Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Monday, December 03, 2007

Gul: Turkey Can Invade At Will;
Sunnis Back in Parliament
Violence Against Civilians in Basra Undiminished

Turkish President Abdullah Gul reaffirmed Sunday that Turkey has the right to make incursions into Iraq to retaliate against attacks on Turks by the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) guerrilla group. In eastern Anatolia near Iraq on Sunday, Turkish troops killed two PKK fighters. Turkey says that it made an incursion into Iraq on Saturday, deploying helicopter gunships and special operations forces.

Senator Jim Webb, back from Iraq, doesn't think the effect of the troop surge will be all that positive if Bush doesn't take advantage of it to do regional diplomacy.

Sunni Arab MPs ended their boycott of parliament on Sunday after their leader, Adnan Dulaim was brought to the Al Rashid hotel in the Green Zone, allegedly for his own safety. His body guards are accused of being bomb makers and terrorists.

British parliamentarians say that statistics show that violence against civilians in Basra is "undiminished" since British troops moved out to the airport from downtown. Attacks on British troops have fallen off dramatically. The report adds:


' Violence against civilians was undiminished as the city remained in the grip of the militias and criminal gangs, with "serious questions" over the true allegiances of many police officers. While the Iraqi army had made "significant progress", the committee said it still needed back-up support from the British - particularly logistics and intelligence - to operate effectively.

At the same time, the committee questioned the continued viability of the remaining British force, based outside the city itself at Basra Air Station, once its numbers are halved to 2,500 from next spring.

"If there is still a role for UK forces in Iraq, those forces must be capable of doing more than just protecting themselves at Basra Air Station," the report said. '


Those mysterious 'non-combat' deaths of US combat troops in Iraq. Editor and Publisher writes, "Although the U.S. death toll is down in Iraq, many troops continue to perish in what the military officially announces as "noncombat" or "nonhostile" incidents. An investigation is launched but the press rarely learns the result."

Ann Applebaum says you can't undo the vast Iraq disaster for US foreign policy with yet another round of unwarranted optimism based on death statistics. She points to the weakened US clout on the Iran issue with European allies. Bush is the boy that cried wolf as far as they are concerned.

If Karl Rove's lips are moving, he is lying. He's been peddling this falsehood that Bush wasn't pushing for an Iraq War authorization before the 2002 elections, and that the Dems of the time wanted it early, two. In fact, most people thought it would be better to postpone it so that it was not used (as Rove did use it) for political purposes. So first he played politics with a war vote, now he is rewriting history to say that he didn't. I mean, does he keep a copy of 1984 on his bedstand for daily readings?

Labels:

5 Comments:

At 12:33 PM, Anonymous Gregg Gordon said...

My Letter to Anne Applebaum

Ms. Applebaum:

Thanks for your column on the state of affairs in Iraq. Even if the most optimistic scenario going forward was to be realized, it would not justify the trillion dollars spent, the lives lost and broken, and as you argue so well, the devastating impact on our standing in the world. While I believe we can regain that respect in time, it will never be quite the same. That chance was tragically lost in 2004, when we ratified Bush's policies after the fluke of 2000. (Of course, the more tangible loss of influence as a result of those policies, reflected in the value of the dollar, is a whole 'nother column.)

And frankly, my read on the situation is the surge is not "working" at all. While the short-run drop in violence is obviously welcome, it is primarily the result of payoffs on a huge scale to local warlords on all sides, and some not very savory ones at that:

http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2937104.ece

They're more than happy to take our money and husband their strength for the bigger battles to come. No sense in getting a bunch of their people killed fighting us at this point. Our soldiers are some pretty bad mf'ers, after all, and they figure, correctly I think, the next President will have no choice but to begin major withdrawals. Witness the polls that show a dramatic increase in the numbers of Americans who think things are improving in Iraq, but no change at all in the majority who want us to get out. Americans have decided that this "success" is simply not worth $3 billion a week, thank you very much, thus proving the average Iraqi warlord is a more astute observer of American politics than Bill Kristol or Brit Hume or, if you will forgive me, the editorial board of the Post.

None of which matters to Bush, of course. Apres moi, le deluge. We'll see if he got the timing right.

Kindest regards,
Gregg Gordon

P.S. How on earth do you survive on an op-ed page that gives space to the lunatic ravings of the likes of Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html?hpid=opinionsbox1), who is quickly becoming a character in a novel by Gabriel Garcia-Marquez? As if we would take his advice on the "smart" way to do anything. Do you ever smell anything being smoked in there?


After writing Ms. Applebaum, I did the math and realized that, on a per capita basis, the average American is spending more on the war in Iraq than on their cable TV bill -- a lot more if they have a family. And believe me, they like their cable a lot better.

(only took me half the day to figure that out, Juan. lol)

 
At 12:55 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

ref : “British parliamentarians say that statistics show that violence against civilians in Basra is "undiminished" since British troops moved out to the airport from downtown.

personally, i reject the conventional wisdom that “violence fills a vacuum” as either colonialist hubris, to rationalize occupation presence without historical precedent, or literal reification fallacy, mon professor.

 
At 2:18 PM, Blogger Walking Wounded said...

Re Rove-speak:

I always learn a lot by listening to Karl, for as long as I can stand it. Even though he is good about staying on message, his thought process and analysis come through.

One of Rove's frequent formulations is "an argument can be made ..." He is like the Nick Taylor character in "Thank You For Smoking". Facts vanish in the face of argument.

Bad arguments in the mouth of a dedicated advocate can carry the day.

 
At 2:37 PM, Blogger Bill said...

The damage done by the Iraq War is seen most dramatically in the change in views of the US that were formerly favorable in Muslim countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc., into overwhelmingly negative ones.

Unfortunately, Ms. Applebaum is no help in this matter. Her distortions and demonization of Russia under Putin give aid and comfort to the neocons efforts to undermine a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.

It should be kept in mind, the neocons aren't stupid. They know they must foreclose diplomatic solutions as ineffective and exhausted (in perception, fact doesn't matter) and they can then present military action as the only effective alternative. This is precisely what they did with their demonization of Blix and the IAEA in Iraq.

Applebaum gives aid and comfort to this effort with her shoddy and myopic reporting on Russia. If she has something fruitful to say on Iraq/Iran, fine, but no one should accept her distorted and unhelpful punditry on Russia (which, no coincidence, has also been the subject of a neocon demonization campaign because they know an engaged cooperative diplomatic effort between the US/Russia/China would be effective in Iran).

 
At 6:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm hearing anecdotes from people who either have friends or sons/daughters in Iraq that GIs in Iraq are beginning to talk about "search and avoid missions." In other words, when they go out on a mission, they just find a safe place to park and stay out of trouble. Not unlike Vietnam, when patrols either refused to go out or simply went where they knew it was safe. Perhaps, this explains some of the "diminishing violence" attributed to the surge.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home