At Least We Have The Kurds

Unless Bob Novak is just making things up, his congressional sources are telling him that key members have congress have been briefed on a Pentagon plan under which "U.S. Special Forces are to work with the Turkish Army to suppress the Kurds' guerrilla campaign" against Turkey. The strategic pretzel thus acquires another twist. We're giving Israel billions of additional dollars to get them to not object to us selling advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia. We're selling the Saudis the weapons to check Iranian influence.

Meanwhile, we're complaining that the Saudis are undermining Maliki's government in Iraq. The Saudis are doing that in order to check what they see as Iranian influence. Maliki wants us to sack our commanding general in Iraq or, at least, to stop arming what he sees as anti-government Sunni rebels. We think we need to arm those rebels to check al-Qaeda influence. And now our special forces are going to attack Kurds -- along with Israelis, the one group in the region that seems to genuinely welcome American influence -- ostensibly in order to head off a more dramatic Turkish intervention.

Is the intersection of these trends -- the logical extension of these colliding agendas -- really more frightening than the prospect of just leaving?

Comments

Edelman, a Cheney guy, sure has been in the news a lot of late...

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 9:48 AM

I think Bush is going to tear a rotator cuff if he keeps throwing money this hard. Whatever happened to four days rest?

Posted by steve duncan | July 30, 2007 9:51 AM

When they write the story of Team Cheney, they'll have to note that while they were bureaucratic ninjas of legendary skills, when their plans hit contact with the world outside the bubble of government, they truly have been the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

My bolding:

Edelman's listeners were stunned. Wasn't this risky? He responded he was sure of success, adding that the U.S. role could be concealed

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 9:52 AM

And the plan is to drive the Kurds into Iraq, or Iran, or Syria, or, uh,... off the edge of the flat earth... or, uh, something.

Posted by MattF | July 30, 2007 9:59 AM

The Bush-Cheney imperial project is falling apart by the seams everyday!

Posted by Justin X | July 30, 2007 10:27 AM

I wouldn't believe the fascist c***sucker Robert Novak, member of the fascist Opus Dei organization, if he said that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.

Posted by SLC | July 30, 2007 11:32 AM

"I wouldn't believe the fascist c***sucker Robert Novak, member of the fascist Opus Dei organization, if he said that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow."

Novak is a douchebag with a lousy ideology, but he's an excellent reporter.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 11:35 AM

Re "Wasn't this risky? He responded he was sure of success, adding that the U.S. role could be concealed and always would be denied"
---------------
Ah, yes. In the famous words of Edén Pastora

"Everytheeng CIA touches turns to Shit"

Posted by Don Williams | July 30, 2007 11:50 AM

This post reminds me of one of the truly insane justifications for the Iraq war, which was that the status quo in the Middle East was untenable, and that the US could benefit just by "creating change." I mean people literally used terminology like "stir the pot." As we see here, causing authoritarian structures to collapse causes instability in the best of circumstances. When the cleanup is handled by Jerry Bremer, well....

Posted by Freddie | July 30, 2007 12:02 PM

"stir the pot"

Kick the wasps' nest is more like it.

Posted by Jackmormon | July 30, 2007 12:12 PM

While Bush's plan to intervene with Special Forces does sound crazy, what does pulling out of Iraq have to do with anything? Whether we stay in Iraq or not, we'll want to keep the Kurds and Turks from fighting, since they're both US allies. I don't understand why we can't just put diplomatics pressure (i.e. threatening them) on the Kurds to crack down on the guerrillas, but it does make sense for the US to be involved in smoothing over the Kurd-Turk conflict.

Maybe Matt's point is that we should just let the Turks crush the Kurds? Matt doesn't say this, but he does seem to be unhappy that we have allies with conflicting interests. I don't see how we achieve a harmonious perfect unity of interests other than by throwing some of our allies overboard.

Posted by Ragout | July 30, 2007 12:24 PM

Nope. I still prefer "we need to defeat the evildoers."

Posted by Bill | July 30, 2007 12:27 PM

Following in the footsteps of Bruce Fein and Brad DeLong, and imitating Cato the Elder's famous addendum to every speech, "Carthago est Delenda," I will make sure that every post that I add to a blog will close with: "Impeach Bush, Cheney, & Gonzales, now!" Every day the daily papers reveal one Federal agency after another grinding to hault and growing increasingly incompetent (FAA, Passport Office, Social Security Administration, GSA, CDC, Fish and Wildlife service, etc. etc. as the chronies and ideologues that run them starve them of resources and make policy decisions based on politics, enriching friends, and/or fundamentalist theology.) And now even Robert, Prince of Darkness, Novak seems to questioning whether we are being governend by a group in the grips of a mass delusion. Impeach Bush, Cheney, & Gonzales, now!

Posted by Rickster Sherpa | July 30, 2007 12:28 PM

"I wouldn't believe the fascist c***sucker Robert Novak, member of the fascist Opus Dei organization, if he said that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow."

Republicans seem to love telling him secrets and not just Armitage, for some reason.

"While Bush's plan to intervene with Special Forces does sound crazy, what does pulling out of Iraq have to do with anything? Whether we stay in Iraq or not, we'll want to keep the Kurds and Turks from fighting, since they're both US allies. I don't understand why we can't just put diplomatics pressure (i.e. threatening them) on the Kurds to crack down on the guerrillas, but it does make sense for the US to be involved in smoothing over the Kurd-Turk conflict."

However, our strength in Kurdistan is partly dependent on us letting the Kurdish parties and militias do what they want. As such, we don't really do much of things like cracking down on the PKK, which has been working out of Iraq to attack Turkey. If we attack the PKK in Iraq, we risk alienating segments of the Kurdish Iraqi population, who IIRCseem to be more sympathetic to the PKK than the Turkish Kurds do (Kurds in Turkey, as Robert Pape has pointed out, as of late haven't been voting for PKK-sympathetic and independence-orientated parties). We are likely facing a choice between supporting Turkey or the Kurds. I am sympathetic to the idea of leaving a residual force in Kurdistan to help protect the Kurds, but I have my doubts about a desirable status quo emerging/continuing.

Posted by Reality Man | July 31, 2007 4:18 AM