|
|
|
Archives By SubjectAfghanistanArts & LettersBlogging The LouvreBlogommageChess, Jazz & EthicsChinaDear LeaderDomestic PolicyEuropean UnionFeatured LinkForeign PolicyGlobal War On TerrorGood News Of The DayHoops, Hardball & FisticuffsHuman RightsIndiaInternational RelationsIranIraqLa France PolitiqueLa PresidentielleLas AmericasMarkets & FinanceMedia CoverageMorning News RoundupOdds & EndsOpen ThreadPakistanPoliticsQuote Of The DayRace In AmericaRussiaSay What?The Middle EastThe Natural WorldTurkeyVerse & ProseArchives By DateOctober, 2008September, 2008August, 2008July, 2008June, 2008May, 2008April, 2008March, 2008February, 2008January, 2008December, 2007November, 2007October, 2007September, 2007August, 2007July, 2007June, 2007May, 2007April, 2007March, 2007February, 2007January, 2007Search Headline Junky |
October, 2007Wednesday, October 31, 2007 Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back?I ran across this, from the Times of India, late last night and didn't quite have the energy to do anything with it. But it seemed significant enough to go back to:
Take it with a grain of salt, given the nature of the relationship between India and Pakistan. But it corroborates other reports I've read of high desertions, and surprisingly large amounts of Pakistani prisoners being taken by tribal militants. There's also a rumor floating around Islamabad that Musharraf will declare martial law if the Supreme Court rules his presidential election invalid. The Pakistani government denies it, but it was enough to make Benazir Bhutto cancel a planned trip abroad. The Court is expected to hand down a ruling Friday. So much for the good news out of Pakistan. Wednesday, October 31, 2007 ResultsIt took six months, 100,000 troops massed on the border, and the threat of an invasion, but Turkey has finally started getting some cooperation on the PKK question, both from the US and the Iraqi Kurds:
The next major benchmark comes on November 5, when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is in Washington to meet with President Bush. The outcome of that meeting should determine whether and how aggressively Turkey will pursue economic sanctions against the Kurdish north. But between the Turkish military's announcement that no invasion would take place before the meeting and the onset of winter in the Qandil mountains, it looks less and less likely that Turkey will resort to force to resolve the issue. Wednesday, October 31, 2007 AppearancesIn watching the clips of the Democratic debate last night, I've figured out just what it is about John Edwards that makes me recoil. When he speaks, he tilts his head off to one side and talks out of one side of his mouth. And when he smiles, one side of his mouth goes up while the other goes down. Now, I don't know if the psycho-physiological data backs me up on this, but those to me are signs of insincerity. Something along the lines of the right hand not really buying what the left hand is peddling. And while I'm on the subject of superficial trivialities, someone's got to figure out how to do Obama's makeup. Maybe it was because he was standing in front of a red riser, but between his pancake (which looked like it was a light shade of pink), his tooth-whitener (which was blinding), the eyebrows (which looked like they'd been painted with the eyeblack used by ballplayers to avoid sunglare) and the lip rouge, he looked more like a digitized composite image than a person. Given how a lot of his appeal is based on his authenticity, that's something he wants to avoid. Wednesday, October 31, 2007 The Iraq ExodusMore really needs to be made of the fact that despite repeated promises to the contrary, the United States has done absolutely nothing to address the refugee crisis resulting from the Iraq War. Having promised to resettle up to 25,000 refugees in 2007, we've managed to take in only 1,608. In the same period of time, Sweden has received 12,000. By contrast, since the start of the war, Syria has accepted 1.2 million refugees, and Jordan 750,000, numbers that represent 10% and 24% respectively of their entire populations. Adjusted for scale, that would be the equivalent of America receiving between 30 and 75 million refugees. War advocates have used the Vietnam boat lifts as a comparison for what might happen should the US leave Iraq. But the Iraq exodus has long since begun. It's pretty shameful that we've yet to provide asylum for those willing to come Stateside, or assistance for those unable to. But at the very least, we should keep our word about the meager gestures we've promised to make. Wednesday, October 31, 2007 Earning MoreOne of Nicolas Sarkozy's campaign slogans was "Work more to earn more". Trouble is, since his election, French workers haven't seen their salaries markedly improved. All that changed today, at least for one French worker. His name? Nicolas Sarkozy. Because the legislature just voted him a 140% pay raise, increasing his salary from 8,000 euros per month to 20,000. Granted, before the raise Sarkozy wasn't even making as much as a low-level cabinet minister, let alone his Prime Minister. And the current pay rate puts him in line with other European heads of state. But I wonder. Did his divorce agreement with Cecilia include any alimony payments? Wednesday, October 31, 2007 Atoms For PeaceAccording to an article appearing in Le Figaro, the Saudi nuclear energy program, which was announced late last year, will depend heavily on Pakistani know-how. Even more alarming, given the Pakistanis' proliferation track record, is the close ties the article claims already exist between the Saudis and the Pakistani nuclear effort:
It was reassuring to see Joe Biden include Pakistan in the debate last night. But if this article is any indication, a stable Pakistan presents just as many problems as an unstable Pakistan. The other question raised by the entire region's headlong rush towards nuclear energy is, If Iran's civil nuclear program is a transparent effort to build a nuclear bomb, is the same true of Saudi Arabia's? Egypt's? Libya's and Algeria's? It would seem like some sort of regional non-proliferation regime would be warranted, something above and beyond the NPT that governs the rest of the world. Now would be a good time to start formulating just what that would look like. Because this genie is about to get out of the bottle. Wednesday, October 31, 2007 Choosing Without EnthusiasmHillary Clinton hedges on a question about whether she supports Elliot Spitzer's plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants because "...this is where everyone plays gotcha." And guess what? Everyone plays gotcha. But if you watch the clip, her answer makes sense. She basically says that in the absence of a comprehensive Federal reform of immigration policy, states are being forced to patch together stopgap measures like Spitzer's. And while she understands the logic behind the measure, she would rather solve the problem as President on the Federal level than live or die by taking a position on what Spitzer can cobble together with his measly gubernatorial powers. And rightly so. Is it a hedge? Yeah. But she's running for President, not governor. I've got to agree with Kevin on this one. If this qualifies as a killer moment, we've forgotten how to choose a Democratic candidate for president. Which brings me to a post I've been meaning to write about how, in trying to figure out who I'll vote for in the California primary (which apparently might still matter this year), I realized that I've... forgotten how to choose a Democratic candidate for president. Because if you think about it, the last time we really had a choice was back in 1992. Gore was a shoo-in in 2000, and four years ago Democratic thinking was too skewed by the almost pathological need to beat Bush to call it a real choice. This year, the candidates would really seem to offer a chance to define the direction the party is going to take into the next decade: Traditional Democratic populism, represented