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.