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.

The 'al-Anbar Awakening'...sounds fancy doesn't it?

Since the testimony of the Petraeus/White House Report on the Surge beginning Sept. 10th two things have proven true about Iraq:

1) At the very least [and I'm leaning towards cherry picking positive data and ignoring negative stats]....the data is often contradictory about civilian and sectarian deaths in Iraq. That's at the very least. Of course that is me being 5 times more generous than I should be because data from all independent sources, from sources with no vested interest in painting a rosy story, tell us that sectarian and civilian deaths nationwide are trending at nearly the same levels, or sometime a little higher.

2) In the al-Anbar Province region [in yellow] of Iraq there has seen a noticeable reduction in violence. The reason for this lies in the fact that some Sunni sheiks and tribal leaders, and formerly insurgent groups attacking American soldiers have decided to instead work with us against their former allies the Sunni group al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

Surge Progress?
This fact has been touted by war supporters and by some generally ignorant commentators as a clear case of progress for the Surge.

They look at Anbar Province and they see a way of scrapping some success (somehow) from the jaws of defeat.

But the question is: Is this policy good for Iraq? Is this progress?

Dousing The Raging Fires Of Civil War...With Gasoline?
This policy involves the US collaborating with groups who formerly were heavily involved in attacks on US troops not that long ago.

Why the change you might ask? Why are Sunni insurgent groups formerly at odd with us, suddenly eager to work with us against al-Qaeda in Iraq?

Simple: While nobody in Iraq [neither Kurd, Shia, nor even Sunni] liked the Sunni foreign fighters, among the Sunni insurgency a marriage of convenience was made with them in order to deal with what was perceived as the greater evil and threat; The United States.

Many insurgent groups have changed their mind and are making another marriage of convenience [this time with the Americans] in order to eliminate al-Qaeda who they now see as a bigger pest.

Good news for the US and for Iraq right?

Wrong...so horribly wrong.

3 Reasons This Is Wrong And/Or Dangerous

1) We are arming groups (or at the very least giving them money that they use to buy arms) that promise to turn those guns on us once they finish with al-Qaeda in Iraq.

You see, the problem with enemy-of-my-enemy marriages of conveniences is that they are good until, well...it's no longer convenient. The Sunni insurgency already has the American's number. They are well seasoned in how to attack American's. But now they want to get rid of AQI and know the US will provide them the arms and funding to do so.

But these groups have promised [in public no less] to resume attacks on US soldiers once they have finished dealing a sufficient blow on AQI.

One Sunni insurgent leader - Abu Ali - said this US assistance:

Publicly, Abu Ali is grateful for the assistance he and his followers have received from the U.S. military. He predicts he can help clear the entire province of al Qaeda militants within six months if the U.S. Army provides more ammunition and supports insurgent operations with air cover and help from tanks and armored personnel carriers.

But while the marriage of convenience may be successful for now, Abu Ali and his followers seem to have no intention of making a lasting commitment to the Americans.

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

Meaning once they are done with AQI, they will have no need for our cooperation. In other words: We are arming and funding the very groups who will use those very weapons we provided to attack US soldiers in the future. We are being used...

But that's not the worst part of this policy

2) If feeds the specter of full-scale civil war by arming and funding different and competing sides in a civil and ethnic conflict.

The Sunnis in Anbar, or anywhere in Iraq, do not trust or want the Shia-dominated [and US supported] government in Baghdad. They want nothing to do with it.

By funding and arming the Sunni insurgent groups in al-Anbar Province they are effectively funding and arming a rival to the government in Baghdad. The US has propped up and helped the Government in Baghdad, and now is undercutting it by funding and empowering a rival in Anbar province. In essence fueling multiple sides in any civil war. That is counter productive towards the goal of Iraqi unity, and makes it less likely that the central government can exercise any control over all of Iraq outside Shia regions, and even that might not be true (I'll explain in the Roundup). The US is ensuring that Iraq will break into a Sunni region, a Kurdish region in the north, and Shia region in the center and south...and these groups will fight it out in full-scale bloodbath once the US leaves. We should NOT make the bloodbath any worse than its going to be.

