Month: July 2007

by hilzoy

Robert Novak in the Washington Post:

“The morass in Iraq and deepening difficulties in Afghanistan have not deterred the Bush administration from taking on a dangerous and questionable new secret operation. High-level U.S. officials are working with their Turkish counterparts on a joint military operation to suppress Kurdish guerrillas and capture their leaders. Through covert activity, their goal is to forestall Turkey from invading Iraq.

While detailed operational plans are necessarily concealed, the broad outlines have been presented to select members of Congress as required by law. U.S. Special Forces are to work with the Turkish army to suppress the Kurds’ guerrilla campaign. The Bush administration is trying to prevent another front from opening in Iraq, which would have disastrous consequences. But this gamble risks major exposure and failure. (…)

The dormant Turkish Kurd guerrilla fighters of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) came to life. By June, the Turkish government was demonstrating its concern by lobbing artillery shells across the border. Ankara began protesting, to both Washington and Baghdad, that the PKK was using northern Iraq as a base for guerrilla operations. On July 11, in Washington, Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy became the first Turkish official to assert publicly that Iraqi Kurds have claims on Turkish territory. On July 20, just two days before his successful reelection, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened a military incursion into Iraq against the Kurds. Last Wednesday, Murat Karayilan, head of the PKK political council, predicted that “the Turkish Army will attack southern Kurdistan.”

Turkey has a well-trained, well-equipped army of 250,000 near the border, facing some 4,000 PKK fighters hiding in the mountains of northern Iraq. But significant cross-border operations surely would bring to the PKK’s side the military forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the best U.S. ally in Iraq. What is Washington to do in the dilemma of two friends battling each other on an unwanted new front in Iraq?

The surprising answer was given in secret briefings on Capitol Hill last week by Eric S. Edelman, a former aide to Vice President Cheney who is now undersecretary of defense for policy. Edelman, a Foreign Service officer who once was U.S. ambassador to Turkey, revealed to lawmakers plans for a covert operation of U.S. Special Forces to help the Turks neutralize the PKK. They would behead the guerrilla organization by helping Turkey get rid of PKK leaders that they have targeted for years.”

It is unclear exactly what this plan involves. Novak’s article, if it can be believed, says that our Special Forces would work with “the Turkish Army”, which suggests a Turkish invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan. But he also says that the goal would be “to forestall Turkey from invading Iraq”, which suggests that we might be planning instead to work with Turkish special forces (or whatever the Turkish equivalent is.)

I will discuss this below the fold.

Read more

by hilzoy

From the NYT:

“Iraq’s national government is refusing to take possession of thousands of American-financed reconstruction projects, forcing the United States either to hand them over to local Iraqis, who often lack the proper training and resources to keep the projects running, or commit new money to an effort that has already consumed billions of taxpayer dollars.”

More below the fold.

Read more

by hilzoy

Two weeks ago, TNR published a piece by their ‘Baghdad Diarist’, who writes under the pseudonym “Scott Thomas”. It contains three stories about soldiers doing vile things in Iraq; in one, the person who does the vile thing is the writer. The point of the piece, as best I could tell, was that war does strange things to your sense of what’s appropriate, and to try to describe these changes. Thus, “Scott Thomas” writes this, about the incident in which he figures:

“AM I A MONSTER? I have never thought of myself as a cruel person. Indeed, I have always had compassion for those with disabilities. I once worked at a summer camp for developmentally disabled children, and, in college, I devoted hours every week to helping a student with cerebral palsy perform basic tasks like typing, eating, and going to the bathroom. Even as I was reveling in the laughter my words had provoked, I was simultaneously horrified and ashamed at what I had just said. In a strange way, though, I found the shame comforting. I was relieved to still be shocked by my own cruelty–to still be able to recognize that the things we soldiers found funny were not, in fact, funny.”

The piece launched a furor on the right, with bloggers falling all over themselves to try to find holes in it. Some of their attempts were pretty lame. For instance, one part of “Thomas”‘ piece involves finding part of a child’s skull while constructing a command outpost. “Thomas” says:

“And, eventually, we reached the bones. All children’s bones: tiny cracked tibias and shoulder blades. We found pieces of hands and fingers. We found skull fragments. No one cared to speculate what, exactly, had happened here, but it was clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort.”

A soldier at the same base wrote this:

“There was a children’s cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport. It was not a mass grave. It was not the result of some inhumane genocide. It was an unmarked cometary where the locals had buried children some years back.”

This was cited as having falsified “Scott Thomas”‘ claim that he and his comrades had found a mass grave, when in fact he had made no such claim. Similarly, just try to figure out what the big deal is here. Other objections were more substantive, though not, I thought, decisive. In particular, one incident described in the piece involved “Thomas” and his buddies making fun of a disfigured woman; soldiers from the FOB at which this was supposed to have happened deny ever seeing such a woman.

