It's June 2007 in Iraq

here's the whole text of the article:

Turkish officials: troops enter Iraq
By SELCAN HACAOGLU, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago

Several thousand Turkish troops crossed into northern Iraq early Wednesday to chase Kurdish guerrillas who operate from bases there, Turkish security officials told The Associated Press.

Two senior security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said the raid was limited in scope and that it did not constitute the kind of large incursion that Turkish leaders have been discussing in recent weeks.

"It is not a major offensive and the number of troops is not in the tens of thousands," one of the officials told the AP by telephone. The official is based in southeast Turkey, where the military has been battling separatist Kurdish rebels since they took up arms in 1984.

The officials did not say where the Turkish force was operating in northern Iraq, nor did he say how long they would be there.

The officials said any confrontation with Iraqi Kurdish groups, who have warned against a Turkish incursion, could trigger a larger cross-border operation. The Turkish military has asked the government in Ankara to approve such an incursion, but the government has not given formal approval.

An official at military headquarters in Ankara declined to confirm or deny the report that Turkish troops had entered Iraq.

Turkish troops have occasionally launched brief raids in pursuit of guerrillas in northern Iraq, and have sometimes shelled suspected rebel positions across the border. Turkish authorities rarely acknowledge such military operations, which were more frequent before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Turkey has been building up its military forces on the Iraqi border in recent weeks, amid debate among political and military leaders about whether to attack separatist rebels of the PKK, or Kurdistan Workers' Party. The rebels stage raids in southeast Turkey after crossing over from hideouts in Iraq.

During major incursions in the 1990s, fighting occurred on a front stretching more than 100 miles, mostly in rugged terrain where communications were difficult and the Turkish Kurds were already entrenched in the mountains.

Ah fuck, here it goes.

is this the non-denial denial?

Turkey denies Web site claim of N.Iraq invasion
Wed Jun 6, 2007 10:26AM EDT

ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey's Foreign Ministry and military General Staff on Wednesday denied a Web site report that 50,000 Turkish troops had crossed into northern Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels hiding there.

"This report is not true," a Foreign Ministry source told Reuters.

A General Staff official described the report as "disinformation".

The report, carried on the DEBKAfile Web site, sparked jitters among foreign investors who fear Turkish military action in northern Iraq could harm Turkey's booming economy and relations with the United States.

Thank you for starting the thread, my head was kinda crushed from various recent developments and this is just adding to it.

the other iraq

This is awful news. We've heard for years how stable Kurdistan is, the only positive devleopment to come out of the war, etc.

oh come on we all knew that was just the proverbial "calm before the storm"

Funny to see Republicans recommending partition at the debate last night (a "solution" which seems messy and inevitable to me, the outcome I expected since before we invaded)

the "balkanization" scenario - it doesn't seem like there's any other way for this to work, but it also seems inevitable that that "solution" will be accompanied by tons of bloodshed and ethnic cleansing-type stuff. That's what happens when you try to divide and relocate entire groups of people.

"Republicans" = Sam Brownback

And it won't really work! "Kurd" is not a branch of Islam, as not one of the luminaries remarked last night.

that's true - it would put the Kurdish population in the weird position of having to choose between their religion and their ethnicity.

although hey maybe there will be a second Saladin to unite Islam and repel the infidels haha

mahdi, bro.

Sunnis aren't really down with the Mahdi concept tho

that's why the smart money's on the shi'a, dude.

those dudes DO NOT GIVE A FUCK.

a "solution" which seems messy and inevitable to me, the outcome I expected since before we invaded

Re the federation idea:

I hate to point this out since we are running out of options in Iraq already, but this isn't an option. There is no way that we, or the US government, can dictate splitting up the country. The only way it will happen is if the Iraqi government decides to do it. I don't see how that's politically feasible, though, since what you're talking about is forcing people who don't want to move to do so, and thus you're talking about the Shia in the government mandating this, while the Sunnis break off all ties with the government and begin an all out insurgency / urban warfare. I mean what you're really talking about is forced removal and ethnic cleansing of Sunnis. How this is a "solution" I don't know, but why our politicians are still recommending it is pretty mindblowing. In point of fact, they are saying it just to have something to say, because you can't just come out and say that there is going to be (and there is now) a civil war in Iraq. But don't vote for anyone who tells you this, please.

