'Will Turkey Invade Northern Iraq?'

That's the question asked by AP reporter Christopher Torchia in this article and according to the Times Online, the Turkish prime minister hasn't ruled it out.

This past Sunday, the New York Times editorial The Road Home (which finally called for troop withdrawals from Iraq - a very hollow and far too tardy appeal from a newspaper that published Bush's Iraq war propaganda as it if was factual) included this suggestion:

The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.

That's not going to happen if the Turkish government continues to feel betrayed by the US and threatened by PKK militants in northern Iraq. So, while the NYT editors seem to think that Turkey isn't shouldering any of the burden, they refuse to even acknowledge the current reality on the border.

On Monday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Turkish television that Turkey would take whatever steps were necessary if the United States fails to fulfill its pledge to help in the fight against Kurdish rebels, but he appeared reluctant to order an invasion before the elections.

"We are seeing with great grief that America remains quiet as Turkey struggles against terrorism. Because there were promises given to us, and they need to be kept. If not, we can take care of our own business," Erdogan said. "We hope there won't be an extraordinary situation before the election. But there'll be a new evaluation after the elections."

Flashback to this 2005 story and you don't exactly have to wonder why the relationship between the US government and Turkey is on very shaky ground:

US blames Turkey for Iraq chaos
March 22, 2005

The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has blamed the inability to gain permission to invade Iraq through Turkey for the power of the insurgency that the US now faces.
[...]
Asked on Sunday what he considered to be the greatest mistake of the war, Mr Rumsfeld told ABC: "Had we been successful in getting the 4th Infantry Division to come in through Turkey ... I believe that a considerably smaller number of the Baathists and the regime elements would have escaped.

"And as a result the insurgency would have been at a lesser intensity than it is today."

Typical Rumsfeld: blaming everybody else for his own incompetence.

So now we have the NYT wagging its finger at Turkey, telling it that it's for its own good to help the Bush administration get the hell out of Iraq when, all along, Bushco has either ignored Turkey's pleas for help and/or blamed that country for the mistakes made by the "flowers and candy" neocons.

So, tell me again how the NYT has changed its stripes from being a Bushco propaganda mouthpiece?

And, if you want a picture of the possible effects of a Turkish invasion, read this. The stakes are high for all involved and this is a front that the US military is not prepared to deal with, as the article states. Meanwhile, the only thing the Pentagon seems to want to do is play the numbers denial game about how many Turkish troops are actually on the border. Fat lot of good that does. The Pentagon denies every initial war report about anything that might be Bad News™ propped up by the state department's spokespuppet who has offered absolutely nothing about how to deal with a possible incursion. Useless, as usual.

The US has a "Special Envoy for Countering the PKK", retired Air Force General Joseph Ralston, appointed in 2006 and whom the authors of this Harper's article wonder aloud about his seeming lobbying on behalf of Lockheed Martin to the Turkish government.

As a former supreme allied commander for NATO and vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he would appear overqualified for the job.

Then came the mid-September announcement (just weeks after Ralston's appointment) that Turkey would be purchasing thirty new F-16's from Lockheed Martin. Weeks later, the Turkish government ruled out purchasing any Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes. This leaves only one option—Lockheed Martin's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. A deal between Lockheed and Turkey would be worth as much as $10 billion.

Did Special Envoy Ralston lobby on behalf of Lockheed Martin during his encounters with Turkish officials? It seems likely. Ralston sits on the Board of Directors of Lockheed Martin and serves as vice chairman of The Cohen Group, a lobbying firm that has represented Lockheed since 2004. On August 11 of this year, seventeen days before he was named Special Envoy, Ralston was appointed to The Cohen Group team that lobbies for Lockheed.

So, just how effective is Ralston when it comes to actually advising Turkey if his main function seems to be enabling US war profiteers? It appears that his "special envoy" status doesn't have much to do with what his mission is supposed to be - unless Turkey plans to use those Lockheed Martin planes to attack the PKK within Iraq. Who knows? I guess we'll have to wait until after the Turkish elections to find out what's going to happen.

As for the NYT, which is still shilling for Bushco on the Iran invasion front thanks to several columns by Michael Gordon - a willing leftover from the Iraq war propaganda days - it will take more than one sorry "we support Iraq withdrawal now" editorial to restore its seriously damaged credibility. If its editors couldn't even research the Turkish situation to the extent that they would have had to conclude that Turkey's government isn't in any mood right now to facilitate the withdrawal, their suggestions for such a strategy certainly can't be taken all that seriously and they obviously need to learn how to use Google instead of relying on whoever is whispering administration rhetoric in their ears.
 

Will al-Maliki be brought down by a no confidence vote?

So, you've got Moqtada al-Sadr vowing to block the draft Iraq oil law, with al-Maliki trying to fight back by claiming Baathists have infiltrated al-Sadr's movement with "talks in recent weeks about forming a Shiite-Kurdish coalition that would sideline al-Sadr's movement" but now CBS is reporting that al-Maliki may be facing an upcoming no-confidence vote led by Sunni politicians.

CBS News has learned that on July 15, they plan to ask for a no-confidence vote in the Iraqi parliament as the first step to bringing down the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Even those closest to the Iraqi prime minister, from his own party, admit the political situation is desperate.

"I feel there is no strategy, so the people become hopeless," said Faliy al Fayadh, an MP from the Dawa Party. "You can live without petrol, without electricity, but you can't live without hope."