In general, though, the consensus on the right-wing blogs seems to be that this entire piece is an elaborate fantasy cooked up to slur the troops:

“Even if “Scott Thomas” actually exists, and is a soldier serving in Iraq (which most veterans highly doubt) the anti-war cadre of the New Republic intentionally turns off its minimal journalistic standards on this story simply because it hates America, and hates her sons and daughters who go in harm’s way.”

Now, “Scott Thomas” has come forward:

“I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.

My pieces were always intended to provide my discrete view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier’s view of events in Iraq.

It’s been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.”

Discussion below the fold.

Read more

by hilzoy

Timothy Garton Ash in the LATimes, via Atrios:

“So Iraq is over. But Iraq has not yet begun. Not yet begun in terms of the consequences for Iraq itself, the Middle East, the United States’ own foreign policy and its reputation in the world. The most probable consequence of rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in its present condition is a further bloodbath, with even larger refugee flows and the effective dismemberment of the country. Already, about 2 million Iraqis have fled across the borders, and more than 2 million are internally displaced. (…)

In an article for the Web magazine Open Democracy, Middle East specialist Fred Halliday spells out some regional consequences. Besides the effective destruction of the Iraqi state, these include the revitalizing of militant Islamism and enhancement of the international appeal of the Al Qaeda brand; the eruption, for the first time in modern history, of internecine war between Sunni and Shiite, “a trend that reverberates in other states of mixed confessional composition”; the alienation of most sectors of Turkish politics from the West and the stimulation of authoritarian nationalism there; the strengthening of a nuclear-hungry Iran; and a new regional rivalry pitting the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies, including Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, against Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

For the United States, the world is now, as a result of the Iraq war, a more dangerous place. At the end of 2002, what is sometimes tagged “Al Qaeda Central” in Afghanistan had been virtually destroyed, and there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. In 2007, there is an Al Qaeda in Iraq, parts of the old Al Qaeda are creeping back into Afghanistan and there are Al Qaeda emulators spawning elsewhere, notably in Europe.

Osama bin Laden’s plan was to get the U.S. to overreact and overreach itself. With the invasion of Iraq, Bush fell slap-bang into that trap. The U.S. government’s own latest National Intelligence Estimate, released this week, suggests that Al Qaeda in Iraq is now among the most significant threats to the security of the American homeland.

The U.S. has probably not yet fully woken up to the appalling fact that, after a long period in which the first motto of its military was “no more Vietnams,” it faces another Vietnam. There are many important differences, but the basic result is similar: The mightiest military in the world fails to achieve its strategic goals and is, in the end, politically defeated by an economically and technologically inferior adversary.

Even if there are no scenes of helicopters evacuating Americans from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, there will surely be some totemic photographic image of national humiliation as the U.S. struggles to extract its troops.

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have done terrible damage to the U.S. reputation for being humane; this defeat will convince more people around the world that it is not even that powerful. And Bin Laden, still alive, will claim another victory over the death-fearing weaklings of the West.

In history, the most important consequences are often the unintended ones. We do not yet know the longer-term unintended consequences of Iraq. Maybe there is a silver lining hidden somewhere in this cloud. But as far as the human eye can see, the likely consequences of Iraq range from the bad to the catastrophic.

Looking back over a quarter of a century of chronicling current affairs, I cannot recall a more comprehensive and avoidable man-made disaster.”

Discussion below the fold.

Read more

by publius

Iraq has been a daily political debate for several years now. It’s important though to step back at times and focus on the big picture. Although daily political fights are necessary, I would prefer to persuade those who disagree with me. Or at the very least, I want war supporters to better understand the basis of the deep well of criticism and animosity that people have towards our Iraq policy.

One reason for the anger is that this war, from the very beginning, has been based on mistaken premises. It’s one thing to have substantive disagreements about agreed-upon facts (e.g., whether tax redistribution rates are too high/low). It’s quite another to disagree about basic facts, and then base policy on that set of mistaken facts. But that’s what we have. (For now, I’m not talking about the wisdom of war — a debate which involves subjective preferences. I’m talking about basic facts. Facts that can be checked, proven, and verified.)

This administration — and many supporters — have from the beginning used facts that are simply wrong. More than wrong — demonstrably inaccurate. Maybe these people were honestly mistaken. Maybe they flat-out lied. (Some of both, I’d say). But regardless, the factual premises underlying the war — and the occupation — have proven mistaken time and time again. Many war supporters, however, simply ignore these inaccuracies. What’s more, these people continue to base their current arguments (including vitriolic nationalist ones like “defeatist”) on the basis of open and obvious factual inaccuracies. (To their credit though, many former supporters have not ignored it and have changed their views — see, e.g., Andrew Sullivan).

Exhibit A is the speech McCain gave on the Senate today (linked to by Kathryn Jean Lopez under the title “Statesman McCain”). Putting aside subjective policy preferences, the speech is so full of obvious factual inaccuracies and misleading statements that it’s amazing that a credible candidate for President could deliver it.

On the jump, I’ll break down some of the more egregious factual errors and then explain the negative consequences.

Read more