"IF NOT THERE WILL BE CIV-ILL WAR WITHOUT END"

http://www.theforce.net/kids/coruscant/probe_droid/palpatine.jpg

When people start shooting "little children, with their fully automatics" in public marketplaces, because they are the wrong religion, which causes house to house armed skirmishes, do you believe that would be classified as a civil war? Pop quiz: A) I made this up B) This happened in Iraq. Hmmm.

We're not gonna enforce it, I'm just sayin it seems like an inevitable outcome - the Shi'ites takin as much shit as possible, the Sunnis defecting, the Kurds seceding on their own and confronting Turkey.

I'm not saying this is a desirable "solution" or an easily executed one or anything like that, just that it seems like the inevitable result of deposing a dictator who previously united an ethnically disparate country by force. Its happened time and time again all over the world - once the political glue has been removed, old divisions become apparent and reassert themselves.

That's may or may not be true - it being an inevitable outcome. I don't know that much about it.

But my point is that there is no US policy here. If you hear a politician SUGGEST this as their POLICY on Iraq, then you know, know for an absolute fact, that they are simply full of shit.

That and support for ethonol are a couple of surefire ways to know that whoever the speaker is is an absolute douchebag.

hahaha ethanol is such a conjob

*sigh* i guess i can't vote for obama then.

or willie nelson

no, i support hemp biodiesel!

Well, maybe 'douchebag' is a little harsh! I think that research needs to be conducted and certainly wouldn't want to discourage that or confuse people about the benefits of alternative fuels. But the way that it is currently possible to make it, would require a lot of corn. It would fulfil substitute something like 15% of energy needs if all the corn in the US were made into ethanol, and it would be so energy-wasting to transport that it would pretty much be useless.

On the other hand, I hear that there are some advances happening, um ... switchgrass? That may be something in the future, but these whole-hearted calls for ethanol now is merely hot air politics.

I will vote for someone who comes out and says that.

the current ethanol options are a fucking corporate giveaway to ADM that would accomplish nothing, waste money, and probably actually *increase* emissions once you factor in all the transportation and refining costs.

But there are plenty of other alternative fuel options worth investigating. The only reason ethanol gets to much coverage is because there are vested interests eager to line up at the trough.

biodiesel for one

willie '08!

So wait, did this turkish invasion not actually happen after all?

Also, hemp/soy biodiesel is the way to go

How many ways could this backfire?

U.S. Arming Sunnis in Iraq to Battle Old Qaeda Allies

It's working fine so far.

Americans officers acknowledge that providing weapons to breakaway rebel groups is not new in counterinsurgency warfare, and that in places where it has been tried before, including the French colonial war in Algeria, the British-led fight against insurgents in Malaya in the early 1950s, and in Vietnam, the effort often backfired, with weapons given to the rebels being turned against the forces providing them.

From the article. At least they're learning from history.

So let's talk endgame here. Under what scenario will these Sunni insurgents not turn the weapons on, first, US troops, and second, on Shiites.

Maybe if US troops leave they could avoid most of the carnage, but I don't see the Shiites getting away from this in good shape.

At this point, I almost just want to see Frederick Kagan get caught in a firefight over there.

Or Harry Reid.

Over at Balloon Juice, this interesting e-mail has been posted "from a friend who works with the military":

Just had an interesting conversation with a fellow who just returned from the theater and I mentioned my theory about the Prez going nucular about the supplemental funding resolution and its pullout dates because he was going to pull a lot of troops out next summer (the same timeframe) and claim it was because of “success.” He busted out laughing saying “of course that’s why” and its openly spoken of by the troops and leadership in Iraq.

He said KBR (Halliburton) has already started closing things down, cutting back the nice to haves, and letting go all their non-American employees (mostly eastern European guys). Clearly they’ve gotten the word to scale things way back.

Our side needs to be prepared to counter the propaganda that will be driving this. I know it’s politics as usual, but the soldiers who die in the meantime are pawns and should not be forgotten in the calculation. The military leadership, while always biased to conservatism, is particular craven in its failure to speak the truth and in its collusion in this charade.