The Shias and Kurds are not happy needless to say.


We are pouring gasoline on a fire that was already blazing.

And one of the most frustrating part about this policy is #3

3) It is a totally unneccesary policy if the stated goal is to eliminate AQI and prevent it from taking over Iraq.

First, it is sheer fantasy to believe AQI could ever take over Iraq. It numbers from 1500- 3500 members, which is very small considering that the Sunni insurgency overall is estimated to consist of 25,000 members. They are particularly lethal minority but they simply don't have the numbers to take over even 1 province in Iraq.

Second, the Kurds in the north, and the much more numerous Shia would never allow the Sunni AQI to have a real stronghold in Iraq.

But that's not really the frustrating thing

The most frustrating part is that the only factor that keeps some insurgent groups in league with AQI (and even then many have turned against them) is the US presence in Iraq. Not only does our presence motivate AQI to be in Iraq, it is the reason many Sunni insurgents have (and some continue to) work with AQI.

If we were to leave, there would be no incentive for anyone in Iraq to shelter AQI...they'd most likely be eliminated quite quickly. And in the unlikely case that the Sunnis made another marriage of convenience with AQI to fight the Shias in the full-scale civil war that would follow our exit...well, lets be real. There is NO doubt about who will be the winner...the Shias who are numerically superior.

------------

No Happy Ending Here

Sad isn't it? The US is preventing a full-scale civil war with its presence in one respect, pouring gasoline on it in another respect, but all it can do is delay the eventuality of that war.

If it leaves it will be a bloodbath, if it stays its a smaller bloodbath. But it cannot seem to change that eventuality...But in the meantime, every day it stays in Iraq delaying that war, we lose precious lives, untold billions of money, push our military that much closer to collapse, make us vulnerable to other emerging threats, and hinders our ability to deal with other threats and crisis around the world.

There are no good solutions or policies for the US or Iraq that will ensure anything but some level of violence. But we must leave because that is what is best for the US.

But...it's not fair.

We invaded their country, we destroyed their infrastructure, we messed up the occupation, we allowed the country to go to hell, and now we are going to leave them to a bloody civil war.

It's not fair. Its not fair...

But this is necessary for the United States and ultimately that is who I will think of first. It is not the fault of those who want us to withdraw (many who never wanted us to enter Iraq in the first place), ultimately it is the fault of those who took us to war, and then compounded that initial mistake with a bungled occupation.

Yet I still feel guilty. I suppose, as Americans, we all share blame for the blood shed in Iraq up until now, and for the blood that will be shed when we leave.

You don't understand...I want the US, I want Bush (no matter how much I hate the guy) to pull off a victory, to pull off some miracle that brings the Iraqi's together or at least prevents a bloodbath.

I don't write about my doubts with the Iraq strategy out of some wish to see him fail, I write it because its what I see, and I wont BS you guys out of wishful thinking for a better outcome for Iraqis.

We had an Administration who was and continues to be delusional in all things Iraq and were the masters of wishful thinking, and wishful planning...there is no need for me to add to that delusion if it is not warranted.

-----Roundup------

Expulsion of American Security firms could jeopardize withdrawal plans - Its talking about the withdrawal of the 30,000 Surge troops that Bush recently said could come home by next summer. Why is it in doubt? Because the US relies heavily on "private contractors" in Iraq, otherwise know by its more well know name: mercenaries. Paid-soldier, guns-for-hire etc...

In fact, mercenaries outnumber US troops in Iraq...bet you didn't know that!! (We have 160,000 US troops there right now just as a FYI)

And these mercs are unaccountable to the Iraqi govt or the US government. These aggressive mercs frequently kill civilians and inflame the population, thus making the job that much harder for US soldiers. Everyone, even US soldiers, hate their guts but given the combat troop shortage, its been the US only recourse to keep the occupation going. Iraqi's especially hate their guts.

But now that prominent mercenary company Blackwater might get booted out, it might make it difficult for the US to withdraw those surge troops. With 15 months tours already, I'm not sure how the hell the US can maintain such deployments...An already strained and exhausted military is going to take another hit.

