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

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.