The soldiers are generally not stupid, but many still feel somehow that they are fighting for American freedoms. It’s that loyalty and patriotism that is tapped by the venal jerks on the neo-con right and exploited. I am not ashamed of the soldiers or my former career as an officer, just the generals and culture that have become hypocritical and duplicitous in the un-American and undemocratic times we find ourselves.

You can put an “X” on your calendar next summer when “success” miraculously happens in Iraq.

Unsurprising. Question is how loud the talk will get in the interim.

My mind is running away, but here's what I'm envisioning based on that post: the admin holds off until next summer and then pulls out, declaring "victory" and presumably taking some of the wind out of the Democratic front-runner, and possibly also creating a shitstorm that will give the U.S. impetus to invade Iran, which in turn will also make it more difficult for a Democrat to win. (?)

The US will not invade Iran, I can almost guarantee you that. If they wanted to get rid of the nuclear capability as a last resort, they'd bomb. I think. I hope, because invading Iran would be a serious error, and to be honest with you I don't see an invasion of Iran as scoring many brownie points amongst the American public.

As to Bush claiming victory, yeah, I guess he could unless a full-on civil war. I don't know what a full-on civil war would look like though... something like - what is happening already now, minus US troops?

the US will not invade Iran, it just isn't feasible.

Not unless Richard Crenna persuades Joe "Rambo" Lieberman to do it for God and country.

Nobody is invading Iran calm down.

http://www.doublespeakshow.com/images/2006/08/liebs1.jpg
"do we get to win this time?"

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/image_full/international/photosvideos/photos/george-bush-leads-the-us-towar.jpg

This time there will be no margin for error!

the internet is some fucked-up shit.

earlier tonight i watched someone i know get shot twice by insurgent snipers on youtube. grainy hi-8 camcorder footage set to contemporary iraqi devotional music. the camera shakes when the dude shoots.

he's recovering at balboa hospital and is well (and is getting a 20-year honorable discharge later this year) so i guess the story has a happy ending for him (and his daughters, age 3 and 6).

still, internets is some fucked-up shit.

That is some fucked up shit.

So we've got all those folks over there and everything, surely the mental health care system is a good one for them.

Washington Post on soldiers' care

LA Times on civilian workers' care

I'm sure there are 'be a man' claims on sites like Blackfive.net right now.

(Only just saw your story there, Vahid -- yeesh. Sorry to hear it.)

hi ned - do you have any stratfor goodies re: gaza?

There's probably been something in the last few days but I've been so busy at work I likely deleted the mail. Will see if something turns up soon.

Meantime, another Post story on mental care, specifically the path one soldier ended up taking. Harrowing in and of itself -- she's doing better now -- but this detail still chills me:

The Iraq war vets found one another quickly on Ward 3D East. An ashen young man in gray socks popped into the visitors room where Blackwood was sitting one evening. He told her that his best friend had died in Iraq. "He took the gun, put it in his mouth and fired," he said without emotion. "Blew his brains out." He held his friend's head until he was dead. He showed Blackwood how, cradling his hands just so.

Oh but hey, our new embassy will have a rec center. (This article makes for a fascinating read, really.)

The other article I read about the embassy talked about how it has a nice big roof on which you could lend several helicopters at once, were you to need to fly people out in a hurry.

#2 to Sudan in the Failed State Index! There's a benchmark to shoot for.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070618/D8PRBDQ00.html

http://telstarlogistics.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/20/dring_2.jpg

a little sad
http://telstarlogistics.typepad.com/telstarlogistics/2007/06/the_us_armys_to.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6241120.stm

Is this the start of sunni reprisals in Iran itself?

as support for the war continues to drop to unbelievable levels, what short-term political interests are currently impelling the US legislature to maintain troops in Iraq...? I mean 2/3rds of the country want ALL the troops withdrawn immediately. Why is it so hard for Congress to force the President's hand, why are Republicans so hesitant to follow the will of the people...?

(I mean obviously the President's commitment to the war is no mystery - can't admit making a mistake, daddy issues, etc. - but the rest of the legislature is presumably free from Dubya's near psychotic devotion to his cause celebre)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html