'Help Wanted' Ad Belies Report on Iraq Security - Claims of increased progress and security are looked at in the face of the fact that the US military is seeing the need to hire ever more mercenaries to fulfill certain roles as US troops go off on combat patrols. This excerpt stuck out:

"With the increased insurgent activity, unit supply personnel must continue to pull force protection along with convoy escort and patrol duties," according to a statement of work that accompanied the Sept. 7 request for bidders from Multi-National Force-Iraq.

Increased insurgent activity!? But I thought things were going better? Apprently insurgents are stepping it up, requiring more US troops on the patrol, while mercs take care of the base.

--------

Speaking of al-Anbar Province, apparently the Administration is so happy with the "progress" so far in Sunni areas [read the first half of this post], that they wish to 'expand Anbar model to Iraq Shiites

Fueling different sides of a civil war, and undercutting the central government by fostering and promoting independent Shia forces independent of the Shia-controlled central government.

What's more there is danger to this strategy because of how divided the Shia parts of Iraq are becoming:

On Septmeber 15, powerful Shia militant leader Muqtada al-Sadr withdrew his support for the Iraq government and dealing a blow to the political process and the viability of the central government.

And, security has taken a 'turn for the worst' in the Southern Shia areas -

Security is deteriorating in southern Iraq as rival Shiite militias vying for power have stepped up their attacks after moving out of Baghdad to avoid U.S.-led military operations, according to the latest quarterly Pentagon report on Iraq released yesterday.

"The security environment in southern Iraq took a notable turn for the worse in August" with the assassination of two governors, said the report, which covers June through August. "There may be retaliation and an increase in intra-Shi'a violence throughout the South," it said, whereas previously the violence was centered in the main southern city of Basra.

Even Shias are beginning to fight amonst themselves. Which leaves us to this question: Which Shias are we going to support in our expansion of the Anbar model?

You see how complicated this is getting? Because certain groups like Al-Sadr's are very nationalistic and very anti-American. Could we expect increasing intra-sectarian violence? Tread carefully...

The growing violence in the south is one factor making it unlikely that Iraq's leaders -- hampered by a "zero sum" mentality -- will make headway in the fall on key political resolutions, the report concluded. "In the short term, Iraqi political leaders will likely be less concerned about reconciliation than with consolidating power and posturing for a future power struggle," it said.

This Pentagon report, different from the Petraeus report of Sept. 10, is a lot more pessimistic about the security situation and the political progress that the surge was supposed enable. [I will add that a its sectarian violence figures is based on the same methodology as the Petraeus report so I'm still skeptical about its violence figures]

And note the last sentence about how Iraqi political leaders are less concerned with reconciliation than with consolidating power for a future power struggle. Progress will only come from the political process, not the military. Political progress will help the security situation, not the other way around.

It's clear that Iraqi political leaders are not interested (or at least not expecting) in political progress because they know what's coming: The future power struggle. The Iraqi politicians are preparing for what the Administration still fails to acknowledge as inevitable: The civil war.

If they are planning for civil war, if they are not interested in reconciliation then what is left? If there is no reconciliation there is only conflict.

Like I said earlier, I don't BS you. If I say that I think civil war is inevitable, it's because I see some indications for it (like this one) that tell me that the opposing parties are not interested in having a political reconciliation...and that leaves only one choice...

So long folks, I'll be back from Chicago on Sunday. A vacation from news might do me some good.

One of Those Times I Hate To Be Right

The Prediction

Did I call it? Or did I muthafuckin' call it?

Back in July 17, shortly after the release of the interim progress report on the Surge I said this:

Come on!! Who actually believes that any report coming from the Bush Administration this September will say anything but what they feel is necessary to say in order to maintain (and in this case further escalate) our presence in Iraq.

Like the flawed and dishonest Iraq Progress report released this past week, the report in September will fudge figures, distort reality, and lower the bar of what is 'progress' in order to claim that there is some progress due to their surge (where there is actually none).