by Edwards; centrist pragmatism represented by Hillary; or a hard-to-define transformative politics represented by Obama. It would seem to offer that chance, if it weren't for one thing: The perception of inevitability that Hillary Clinton has managed to achieve this early on in the race, which is already transforming the logic of the primary from an ideological referendum into an electoral calculus. Of course that's the genius of the Clinton machine, which is to politics what Billy Beane and Roger Elias are to baseball: Reducing elections into stat sheets of zip codes and donor lists. But it comes with a cost, to the party and to the candidate. By all rights, I should be an Obama man. He is, for all intents and purposes, a third party candidate with a first-party platform. And with the exception of Ross Perot, I'm a sucker for third party candidates, starting with John Anderson in the first election I followed as a twelve-year old in 1980, through to Ralph Nader in 2000. (Yes, I would have voted Nader in 2000 had I voted. Relax, it was in California.) In the meantime, though, I've moved considerably to the political center. Call it age, maturity, fatherhood, six years of living in France... Well, maybe not maturity. But at any rate, I've come to feel that politics should really just be about governing. Transformation is best left to individuals in the private sphere, not charismatic leaders in the public arena. And if you take that away from Obama, what's left? An opportunistic, not-very-experienced politician with an ordinary platform. As for Edwards, like I said, I've moved considerably to the political center. And I've spent six years living in France. I probably should get more excited about his platform, but I can't bring myself to do the necessary work. My problem, I know, not his. But I doubt I'm alone in that. Which brings me to Hillary, who I must say has surprised me with her ability to charm and impress. I've never had a strong negative impression of her, but like everyone, I'd assumed that too many other people did to give her any hope of winning. I'm not so convinced of that anymore. Her positions (the ones she's willing to articulate, that is) are responsible, well-considered and don't cross any red lines for me. She's one of two candidates on either side (John McCain being the other) who wouldn't face a very steep national security learning curve upon taking office. Most importantly, she represents change, but not drastic change. And I think that in our desperation over eight years of Bush, Democrats (and reasonable people in general) have exagerrated, not the damage he's done (which is considerable), but the extent to which we need to yank the wheel back to the other side of the lane divider. Just enough and you avoid oncoming traffic. Too much and you wind up in the ditch on the side of the road. So for the time being, I'm leaning towards Hillary. Without any passionate enthusiasm, to be sure. But I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. Tuesday, October 30, 2007 Katrina, Baghdad EditionJust when you thought you couldn't possibly be flummoxed by news out of Iraq, along comes this:
Needless to say, an American reconstruction project to temporarily shore up the dam's foundations was plagued by mismanagement, sloppy work standards, and "indications of potential fraud", according to a report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. There's also significant disagreement between Iraqi and American officials about how to solve the problem. I'm sure that Iraqis take comfort in knowing that, having already experienced American-style democracy, they might soon get the opportunity to experience American-style disaster relief. Yikes. Tuesday, October 30, 2007 Putting Iran In ContextRussian media recently reported that China has agreed to sell twenty-four J-10's, China's fourth generation fighter jet, to Iran. Not so fast, says Defense News; so far there's been no confirmation of any agreement. Nevertheless, the reactions to the reports of the deal are in some ways as revealing as the deal itself:
One rumor, two spins. The first serves to reinforce the meme that Tehran is desperately seeking the means to deliver its nuclear payload to Tel Aviv. The second, more relevant, reminds us that the Iran standoff is not playing out in a vacuum. If both China and Russia have determined that it serves their interests to counterbalance the Bush administration's efforts to isolate Iran, it's not because they're eager to see a nuclear-armed Iranian regime. It's because America under the Bush administration has decided to aggressively contest these two country's historic spheres of influence. The message behind Russian and Chinese resistance to stronger UN sanctions on Tehran is that a successful diplomatic resolution to the Iran standoff will involve American concessions on missile defense and military bases in Eastern Europe, and on arming Taiwan in Asia. You want your sanctions, you've got to play ball. But neocons don't play ball. They'll rewrite the rulebook and replace the umpires. They'll even eminent domain the playing field. But they won't play ball. That's why the broader context for understanding the Iran nuclear standoff is the neocon vision for American national security strategy, whose goal is to prevent the rise of rival powers. Contrast that with the reality of the limits of our power and it becomes obvious that something's got to give. So far, the pushback against the neocon vision has been limited to piecemeal proposals designed to address particular crises. And in some ways, a realist approach to foreign policy is limited to this method by the value it places on pragmatism. But at a certain point, the effort to contain the damage done by the Bush administration suffers from the lack of a broad strategic vision for reconciling American national security with the need to co-exist with rival powers in the evolving geo-political landscape. The neocons have their strategy, and it has the advantage of being reassuringly familiar to anyone who's played "king of the hill" as a seven-year old. We've got... What? Diplomacy? Negotiations? Those are tactics, not strategies. It's something we've often accused the Bush administration of confusing in its approach to foreign policy. It's time we took our own medicine. Tuesday, October 30, 2007 The Three No's PolicyContinuing the theme of nuclear non-proliferation, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian is the latest head of state forced to deny recent reports that his country is seeking to develop nuclear weapons:
This reminds me of the old adage about some accusations doing their damage regardless of whether they are true or not. ("Do you still beat your wife?" was the example I grew up with, although it seems a bit out of date nowadays.) I get the feeling we're entering an era when states will be forced to take active measures to demonstrate their nuclear good behaviour, as opposed to enjoying the benefit of the doubt. Even more in the case of Taiwan, which harbored nuclear ambitions until they were brought to light and abandoned in the 1980's. According to the article, they still hope to develop a stockpile of cruise missiles capable of striking Shanghai, although the budget for the program has been frozen until 2009 in the face of opposition from Peking and Washington. Question. Is the idea that certain Bush administration hawks would welcome a nuclear Taiwan evidence of Bush Derangement Syndrome? Tuesday, October 30, 2007 Above The MeleeWomen's rugby in Iran. Who'd a thunk it? Problems include the uniform:
As well as the male coach:
But the sport -- as well as women's athletics in general, introduced during the reformist 90's -- is catching on. It strikes me as intuitively obvious that the more freedoms women gain in a country like Iran, the more likely it is we'll find common ground. So our policies towards Tehran really should be geared towards facilitating the Iranian moderates' return to power. Unfortunately, the gist of the current debate on Iran is limited to the nuclear standoff, instead of considering the larger context of how our two countries can co-exist. With that in mind, I'd love to see one of the Democratic candidates formulate a list of concrete steps Iran could take, independent of the nuclear dossier, in order to establish diplomatic relations with the US, as well as areas of co-operation that we might develop. There's been so much discussion of what sort of stick to wield against Tehran, and too little about what sort of carrots we can offer. Tuesday, October 30, 2007 Russian IngenuityNow this is the kind of diplomatic initiative that scores points for being both practical and savvy: A Russian-built, Kazakh-supplied uranium enrichment facility operating under the auspices of the IAEA, designed to furnish reactor fuel to third party civil nuclear programs that meet their non-proliferation obligations. The idea has the added advantages of being profitable and pragmatic, as well:
It's disheartening to see that at the same time the Bush administration is pushing nuclear deals (see: India) that clearly undermine the non-proliferation regime, Russia is busy outflanking us with initiatives that have both immediate (vis a vis Iran) and longterm relevance. They're also setting themselves up to reap the benefits of the Arab world's growing interest in developing nuclear energy capacity. Update: Russia also seems to be positioning itself to benefit from the failure of Indian PM Singh to get the US-India nuclear deal through parliament. Monday, October 29, 2007 And They're OffEgypt has announced it will dust off its long-dormant plans for a nuclear energy program and seek investment to construct several nuclear reactors by 2020. They stressed that they have no intention of developing a fuel enrichment capacity, and will maintain transparency vis a vis the IAEA. They join Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and the United Arab Emirates on the nuclear energy waiting list. Toss in the recent deal Sarkozy just signed with Morocco to develop their nuclear energy program, Iran's controversial program, and Israel's weapons capacity and it's clear that the face of the Middle East is radically transforming before our eyes. The region seemed volatile enough when it was just sitting on fields of combustible fuel. What's it going to be like when they've got meltdown capacity? Monday, October 29, 2007 Artificial Intelligence?At a press conference in Abu Dhabi, French Defense Minister Hervé Morin directly contradicted IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei's assertion that he's found no evidence to suggest Iran's nuclear program has military aims:
Now it's true that generally speaking, France has got solid intelligence throughout the Arab world. So maybe they've uncovered some incriminating evidence of a hidden military component to the Iranian nuclear program. But it's hard to believe that Sarkozy knows something that Chirac didn't, so the sudden shift in tone seems hard to explain. Which leads us to the "other countries" who -- I think it's obvious -- are most likely Israel and the US. And if that's who the French are comparing notes with, then it's not surprising that they've suddenly given this dossier a greater urgency than the other EU negotiating partners. Morin went on to make clear [note: English language article] that France is opposed to war with Iran, and reiterated French support for stiffer sanctions, even though they would harm French economic interests in Iran. But the newfound stridency in tone coming out of Paris is going to take some getting used to. Monday, October 29, 2007 The Gospel TruthWhat's ironic about the flap over Barack Obama's refusal to distance himself from Donnie "Pray the Gay Away" McClurkin is that while the evangelical "ex-gay" movement is both particularly offensive and absurd, it pales in comparison to the vastly more widespread evangelical "ex-Jew" movement. Ann Coulter's recent remarks to the effect that Christians are perfected Jews might have been roundly denounced. But they nevertheless reflect the default theological position of Christian evangelicalicism. The same holds true for its position vis a vis every other religion, including Catholicism. Seriously, though, Democrats are correct to target Christian evangelicals as a potential constituency. But they should base their appeal on political discourse, not theology. In other words, the problem with Obama's gospel tour isn't Donnie McClurkin. It's Obama's gospel tour. If this is the future of the Democratic Party, then it might be time for an ex-Democrat movement. Monday, October 29, 2007 Two For TwoCritics of the Bush administration's "See no evil, hear no evil" policy towards Pakistan have surely taken comfort in recent headlines out of that country. Not only has opposition leader Benazir Bhutto been allowed to return from exile, thereby providing a measure of legitimacy to upcoming elections, but the Pakistani military has recently begun a major military push aimed at bringing the badlands on the Afghan border under government control. The only trouble, as this article from The New Statesman points out, is that there's no guarantee that Pakistan can survive either:
The point here, I think, is that while it's become a knee-jerk reaction to criticize the Bush administration for its mismanagement of American foreign policy, the fact is that as a result of that mismanagement, we're now faced with an array of regional crises, none of which offer any easy or straightforward solutions. The political crisis in Pakistan, as a nuclear-armed country that also happens to be essential to any longterm stabilization of Afghanistan, is definitely worth our attention. But besides the sparring match between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over unilateral strikes on Wajiristan, I haven't seen much discussion about it. Monday, October 29, 2007 The Spyglass CeilingFrom Laura Rozen's MoJo piece on sexual discrimination and the lack of transparency at the CIA, a female operative who -- like many male spooks -- had an "unauthorized relationship" with a foreign national but who -- unlike said male spooks -- lost her job because of it:
The idea that women aren't adept at getting men to reveal information they'd rather keep to themselves -- as the "old boy network" at the CIA seems to believe -- is absurd. Apparently no one at Langley has ever heard of Mata Hari. Or been married, for that matter. Rozen also points out the broader implications of the culture of secrecy at the CIA:
There are obvious tensions between the need for secrecy and the need for oversight. But the intelligence community (including the relevant Congressional committees) seem to be doing an exceptionally lousy job of finding the right balance lately. Monday, October 29, 2007 Turkey And The MullahsA short while ago, in a post about the damage we've done to our strategic alliance with Turkey, I made the mistake of suggesting that one of the dangers of alienating Turkey might be to see that country slide into theocracy. A reader left a comment to the effect that there's little likelihood of that happening. This Dissent interview with Seyla Benhabib, a Turkish political scientist, confirms that analysis:
Benhabib also briefly addresses the extent to which Turkey might serve as a model for other Arab Islamic states. Remember that the failure of the secular Arab nationalist movement, of which Turkey was an early example, directly led to the emergence of the Iranian-style Islamic revolution throughout the Arab world. And it's against the backdrop of this latter movement's inability to free the Middle East of Western influence that Osama Bin Laden's brand of Qutbism has taken root. So inasmuch as Turkey -- as a healthy, secular democracy with a modernized economy -- represents the alternative to what the jihadists offer, the question is an important one. Benhabib is optimistic, specifically as regards Syria, whose improved relations with Turkey could serve as an incentive for Bashir Assad to open his country up a bit to the world. In other words, while Andrew Sullivan is correct that a Turkey-Iran-Syria re-alignment would certainly deal a blow to American regional interests, it wouldn't necessarily result in a three-headed theocratic hydra. In fact, the opposite assumtion, that Turkey could function as a moderating influence on both Syria and Iran, is entirely plausible. Monday, October 29, 2007 Really?It turns out that for some reason they played the World Series this year, even though the Yankees had already been eliminated. And here, I'd always assumed people just lost interest at that point. As for this nonsense that the Curse is over, nothing doing. It's just a Y2K bug that still needs to be worked out. Monday, October 29, 2007 Slow Motion SuffocationMalcolm Nance is a SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) master instructor who has worked in counter-terrorism for 20 years. Here's his bio over at Small Wars Journal, which gives you an idea of his commitment to national security. And here's his long and forceful denunciation of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques". His conclusion is in the title: Waterboarding is torture... Period. Nance is no softie. Unlike the guys talking tough from the comfort of Washington offices, television studios and campaign podiums, he's personally experienced every technique under discussion, interviewed survivors of torture, and studied all the taped and written debriefings available. And here's what he has to say about what he's witnessed:
If you can, read the whole thing. If not, keep this in mind the next time someone dismisses waterboarding as a little bit of water in the detainee's face:
And here's a question for the GOP 'roid ragers. Would any one of them agree to be waterboarded? Not as part of a hypothetical scenario to prevent a terrorist attack. Just to know what they're talking about? If it's as benign as they say it is, their hands should go up as quickly as when they're asked if they'd authorize it. Sunday, October 28, 2007 Virtual ApologyEhud Olmert offered an apology to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during a meeting last week in London for any inadvertant violation of Turkish airspace during the Sept. 6 airstrike on Syria, and any "affront" that may have resulted. Aside from being Olmert's first public coments on the raid, the apology doesn't really advance the story at all. The Times of India story does include this quote fom the IAEA's Mohamed ElBaradei, though:
Can't find much to argue with there. To my mind, ElBaradei is one of the the most compelling public figures of our time. By all rights, the guy should be poring through technical reports and chairing meetings of degree-laden geeks. Instead he's been thrust into an unlikely and prominent role smack dab in the middle of three crises that will mark history -- North Korea, Iraq and Iran. And at every turn, he's refused to back down when people on every side of the issue exerted heavy pressure to try to instrumentalize him and his agency. The non-proliferation system might be in its death throes. But there's something noble about the way ElBaradei's gone about defending its integrity. Sunday, October 28, 2007 Not EnoughI'm sorry, but if this is the best the opposition to the Iraq War can manage, this war is a long way from being over. I'm increasingly convinced that protest marches are outdated as a means of achieving any sort of meaningful change. Be that as it may, any protest that can't simultaneous immobilize several major cities across the country does more harm than good to a cause of this magnitude. In an age of flash mobs and viral videos, certainly some creative mind out there can come up with something more potent than "What do we want? Peace. When do we want it? Now." Sunday, October 28, 2007 Make That Very Not Warm To The IdeaA quick followup to yesterday's post regarding the possible impact of Turkish economic sanctions on Iraqi Kurdistan. According to Today's Zaman, the Turkish Security Council has already narrowed down an eventual embargo to the energy and food sectors. There's also this passage, regarding the possible closing of the Habur border crossing and the diversion of Turkish commercial traffic to the Nusaybin border crossing with Syria:
Make no mistake about it, the Turkish-PKK crisis is piping hot and pesky. But there's a lot of arm-twisting and deal-making left to be done before it goes ballistic. Sunday, October 28, 2007 Allez!!Via Art Goldhammer over at French Politics comes word that Nicolas Sarkozy walked out of his "60 Minutes" interview with Lesley Stahl after she asked him about his divorce from Cecilia. In the "60 Minutes" clip, you can hear Stahl wondering outloud, "What was unfair?", to which Sarkozy responds by basically giving her the French version of "Talk to the hand, girlfriend." Two things. First, while it's true that French political culture respects the boundary between a politician's public and private life more than in the States, Sarkozy is the French politician most identified with putting his personal life in public view. During his long rise to power, Cecilia was never far from his side, and was considered one of his closest advisors. Her trip to Libya to negotiate the release of the Bulgarian nurses was considered an official state mission. Second, by many people's best guess, Sarkozy wasn't above using the announcement of his divorce -- which he dangled for three days before finally officially announcing the day of the first major strike in protest of one his reform packages -- for his own political advantage. Needless to say, the top story that night on the news was Sarkozy vs. Sarkozy, not Sarkozy vs. the unions. So while I've yet to hear the exact wording of Stahl's question, in some ways the Sarkozy's divorce -- at the very least inasmuch as it effects his access to a close collaborator -- is very much fair ground. His reaction shows the "dark side" of a man known for seduction but capable of strong-arm tactics. Simply put, the guy likes to get his way. When he doesn't he can be brittle and crass, both of which are on display in the clip. Sunday, October 28, 2007 Quote Of The Day"When you mix politics and religion, you get politics." Rev. Gene Carlson, describing his disillusionment with the evangelical right. Sunday, October 28, 2007 FactionsRecent reporting on the North Korean and Iranian nuclear standoffs has revealed a recurring split within the Bush administration, one that basically boils down to Condi Rice and Bob Gates on one side arguing for restraint and diplomacy, Dick Cheney on the other arguing for a more, shall we say, pugnacious approach to the problems. To the extent that the Bush administration has shown more restraint on each of these dossiers than it did in dealing with the Iraq "threat", it's because the Rice-Gates faction has proven more able to push back against the Cheney gang than Rice and Colin Powell were able to do when Don Rumsfeld was backing Cheney up. Of course, this shift is a direct result -- perhaps the most significant one -- of the November 2006 elections. The Democratic base expected the election to realign the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal government. But given the actual numbers, those expectations were probably exagerrated. On the other hand, the election did manage to realign power within the Executive. It's not quite what folks were hoping for, but given the circumstances, it's probably the only thing standing between us and a headlong rush over a neocon cliff. Saturday, October 27, 2007 Syria SnapshotsNow that administration hawks have established (in the popular imagination) a Syrian-North Korean proliferation link, it looks like the "Rice-Gates-Keep Cheney Away From The Launch Codes" faction has decided to push back. The NY Times is reporting the release of another satellite image of the alleged Syrian nuclear site, this one dating back to 2003, showing that the building believed to be a nuclear reactor was already under construction back then:
For whatever it's worth, the outfit that released the image, GeoEye, is based in Dulles, Va, a stone's throw from CIA headquarters in Langley. Its Board of Directors includes a former career CIA operative, and a Reagan-era Lt. General who worked on the SDI program. Not unusual for the private sector satellite imagery racket, I'm sure, but enough to make me wonder whether there aren't any backroom agendas being played out here. Hmmm... You think? Saturday, October 27, 2007 Relative To What?I keep seeing quotes like this one from a NY Times article describing how Turkey rejected an Iraqi delegation's proposals at their latest round of meetings designed to head off a Turkish incursion:
Trouble is, if you're Turkey, there's already a conflict in the region, and the area is pretty violent relative to other parts of Turkey. As for the negotiations, it's pretty obvious why Turkey rejected the Iraqi proposal to position American troops along the border out of hand. An American presence probably wouldn't be able to prevent the PKK from infiltrating the border, and the last thing Turkey wants is to run into a bunch of American units -- who are currently positioned out of harm's way -- if they eventually do launch an attack. Saturday, October 27, 2007 The Baghdad Embassy Fiasco, Staffing EditionWell, it looks like the Iraq War is going to force America to reinstate the draft after all, but not to fill out the ranks of the fighting forces. We've got the Reserves and the National Guard to do that. No, it's the diplomatic corps that's a little thin in Baghdad, and so far the call for volunteers hasn't exactly resulted in a stampede of applicants. So starting Nov. 12, the State Dept. will be identifying a pool of 300 "prime candidates" to fill the 40-50 vacancies expected in Baghdad next year. If after ten days not enough people out of the initial pool put their names on the dotted line, the Dept will basically fill the remaining spots by assignment. Anyone refusing the order to go will face dismissal:
Those ordered to Baghdad will still receive the incentives such as hardship pay and choice of future assignments offered to volunteers. There's been no response yet from the union representing career diplomats, but it has expressed concern about the possibility of this kind of posting in the past. I imagine that most of the posts to be filled are entry- to mid-level, so should the move result in a hemmorhage of qualified personnel, the damage done to the American diplomatic corps will be felt in the longterm, when these people would have graduated to higher-level positions. Just another way the Bush presidency has deferred payments for its disastrous policies to America's future generations. Friday, October 26, 2007 Good News Of The DayGenarlow Wilson was freed from prison by the Georgia Supreme Court today. The Attorney General for Georgia declined to appeal the case. Friday, October 26, 2007 South Of The BorderThe Turkish military is massing along the Iraqi border and reports of limited cross-border operations are already trickling out. But I'm still doubtful the Turks will mount a large scale military incursion. Why? Because given the choice, they'd much rather have the Kurds deal with the PKK than do it themselves. And while the threat of military action has certainly gotten everyone's attention, economic sanctions -- which Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan hinted at this week -- could prove to be much more effective to making that happen:
To give an idea of the kind of pressure Ankara can exert, simply closing the Habur border crossing for a week in September cost the Kurdish region $1 million per day in economic losses (figures on p. 20 here). The kinds of sanctions being floated now -- recalling Turkish nationals, blockading electricity sales -- would dwarf those figures. And while economic sanctions would take their toll on the Turkish companies doing business in northern Iraq as well, the same would be true of a miltary incursion. Needless to say, Turkey's aggressive military posturing has helped them make the PKK a priority south of the border. But I'd be surprised to see them resort to a military operation before giving economic pressure a chance to achieve results. Friday, October 26, 2007 Down On The FarmIn case you haven't seen it yet, here's the new John McCain ad playing in Nevada: Ezra Klein, in an appearance on Hardball, responded by saying:
Unfortunately, that's the fight the other side does want to have, because it's one that polarizes important electoral demographics (presumably in their favor), as the other members of the Hardball panel made forcefully clear. As I've mentioned before, it's the kind of polarization that has not yet occurred in the Iraq War debate, where opposition cuts across cultural lines. But knowing this would be a subtext, if not the subtext, of the 2008 campaign, it's hard to understand how Hillary Clinton could have set herself up for such an easy attack. The intellectual response to McCain's ad is that Woodstock represents America as much as the US Army does. Is there anything more patriotic than Jimi Hendrix's version of the Star Spangled Banner? Anything un-American about gathering on the farm to celebrate the bounty of the American soil, which is symbolically what the event amounts to? Obviously, that won't play very well in Nebraska, but what might is pointing out a simple historical fact. The imprint America has left on the world in the post-War era begins with it's rebels. Starting with James Dean, Marlon Brando and Marilyn Monroe and continuing on through the Sixties rock 'n roll generation, the hip hop & graffiti revolution, and the internet upstarts, America's cultural legacy is one of freedom, reinvention, and the embrace of a certain type of experience that can best be described as carnal. That this rebellious streak has always wrestled with the Puritan code was obvious ever since Nathaniel Hawthorne sent Hester Prynne out into the world with a scarlet "A" sown on the breast of her shirt. Woodstock and Vietnam were inseparable, even if they were by nature hostile to one another. But America has evolved since then, and Ezra Klein is a good example of how. The opposition to the war, young and old, is well-groomed, articulate and respectful. No one's trying to tear down the foundations of Western civilzation. Museums are cemetaries, built to preserve artifacts from a dead past. The fact that we're now building one for Woodstock shows how much things have changed since then, not how much they've stayed the same. Friday, October 26, 2007 Nuclear FingerprintsVia Jeffrey Lewis over at Arms Control Wonk comes this NY Times article on the pressure the Bush administration is feeling from the right over its North Korean deal. Here's the key graf:
From the moment North Korea was mentioned in connection to whatever Syria was doing out in the desert that warranted an Israeli airstrike, it was clear that there was more at stake here than just regional nuclear politics. Lewis goes through the recent satellite imagery and finds it inconclusive, whether as proof that the structure was a nuclear facility or that it was based on North Korean designs. (The fact that Syria has apparently swept the site clean probably means we'll never know for sure.) He also points out that the intelligence we've heard about so far has been leaked by the Bush administration insiders who lost the internal debate, that is those who argue for a tougher stance on North Korea and by extension Iran (ie. Cheney et al). That's not to say that the intelligence is false. But keep this in mind as more of it gets leaked. Thursday, October 25, 2007 Allegedly Stupid, TooHere's the lede from today's LA Times article on the fallout from James Watson's remarks on race and intelligence:
Here's the offending passage from the Sunday Times profile/interview:
Now, I understand that the first remark is supported by enough research data to make it defendable, even if it is both highly contested and extremely provocative. Indeed, the context of the quotation as well as the profile in general demonstrate that Watson is no stranger to provocative, even inappropriate, declarations. But I just don't see how that second remark can be considered anything but flat out racist. There's no "allegedly" about it; it's the real McCoy. Even if Watson himself isn't necessarily a virulent racist, as evidenced by this passage which closely follows the above citation:
I don't know enough about the medical research community to know if there really is a shortage of qualified black candidates or not. But Watson strikes me as an Al Campanis-type, albeit a more articulate version. Here's a man who obviously does have a conscience, seems to have gone out of his way to advance the careers of individual black and female proteges, but in a moment of candor lets slip some wildly outlandish views on race, and elsewhere in the profile some veiled misogyny. As Watson himself said, the change in leadership at the lab is overdue. But imagine he weren't a 79 year old man at the tail end of his career, but someone with years ahead of him. Does the punishment fit the crime? Again, his actions seem to have been beyond reproach, and there's every reason to believe he'd engage in even more outreach and recruitment now that he's under the microscope. He also immediately took responsibility for his comments, expressing his dismay and regret at the sight of his own words in print. Is it possible the guy can get a pass on something like this? Update: Based on this comment from one of Josh Marshall's readers, I take it back. Screw Watson. The guy deserved it. Thursday, October 25, 2007 Off Their MedsThe slow trickle of satellite imagery and intelligence leaks about the Syrian site bombed by Israel last month is either increasingly incriminating or increasingly misleading. For the time being, I don't think there's any way for those of us without access to classified source material to know which. Should the claims of a nascent Syrian nuclear program prove true, though, it doesn't really matter how far off the actual threat was. The fact that they would even think of going down the nuclear road demonstrates just how unhinged the entire region has gotten, all the more so in light of the ease with which the facility was detected and destroyed. It would also seem to make the case that the threat of loose Russian nukes winding up in the hands of rogue states, the scenario so dear to Hollywood's heart, is largely overblown. Because no one in their right mind would go through all the effort of building a warhead, let alone a warhead that stands absolutely no chance of ever seeing the light of day, if all they had to do was mail order one from a down-on-his-luck Russian nuclear scientist. Thursday, October 25, 2007 HousekeepingI finally got around to adding an in-site search field on the main page, link pages, and archive pages. Sorry it took so long. I think that just about does it, though. Since the site is 100% homemade, from the coding to the graphic design, it always helps to know if there are any glitches or interface issues, especially with Mac browsers. I can't promise I can fix them, but it helps if I know about them. Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of you who have made Headline Junky a regular part of your online reading fix. So much of the satisfaction of doing this is knowing that it's appreciated. And since the circle of regular readers has long since expanded beyond people who I know personally, it would be a real treat to find out a little bit about who actually stops by. So if you're not too shy, by all means drop an e-mail to introduce yourselves. Wednesday, October 24, 2007 Rudy & MarioMaybe it's been floated out there and I just missed it, but I haven't seen anyone really mention Rudy Giuliani's endorsement of Mario Cuomo in the 1994 NY Gubernatorial election as something that might come back to haunt him among the GOP base. Not only is Cuomo anathema to the right, the man who beat him in that election, George Pataki, seems to be pretty well-regarded among Republicans. Granted, with all the skeletons in Rudy's closet, it's only natural that this one might fly under the radar. But sooner or later, you'd think that someone would make some hay with it. Wednesday, October 24, 2007 Saint BenazirI've been meaning to post about the strange cult of personality that's suddenly sprung up around Benazir Bhutto in the American press. Ken Silverstein just made that unnecessary. Getting run out of office by a military junta doesn't automatically make a crooked politician straight. Neither do backroom deals for immunity from prosecution. Bhutto's our horse in this race because, as a twice-elected former prime minister with a large and loyal following, she adds a useful element of credibility to the Pakistani electoral process, whether or not she brings her Swiss IRA's back home with her. Wednesday, October 24, 2007 The Invisible HandThe consensus among Afghan President Hamid Karzai, European diplomats, and the US military is that eradicating Afghan poppy crops through an aerial spraying campaign could very well provoke a serious backlash among peasant growers against both the Afghan government and NATO forces. So needless to say, the Bush administration is energetically lobbying Karzai to implement just such a crop-spraying program. And as The Times reported a few weeks ago, Karzai is beginning to crack. Which ain't good. Here's what a new Army War College monograph has to say about the consequences of the manual crop-clearing eradication program to date:
The spraying program will only make matters worse since it will very likely destroy food crops planted among the poppies, and can be used to stoke fears of American chemical attacks among a suggestible populace. There's no disagreement about the scope of the problem. Since the overthrow of the Taliban, Afghan poppy production has flooded the world market, now supplying 92% of global illegal trade. The resulting windfall -- $3 billion (35% of Afghan GDP) in 2006 -- is increasingly funding the Taliban either directly or indirectly through protection rackets and payoffs. The legal market for opium-based medical products offers little solution, since it's too small to absorb the Afghan supply, offers only 20% of the illegal market price, and is already saturated anyway. So here's a thought: Instead of lowballing growers with legal market rates, why not bid the price of the poppy harvest up by buying it from them at illegal rates? Black markets exist when profit and demand justify the risks involved in breaking the law. Raising the cost of the raw material will reduce profits, and the higher cost passed along to the end consumer will lower demand. It has the advantage of being a market-based solution. And it probably works out cheaper than the eradication program, aid packages and useless interdiction efforts combined. Wednesday, October 24, 2007 The Price Is RightSo, how do you smooth things over when you've gone and ruffled a good friend's feathers? Well, if you're Tom Lantos and the friend in question is Turkey, you sponsor a bill to give them three decommissioned guided missile frigates worth a total of $375 million free of charge, as well as a fourth one at a $100 million dollar discount. That's right, $500 million worth of naval hardware for the bargain price of $28 million. It's not the first time we've done it, and part of the reasoning behind the gift is that it encourages Turkey to order the American-made attack helicopters that supplement the frigates. But still, doesn't something about the timing just give you the feeling we really don't want Turkey going into northern Iraq? Wednesday, October 24, 2007 Someone's Bombing, Lord?I know I've been posting a lot on Turkey and the PKK the past few weeks. But despite my best intentions to stay away from this story, I'm by nature drawn to hotspots. And besides, how could I pass on this?