Iraq's prime minister is facing his most serious challenge yet. The no-confidence vote will be requested by the largest block of Sunni politicians, who are part of a broad political alliance called the Iraq Project. What they want is a new government run by ministers who are appointed for their expertise, not their party loyalty.

The Iraq Project is known to the highest levels of the U.S. government. CBS News has learned it was discussed in detail on Vice President Dick Cheney's most recent visit to Baghdad, when he met with the Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi.
[...]
Leaders of the Iraq Project claim they have the necessary votes to force al-Maliki to resign, but that has yet to be tested in parliament. For now, the U.S. is still standing by the Iraqi leader – publicly at least.

It's no surprise that the Bush administration would try to throw al-Maliki off the bus since he cannot guarantee passage of the oil law - the raison d'etre for this war. The question remains then: who will Bushco Cheney install as a replacement for al-Maliki? And how will Iraq's Shiites react if a Sunni leader is chosen? And how will that help with getting the oil law passed since Azzaman reports, "Sunni Scholars have issued a decree branding anyone accepting the law a traitor and Sunni members of parliament, who have already boycotted its sessions, have vowed to resist the law." Via Reuters we learn that a Sunni lawmaker resigned his post on the energy panel on Saturday in opposition to the draft oil law.

Since Bushco has been planning al-Maliki's ouster for months, as LA Times reporter Paul Richter reported in May, this farce about bringing democracy to Iraq can obviously be put to rest now.

WASHINGTON — As Iraq's government compiles a record of failure, the Bush administration is under growing pressure to intervene to rearrange Baghdad's dysfunctional political order, or even install a new leadership.

Publicly, administration officials say they remain committed to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, even though after a year in office, his elected government has failed to complete any important steps toward political reconciliation — the legislative "benchmarks" sought by U.S. officials.

But privately, some U.S. officials acknowledge that the congressional clamor to find another approach will increase sharply in coming months if no progress is made toward tamping down sectarian violence, bringing more minority Sunnis into the government and fairly dividing up the nation's oil resources.

Intervention "is the eternal temptation for the Americans," said one U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing internal deliberations. "As we get closer and closer to the fall, and the benchmarks are not met … there will be a growing appeal to the idea that if we can replace the top guy, we can get back on track."

Although U.S. officials vow not to meddle in the government they helped to create, they have brought their influence to bear again and again, including in Maliki's selection as prime minister in early 2006. In January of this year, top U.S. officials considered, and narrowly rejected, a proposal to try to reorganize the fractious political order around a new moderate coalition.
[...]
Americans could spur change through a multitude of diplomatic channels and could use their influence with other Iraqi groups and leaders to shake up the political order in Baghdad. For instance, Washington could encourage a parliamentary no-confidence vote on Maliki, then quietly work a new coalition to choose a leader to its liking, analysts said.
[...]
The Bush administration could quietly apply its influence in choosing a new prime minister if Maliki's government fell as the result of a no-confidence vote. Under parliamentary rules, only 50 lawmakers are needed to call such a vote. The government falls if it does not win support from half of the 275 members of the body.

All of those purple fingers were just a mirage.

And, in the meantime, "senior administration officials" (WH leakers throwing out trial balloons to gauge the public's reaction) have told the WaPo that Bushco is lowering expectations for what can actually be accomplished in Iraq this year - contradicting its loudmouth blabbering about imposed benchmarks expected of Iraq's government as well as the US military and its whack-a-mole surge - in an attempt to stop more Republican rats from abandoning ship. "Shaving yardsticks", it's called. I call it "refusing to admit defeat".

The blame game goes on and on:

According to several senior officials who agreed to discuss the situation in Iraq only on the condition of anonymity, the political goals that seemed achievable earlier this year remain hostage to the security situation. If the extreme violence were to decline, Iraq's political paralysis might eventually subside. "If they are arguing, accusing, gridlocking," one official said, "none of that would mean the country is falling apart if it was against the backdrop of a stabilizing security situation."

From a military perspective, however, the political stalemate is hampering security. "The security progress we're making is real," said a senior military intelligence official in Baghdad. "But it's only in part of the country, and there's not enough political progress to get us over the line in September."

Here's the new meme now:

In their September report, sources said, Petraeus and Crocker intend to emphasize how security and politics are intertwined, and how progress in either will be incremental. In that context, the administration will offer new measures of progress to justify continuing the war effort.

"There are things going on that we never could have foreseen," said one official, who argued that the original benchmarks set by Bush six months ago -- and endorsed by the Maliki government -- are not only unachievable in the short term but also irrelevant to changing the conditions in Iraq.

Bang your head against the wall. I'll wait.

Top administration officials are aware that the strategy's stated goal -- using U.S. forces to create breathing space for Iraqi political reconciliation -- will not be met by September, said one person fresh from a White House meeting. But though some, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have indicated flexibility toward other options, including early troop redeployments, Bush has made no decisions on a possible new course.

And that's news because...? Someone honestly expects Mr Stay The Course to do something "new"? How naive.

This administration only has a few choice cards up its sleeve and after having power for 6 years, it's used all of them - every single one of them jokers. So, what do you do after you've so mismanaged your illegal war of choice, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people? One thing: make sure your oil buddies abscond with as much profiteering as they can from a country you've turned into a living nightmare while going off to write your memoir about how misunderstood you were.