They will then claim that these optimistic signs of progress prove that the surge is making progress in Iraq, and that they will say is why they will need an 'even bigger surge' to make even bigger gains.

*sigh* It appears we live with a government whose governing philosophy is based around the idea of "when your stuck in a ditch, keep digging"

In other subsequent posts I've mentioned that this "progress" they will claim will be used by those "wavering Republicans" to continue supporting the war. Idiots in the press and in the Democratic Party wrongfully believed that once the report came in September, it would show little progress and force Republicans to vote against the war....WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!

The mistake they made was assuming that they would not fudge the September report in the same way that they fudged the July report.

I wrote this one August 15, 2007 . Pay careful attention to my prediction

Due around mid-September is a final progress report on the current 'surge ' strategy in Iraq. Now, it was billed as a report not only written by the military itself, but as the report of the last person who still seems to hold credibility with Congress - General Petraeus. Me, being me, was always suspicious about the report because as so full of integrity as Gen. Petraeus is reported to be he is just a General who works at the discretion of the President. He is tasked with implementing policy the President wants, whatever he thinks. I'm a little skeptical of how credible Petraeus will be although it might be completely moot whether he is or not (I'll tell you why later in this post) I always believed that the September report would purport to say that there IS progress even if there are some problems and that we should continue in Iraq: Republicans waverers who keep saying 'lets wait till the September report' will stop wavering. And they will 'give the strategy more time to work' and Democrats will be able to get less votes for any withdrawal resolution in Congress. I still believe this will happen.

Well, the propaganda (and lies) being repeated continuously, and bought hook-line-and-sinker, is that the surge has created progress.

For the love of God, the "respectable" General Petraeus went to Australia and pulled the biggest lie out of his ass: He made the absurd claim that there has been a 75% drop in ethnic and sectarian violence since the surge began!

You have got to be kidding me!?

And how have the Republicans responded to these fudged figures (and I will show why they are fudged)?

They declare "Iraq withdrawal is now off the table":

Leading Republicans in Congress on Thursday declared that troop withdrawal legislation should be scrapped because the United States has made significant progress in the Iraq War, just as Democrats were resuming efforts to bring soldiers home. "It should be off the table," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said of Democratic attempts to pass legislation to force President George W. Bush to withdraw some of the 168,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and wind down the combat mission there.

The Republican hardened stance followed months of speculation that September could usher in cooperation with Democrats on trying to craft a new Iraq policy. In recent months a small but growing number of Republicans have said it is time to develop a bipartisan strategy to bring troops home. (SNIP)

But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told reporters of "significant progress in Iraq," and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the 4-1/2-year war effort was "finally paying dividends."

"We're at a crossroads. Pour it on. Seize the moment ... take withdrawal off the table," said Graham, who last month served in Iraq as a colonel in the U.S. Air Force reserves.

Next week Congress will hear from U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. Both are expected to report significant military progress in Baghdad since the start of a troop surge last January.

Did I call it or did I freakin' call it?

-----

Do The Facts Fit the Propaganda?

Now, maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe I'm too cynical. Perhaps I've let my distrust of this Administration, its history of deceit....the fact that they fudge numbers all the time on everything from global warming data to deficit figures....well that they've falsified and fudged the July Surge report too....

...You know what these guys don't have credibility!! Screw that!

But, its not enough to rightfully point out their lack of credibility and their history of willingness to lie and distort figures to serve their goals; Lets actually examine if their claims are true

Has the Surge Succeeded in Bringing Progress?

Lets start with the absurd claim by the "honorable" General Petraeus that there has been a 75% drop due to the Surge.

Now, 75% is a huge number for violence to drop...one would almost expect things to look vastly different if it had really dropped that much. I haven't noticed that much of a change but who knows that could just be a matter of perception...so lets see what the actual stats say.

Associated Press, August 25, 2007

This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.

I'll add that it is hard to make comparisons from "peak levels" because certain seasons are more violent than others and so it is best to compare violence as compared to the same time the previous year. So, in that sense it is a little misleading to compare it to "peak levels." That's why the bolded part is a much better gauge than the leading part of the sentence that said its down from "peak levels."