It's becoming intuitively clear that the US is going to have to actually do something and get its hands dirty in order to keep this simmering crisis from boiling over. I'd assumed it would be some sort of symbolic strike. But cruise missiles and bombing raids would probably do the trick, too. On the Turkish side of the border, anyway. I don't think it will play too well in Irbil. Wednesday, October 24, 2007 Slow BoilAccording to Gareth Porter, the PKK attack on a Turkish base over the weekend was part of a calculated and clever plan to force Turkey to the negotiating table. Coming just days after the Turkish parliament approved a military intervention, the raid as well as the apparently pre-meditated decision to take prisoners were designed to push Turkey to the brink of an incursion in order to mobilize a subsequent diplomatic backlash against the use of force. If it's true, it would seem to have worked for the time being. I'm not sure just what concessions the PKK can realistically hope to extract, whether directly or through intermediaries. But I've become increasingly convinced that Turkey will make quite a bit of noise about this -- including some border shelling -- before eventually hammering out some sort of cooperative agreement with the Iraqi central government, the Kurdistan Regional Government, and the US. But the threat of an attack can't be sustained for very long without some sort of results, otherwise it loses its credibility. That, plus the fact that winter conditions are quickly setting in on the border, make time of the essence. Wednesday, October 24, 2007 Center CourtIn 2004, Howard Dean famously declared that he represented the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party before he ultimately crashed and burned. This year, at least two Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) are visibly if subtly courting the Democratic wing of the Republican Party. Now, to be fair, the meat of their policy proposals are soundly Democratic. But between Hillary's robust national security stance and Obama's emphasis on bi-lateral consensus, two of the three Democratic heavyweights are making serious overtures to moderate Republicans. So what gives? Democratic anger over the Bush years and the Iraq War doesn't seem to have subsided in the three years since then. And all the forecasts for the 2008 Congressional and Senatorial elections seem to be pretty encouraging for a workable Democratic majority. My guess is that it reflects a generalized trend among most of the major democracies at the moment (England appears to be an exception) whereby the margin between right and left is so narrow that elections now turn on a candidate's ability to cement together a center-straddling coalition. In a parliamentary system, that often also gives an inordinate amount of power to parties on the extremes of the political spectrum. In the case of the American two-party system, on the other hand, a closely divided electorate exclusively inflates the importance of the center. I'm a little surprised that Clinton and Obama's strategy doesn't seem to be hurting them at all in the Democratic primary, and that John Edwards' more genuine vintage of traditional Democratic values hasn't played better. But it seems to corroborate the soundness of the strategy. Tuesday, October 23, 2007 Framing The DebateA reader took me to task in the Comments for suggesting that there's some doubt as to whether or not civilian and military casualties have decreased in Iraq. Which made me confront the fact that I'd read the recent casualty reports (which like this AP dispatch have consistently documented fewer deaths) with skepticism, and confront the possibility that I've begun to filter information on the war through a failure-tinted lens. Now as Anthony Cordesman points out in the AP story, judging the war's progress by casualty figures is reductionist. Internal and external displacement, civil cohesiveness, infrastructure, the rule of law, Sunni-Shiite power-sharing, the 'Kurdish exception' -- all of these problems need to be solved before the experiment in statehood that we call the Iraq War can be judged a success. Add to that the multitiude of semi-autonomous militias, not to mention the enormous number of detainees (somewhere near 50,000, based on this and this), that will eventually have to be successfully reintegrated into Iraqi civil society and it's clear that there's still quite a ways to go before Iraq resembles anything close to a truly functioning state. And after we've covered all that ground, we'll still only be at the beginning of finding out if the whole gamble was worth it, because only then will we know just what role this new Iraq will play on the strategic chessboard of the Middle East. Still, I think it's a healthy exercise for opponents of the war to ask ourselves whether, as the right has claimed, we've become attached to the idea of failure. Whether we've become fixated on the bad news of the past four years to the point that we can't see any positive developments. And whether we run the risk of getting seriously outflanked by the Republican 'roid ragers in 2008 should the war succeed. The answer, I think, is fairly obvious from the above list of problems yet to be solved in Iraq. We're a long ways from being out of the woods. But the value of such an exercise is that it illustrates to what extent we've been guilty of political and analytic laziness. In focusing so much on the war's many operational failures, we've given the right an opening to define success operationally. Reducing violence is a pre-requisite to success, not a result of it. If the casualty figures hold, we will still only find ourselves where the Bush administration expected -- even claimed -- to be back in June of 2003: Confronting the challenges of a stabilized post-Saddam Iraq, which remain many and complex. And what if, five years from now, Iraq is a stable state with an intricate fabric of partnerships, alliances and influences, none of which are openly hostile to American interests? Will it have been worth it? I think the war's opponents (and the Democratic Presidential candidates) had better come up with an answer to that question, because it will be asked come 2008. And as unlikely as the prospect has seemed for the past four years, the operational data now emerging just might support wishful thinking. My answer is a categorical no. The status quo in March 2003 did not justify the loss of life, resources, influence, goodwill, and strategic standing that we've suffered as a result of the invasion and its aftermath. It's time to start re-framing the debate based on those larger issues. Because those are the ones that we'll still face long after the last flag-draped coffin is lowered into the ground. Tuesday, October 23, 2007 The Essential PowerJason over at Voices of Reason brought this Walter Russell Mead article to my attention. The title alone (Failing Upwards: Relax, America will survive George W. Bush) is enough to calm the spirit. The characterization of American foreign policy as a sort of bumbling, stumbling Mr. Magoo that's historically managed to bungle its way to global dominance is pure genius. Then there's this:
It will take some time to know to what degree the Bush years have damaged America's influence in the world, and whether that damage is permanent or not. But if I had to single out one determinant factor it would be the one that Mead mentions: How well we fit. Mead is correct when he says that the international system is strong, and that the US is its essential power. But the world has the capacity to change more radically, more quickly now for a variety of technological and ideological reasons. Potential challenges are as diverse as the rapid advances in the developing world to the regressive, anti-modernist movements springing up everywhere from Kansas to Karachi. Toss in the kind of destructive forces that can now be harnessed by non-state actors and the possibility of radical, paradigm-shifting events can't be ruled out. That kind of volatility demands a commitment to calm, measured policies that provide a benchmark of stability for a world in need of reassurance. Not exactly how you'd describe the Bush administration's legacy. Eight years is a long time, long enough to mark the spirit of a generation. And the generation that has come of age worldwide during the Bush years is a generation that sees America as a problem, and one that has learned to look elsewhere for the solution. Like Winston Churchill's adage about democracy, the question now is whether it will find a better alternative. Tuesday, October 23, 2007 Who You Gonna Call?Okay, quick. Take a look at this graphic and guess: a) What it represents; b) Where it came from. Now click through for the answer.
