has worked closely with his counterparts in Britain, added to the story: “The Brits told me that they were afraid at first to tell us about the incident—in fear that Cheney would use it as a reason to attack Iran.” The intelligence subsequently was forwarded, he said.

The retired four-star general confirmed that British intelligence “was worried” about passing the information along. “The Brits don’t trust the Iranians,” the retired general said, “but they also don’t trust Bush and Cheney.”

I think they have good reason to be afraid.

The Iranian Foreign Minister apparently is quite confident that the US can't attack Iran (Oct.3) -

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Wednesday the United States was in no position to start a war against Tehran against the wishes of its taxpayers, given its military commitment in Iraq

I've said this before to a similar statement from the Iranian President himself. Do NOT get to confident about that. Any other President, any other Vice President and you might just be right but this administration has shown such a single-minded dedication to an aggressive and unilateral foreign policy and to warmongering that you cannot rule out a strike. And do you think they care about the US taxpayer or about US public opinion? Hell no!! They have continued unpopular policies in Iraq despite the fact that vast majorities are against our presence there. And as the previous Hersh article highlights, they can also give a rats ass about what Congress thinks, nor do they care about the fallout will be for the Republican party.

Does this seem like an administration that has the sense to not attack? They just don't care about anything but their goals...so I say to the Iranian President, and to the Foreign Minister: Don't delude yourselves!

-------
The War on Terror

Report says War or Terror is Fueling Al-Qaeda -

Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fuelling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.

A report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.

"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers, the report's author and professor of global peace studies at Bradford University in northern England.

"Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimized but this will require a change in policy at every level."

He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.

The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria...(snip)

"Going to war with Iran", he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."

I tried for the life of me a couple days ago to find the report on the Oxford Research Group Website but couldn't, so the news accounts are all I got to run on

The reason is that the report takes a comprehensive look at what an alternative to the current war on terror would look like. And from what I've read so far about 'looking at underlying causes of of support', its recognition that the war in Iraq has been a counterproductive disaster that we must leave from in order to start containing the damage, and its advising 'intensive diplomatic engagement in the region including Iran and Syria' and that we only make things worse if we go to war in Iran.....The tenor of the prescribed alternative to the war on terror seems to mirror my own views and stances. I'd love to read the report itself but dammit I can't find it!!

And for you International Relations majors out there, in a related note, I came across an interesting new phrase that encompasses this new alternative, as well as a more balanced and sane broader foreign policy: Sustainable Security. Take a look, its interesting.

------

Blackwater/Mercenaries/Iraq

Much in the news lately about Blackwater and mercenary organization in general due to the recent high profile incidents in which Blackwater mercenaries killed and wounded dozens of Iraqi's in Nisour Square. But incident's like these, nor even incidents of mercenaries that are out of control, are quite common if not often publicized.

I'm still reading the book "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" by Jeremy Scahill, in which the history of the organization is detailed. [BTW if you read the Publisher's Weekly review of the book, please note that they are completely off base. "A cosnpiracy by neocons to subvert democracy", please. The author never said that!!]

And believe me, alot of this stuff is scary. In addition you get a sense of the sheer brutality, lawlessness of these mercs. They are immune to prosecution in Iraq, and are not held accountable by the military, so they literally can (and have!!) gotten away with murder. Their wanton brutality over the years has made the US attempts to win Iraqi hearts and minds that much more difficult, and they already were doing a pretty bad job. I will not do much analysis, I'll just introduce the following Blackwater related links for those interested.

Senior US Military Officials Fault Blackwater in the shooting of 11 Iraqi civilians - Tough choice for Republicans: Will they side with Mercenaries they've so steadfastly defended and carried water for, or will they side with the military?

Here are a few more details, but about the same military report (Washington Post)

Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki is calling it "murder" - The Iraqi's and the military reeeeally don't like mercenaries and they have good reason not to.

In fact, Iraq wants Blackwater out of the country and to arrest those involved in the recent Nisoor Circle incident:

Iraqi authorities want the U.S. government to sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater USA within six months and pay $8 million in compensation to each of the families of 17 people killed when the firm's guards sprayed a traffic circle with heavy machine gun fire last month...

It said the compensation — totaling $136 million — was so high "because Blackwater uses employees who disrespect the rights of Iraqi citizens even though they are guests in this country."....

It said Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq expired on June 2, 2006, meaning it had no immunity from prosecution under Iraqi laws set down after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The government report also challenged the claim that a decree in June 2004 by then-Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer granted Blackwater immunity from legal action in incidents such as the one in Nisoor Square. The report said the Blackwater guards could be charged under a criminal code from 1969.

U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said the diplomatic mission would have no comment on the report. Iraq's Interior Ministry spokesman, Abdul-Karim Khalaf, said the document was in American hands.

The report found that Blackwater guards also had killed 21 Iraqi civilians and wounded 27 in previous shootings since it took over security for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad after the U.S. invasion. The Iraqi government did not say whether it would try to prosecute in those cases.

The State Department has counted 56 shooting incidents involving Blackwater guards in Iraq this year. All were being reviewed as part of the comprehensive inquiry ordered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

A this is just Blackwater. There are may more mercenary outfits in Iraq who act just as reckless.

The problem for the US is that, frankly, it cannot function any longer without the thousands of mercenaries it hired. The US military is stretched to the breaking point as it is and it would only get worse if Blackwater and its band of thousands were removed. So its stuck in a quandry:

The Iraqis are pissed at us, yet if we allow Blackwater to be prosecuted, we only open up the rest of the mercenary firms to similar action. If we boot Blackwater, we lose thousands of boots. In the end I do not think Blackwater will be forced out.

We can't even be in Iraq without all these damn mercs, and those mercs are not making things better. If we have to rely so heavily on these goons just to maintain the horrible status quo, what the hell are we still doing there? We need to leave.

----------

I decide to split this roundup into two posts due to length. The next post will have more to do with Iraq in the sense of in the context of the ongoing civil war, and in the context of the violence statistics of General Petraeus.

Peace folks