Some of the recent bloodshed appears the result of militant fighters drifting into parts of northern Iraq, where they have fled after U.S.-led offensives. Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings - the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

Many militants simply fled the capital (as expected), and there initially was a reduction in violence in Baghdad as violence in other parts of Baghdad where those militants fled to increased.

But I did only say "initially": As the AP's reports, its own statistics are now showing that the rate of killlings is at the same percentage as a year ago. And those are apples-to-apples comparisons (by same time last year).

In other words, violence has increased outside Baghdad, and stayed the same in Baghdad despite the Surge.

The tallies and trends offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area. It also highlights one of the major themes expected in next month's Iraq progress report to Congress: some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken.

That 'headway' is hardly headway in my opinion...

In street-level terms, it means life for average Iraqis appears to be even more perilous and unpredictable.

The AP tracking includes Iraqi civilians, government officials, police and security forces killed in attacks such as gunfights and bombings, which are frequently blamed on Sunni suicide strikes. It also includes execution-style killings - largely the work of Shiite death squads.

The figures are considered a minimum based on AP reporting. The actual numbers are likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted. Insurgent deaths are not a part of the Iraqi count.

The findings include:

- Iraq is suffering about double the number of war-related deaths throughout the country compared with last year - an average daily toll of 33 in 2006, and 62 so far this year.

- Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. So far this year, about 14,800 people have died in war-related attacks and sectarian murders. AP reporting accounted for 13,811 deaths in 2006. The United Nations and other sources placed the 2006 toll far higher.

- Baghdad has gone from representing 76 percent of all civilian and police war-related deaths in Iraq in January to 52 percent in July, bringing it back to the same spot it was roughly a year ago.

-According to the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization, the number of displaced Iraqis has more than doubled since the start of the year, from 447,337 on Jan. 1 to 1.14 million on July 31.

However, Brig. Gen. Richard Sherlock, deputy director for operational planning for the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said violence in Iraq ``has continued to decline and is at the lowest level since June 2006.''

He offered no statistics to back his claim.....

'And he offered no statistics to back his claim'!?

With an Administration that would be is desperate to give good news, don't you think they would be jumping at the change to provide good data if they had it?

They'd be throwing it in everyones face and all over the news but...they aren't. Instead they make claims with no proof and pleas to "just believe it" in essence. Plus the news organizations who are compiling the data are painting a much darker picture. Smells real fishy...

And the problem isn't only Baghdad and Central Iraq, the south is exploding too as different Shia groups also battle amongst themselves.

But a huge problem also looms in the south, the center of Shiite political and spiritual influence and the site of Iraq's main oil fields.

There are daily gunbattles between the Mahdi Army militia - loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr - and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the powerhouse Shiite political party that controls most of the bureaucracy and police forces in southern Iraq.

This month, the governors of two southern provinces loyal to the Supreme Islamic Council were killed in roadside bombings.

The clashes are expected to grow more intense as Britain draws downs its forces in southern Iraq over the coming months. The effect of the shrinking British presence is already being felt, said Cordesman in an assessment released Aug. 22.

``The end result was to turn the four provinces in southeastern Iraq over to feuding Shiite factions whose actions were mixed with corruption, extortion and links to criminal activities,'' he wrote

There is a good reason too note this. One not only because it points to increasing violence in Iraq, but because violence such as this is not counted as sectarian violence in Iraq, thus skewing those military numbers very much lower.

------------

Fudging The Numbers

One again, the Pentagon and the Administrations are fudging the numbers that go in their reports to paint a rosier picture than is deserved:

The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.....

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory....

Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

I'll do into the GAO (General Accountability Office) Report later. So what problems did the U.S. officers have with the GAO, the CIA and DIA's (Defense Intelligence Agency) methodology? That they didn't put up with this bullshit:

Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

You see the problem in that such a....well, retarded manner of differentiating criminal violence from sectarian violence naturally will drastically undercount the numbers dead from sectarian violence.