The work of a nation. The center of intelligence. Indeed. Via PSP's Photo Blog. Monday, October 22, 2007 EF PutinThis article from Asia Times Online's Kaveh Afrasiabi on the recent shuffling in Iran's nuclear negotiating team raised my spirits a bit:
Afrasiabi explains that Iran's factional infighting on the nuclear dossier threatens to seriously weaken its negotiating posture by creating confusion and paralysis. It's not all good news, because derailed or frozen negotiations can lead to a lose-lose outcome on the actual conflict. It is reassuring, though, to hear that there are weaknesses in the Iranian position in light of how clumsy our own handling of the crisis has been. But that's not all:
If Bavand is correct, Larijani is skeptical that Iran can count on Russian and Chinese support when the chips are down, an analysis seconded by Steve Clemons in this post on The Washington Note:
Toss in Olmert's lightning visit to Moscow and it looks like there's a lot of behind the scenes maneuvering taking place. The kind of maneuvering that makes Iran seem more like a prop being used by the big kids on the block to hammer out their arrangement than a tipping point in global power alignments. One thing the past week does demonstrate very clearly, though, is that when Vladimir Putin gets pissed, people pay attention. Monday, October 22, 2007 One Down, One To GoI won't venture too far into the outcome of the Polish elections, since I admittedly wasn't even aware that they'd taken place until a friend from Poland asked me what I thought of them. I will say that the twins seriously creeped me out, so I'm glad I'll only have to be reading (or not reading, as the case may be) about one of them from here on out. And while they did seem to do a good job of defending Poland's interests in the EU, they did it in such a confrontational way that I doubt that too many European heads of state will be sad to see them go. Monday, October 22, 2007 Dead PresidentsIn a stunner out of China, Hu Jintao won re-election as head of the Communist Party today. All kidding aside, it's important to remember that unlike in America, where an incumbent who fails to win re-election faces a future of lucrative speaking fees and hefty honoraria, the motivation for quite a few incumbents around the globe to stay in office is that the alternative is to wind up dead. Think about it. You don't read about too many ex-presidents in Africa, and the ones you do read about are the ones who managed to reach the border (and their Swiss bank accounts) ahead of the firing squad. One way or another, you generally leave the job in a casket. Monday, October 22, 2007 On The Down LowI mentioned earlier, in relation to the recent PKK attack on Turkish forces that left twelve Turkish soldiers dead and eight missing, that it's the captured soldiers that are more likely to have an inflammatory impact on that situation. So I wasn't at all surprised to note that in the English-language Turkish press, as well as in the Turkish military press briefings, the emphasis has been on the casualties. The only mention I found of the missing soldiers was this paragraph from Today's Zaman:
Even after this deadly attack, I still get the impression that Turkey is ready and willing to exhaust all the possible diplomatic avenues to avoid engaging in a cross-border operation, mainly because it's in no one's interests, least of all their own, to send Turkish forces into northern Iraq. My observation that the captured soldiers turning up in Kurdish hands would increase the odds of such an operation (a reflection that Andrew Sullivan described as "obvious" -- ouch!) was mainly in reference to previous posts to this effect. I also mentioned that America urgently needs to make this an American issue, even at the risk of getting our hands dirty and stepping on some (Kurdish) toes. It might very well be that no one can actually root out the PKK from their mountain bases in northern Iraq -- not the Kurds, not the Turks, and not us. But if we don't offer some concrete military assistance to at least give the appearance that we're trying to do that, it's hard to imagine the Turks' sitting on their hands for much longer. Update: Click "Publish", find story. The Turkish military has just confirmed that the 8 soldiers are missing. It also seems that a PKK news outlet has published their names. Better keep those raincoats handy. Monday, October 22, 2007 Spiritual AtrophyCount me among those who read this Kevin Drum post, wanted to write something about it, and simply felt like I'd already said everything there is to say so many times in similar contexts that I just kind of let the whole thing pass. The collective silence led Kevin to wonder why the story's not getting any legs:
I get the feeling there's a certain amount of "outrage fatigue" that's gathered on some of these stories. We've reached the phase where the initial shock of finding out that we're torturing confessions out of prisoners, both innocent and guilty, has now worn off. The problem is that that initial shock mainly succeeded in changing our definition of, and not our fundamental policy towards, torture. "America still tortures prisoners" just doesn't have the same impact as "America tortures prisoners". Worse still, it aggravates the sense of powerlessness that comes from being unable to stop our highest ideals from being trampled on in the name of protecting our highest ideals. But Kevin's right. It's worth a mention. Monday, October 22, 2007 What's Good For The GooseThe point Matthew Yglesias is making here takes on added significance in light of recent suggestions that the pretext for an eventual attack on Iran might end up being a fabricated or provoked "hot incident" involving US and Iranian forces on the Iraq-Iran border. Having expressed his hope for a diplomatic resolution to the PKK problem, Yglesias drops this nugget:
Not according to Condoleeza Rice, who told Turkish Prime Minister Reccep Tayyip Erdogan that "we do not believe unilateral cross-border operations are the best way to address this issue." There are obvious differences between the PKK, which is not an official organ of the Kurdistan Regional Government, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards (although by some accounts the latter do operate with a certain autonomy vis a vis the Iranian government). Even so, it will be useful to recall our response to Turkey's anger and frustration should such an event take place. Monday, October 22, 2007 Raw Sewage AlertIf the border between Turkey and Iraq can best be described as a heap of explosives soaked with kerosene, the kind of attack that just took place there might turn out to be the spark that sets it all off. Dead soldiers are hard enough to manage in terms of public opinion, especially twelve of them at once. Captured soldiers, though, tend to push things over the brink and provoke reprisals. If the eight missing Turkish troops turn up in Kurdish hands -- or worse yet, mistreated in Kurdish hands -- the odds of a Turkish incursion (and the urgency of finding an American response to the PKK's campaign of provocation) will rise dramatically. < |
RSS Feeds