Remember that I asked you to keep the Shia vs. Shia violence in mind? Well here is why: [from same article]

According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics. "Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances," the spokesman said, "we do not track this data to any significant degree."

Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.

Did you get that? Shia vs. Shia (and Sunni vs. Sunni) violence is not added in the total for sectarian violence (although its supposed to because such fighting is part of a civil war), and the reason is because it's "hard to track". So they don't even mention it!! And then they can claim violence is down because they are not reporting substantial types of violence in their final tallies!

Plus they do not count the violence inflicted [on Sunni's, Shia's or anyone] by the Sunni groups who have recently decided to side with the US against al-Qaeda even though these groups are still players in the civil war, and will resume taking up arms against the US when it has weakened al-Qaeda. And these groups are part of the civil war for control of Iraq against Shias, Kurds and other Sunnis...yet their violence is not counted.

Want more? Apparently they also do not include car-bombs in the statistics of violence

The reason why will astounded me:

Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

President Bush explained why in a television interview on Tuesday. "If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory," he told TV interviewer Charlie Rose.

Others, however, say that not counting bombing victims skews the evidence of how well the Baghdad security plan is protecting the civilian population—one of the surge's main goals.

We don't count them because we will hand those bombers a victory if we do count them!? WTF!? Jeez, why should any violence in Iraq be counted if it will just give those killers a 'victory"?

Shoot, why did they claim a 75% drop in violence when they could have claimed a 100% drop in one?

Yet again, statistics are fudged and the counting of violence manipulate in a manner that seems to reduce the total numbers of violence reported. Clever...and deceptive.

Are you getting a better understanding how the military came to that "75% reduction" and why it is so at odd compared to everyone else's numbers?

-------

Other Factors of "Success" for the Surge

So clearly the military aspect of the Surge has failed which is funny because it is about the only part of the Surge that administration supporters and conservative hawks have proclaimed was a success. We know better though...

It's also funny because, at the outset, the "Surge" was supposed to achieve a more secure and peaceful environment through increased troop levels, in order to create a better environment for Iraqi politicians and groups to make political progress and gains for peace.

Has that happened: No.

So in that sense, even if it where true (and its not) that the surge has created some short term tactical progress, it is irrelevant because it has failed to bring about the political progress from Iraqi's that the Surge was supposed to help do.

In other words, a complete failure, so says the GAO report:

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.

The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker...

"While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."

"Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised. While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments "would be more useful" if they backed up their judgments with more details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies."

In other words if they did not cherry-pick positive indicators, eliminated negative-indicators from the final count. But this Admin has no compunctions with manipulating numbers to get the answers and results they want. And that's not just with Iraq.

I'll add that 3 out of 18 benchmarks is actually less than what the July Surge report showed when they showed 8 out of 18 were met. And even then (if you follow the link), I showed that even those 8 they claimed as success were not.

And what do you know: Apparently, even those 3 from the current GAO report have downsides as the GAO itself noted as well. Now that is not exactly a good assessment.

Surprisingly, most Americans are on their guard [Wash.Post/ABC News Poll] about the September Report due to be released on Tuesday September 11 (God, do those people have no shame?).

Most expect it to be manipulated and deceitful, and vast majorities say that even if the Admin reports progress, it would make no difference in making them support the war. Good.

Those Americans are basing it on a feeling (and I'm proud of them for that), but you who have read this far into this post know just how deceitful the conclusion to the September report will be.

There are tons of links there for you if you ever need a way to prove to others what a crock the report is...use them, direct them here...whatever. I'm just trying to do my part and hopefully I can help just one person do their part as well.

---------

Links I Didn't Use But For Reference

Letter to Congress demanding a sound counting of Iraq civilian casualties - From the National Security Network. A group of national security thinkers and practitioners have written a letter that expresses doubts - and reasons for them - of the new statistics.

Iraq stats 2006: The UN vs. the Iraqi Govt. - From TPMuckracker. They compile the UN's data and compare it to the Iraqi govts numbers. Not surprisingly, the Iraqi governments numbers were a lot lower.