« Department of Musical Irony | Main | The War Center » Sweet Sovereignty16 Dec 2007 04:46 pm Turkey bombs" Kurdish militant sites in Iraq. But not to worry, "the commander of the Turkish Army, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, said that the United States had helped the operation by offering intelligence and clearance to enter Iraqi airspace." Nice of us to offer permission to third parties to enter Iraq airspace. Very generous. Comments (35)
"This week, I was honored to welcome the Prime Minister of a free and sovereign Iraq to the White House." --George W. Bush, Sept. 25, 2004 George Bush keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means. 
Maybe the Turks will reward us by not joining in at the hissing and booing at our diplomatic team in Bali. I can't imagine why there would be hissing and booing.
I do not think it means what he thinks it means. George Bush thinks words mean things? I've never gotten that impression from listening to him talk.
Nice of us to offer permission to third parties to enter Iraq airspace. Well, since if you don't do this, you're going to get a similar set-up of circumstances that led to US planes bombing Canadians in Afghanistan, I very much prefer a framework that tries to prevent blue-on-blue among NATO allies.
That would be the same Turkey that wouldn't permit US use of its airspace at the outset of this war and occupation. 'Sovereignty', as regards border control is only applicable to Mexicans. The pretense that there's a functioning democratic government in Iraq is over. They're just a corporate board on the dole while the losses mount. And Bush is the King of Iraq.
I'd like to hear Prez Bush try to pronounce Recep Tayyip Erdogan, after his valiant effort with Mahoomad Ah-abbas and Ehud Olmote.
"George Bush thinks words mean things?" Well, "thinks" might be a stretch, but he acts as though words mean things to him, albeit not the same things they would mean to anyone else. So, for example, he acts as though the word "liberal" means to him "oh, no; the President forgot to take his meds again this morning!" He acts as though "tax cuts" means deus ex machina. He acts as though "freedom" and "oppression" have switched meanings. He acts as though "foreign country" means "American vassal state." He acts as though "Constitution" means toilet paper. Admittedly he acts as though "torture" is a placeholder word with no meaning whatsoever, but that's the exception.
MY - Nice of us to offer permission to third parties to enter Iraq airspace. Very generous As the UN-designated "Occupying Power" we have every right to do that, as well as responsibilities. The UN says we control Iraq's borders, airspace and waterways for now, and we designate those that can assist in keeping the peace. The Turks have long had a good case for ending the northern sanctuary of PKK terrorists. Their putting 100,000 troops on the Border "focused Bush's mind" to that, finally.
I have a theory that weird incoherent blog comments are the result of someone's head exploding. And on that note, allow me to leave this comments section.
I have a theory that weird incoherent blog comments are the result of someone's head exploding. And on that note, allow me to leave this comments section.
Wonder if we'll grant Israel the right to cross Iraqi airspace?
I'm curious how Iraq has any less sovereignty now, where we control Iraq's airspace pursuant to UN resolution, than before the war, when we also controlled Iraq's airspace pursuant to UN resolution.
Well, Al, some might point out that before the war there wasn't a large foreign army operating in Iraq.
Well, Al, some might point out that before the war there wasn't a large foreign army operating in Iraq. Someone might also point out that Iraq wasn't exactly sovereign before the war. There's nothing wrong with that. Pre-war Iraq shouldn't have been exactly sovereign. The problem is that George W. Bush is by leaps and bounds too stupid to know what the word "sovereign" means.
...George W. Bush is by leaps and bounds too stupid to know what the word "sovereign" means. Posted by R Johnston Funny you should say that. "Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004
El Cid: I'd forgotten about that quote. I guess my analysis was more accurate than I'd realized.
Something very hard for anti-American Lefties to wrap their minds around - as they argue that Al Qaeda and Iran are agencies the UN should endorse as having Equal Rights to be allowed in as occupying powers themselves...because...because..."Well, it's only fair, dammit!" The world hasn't seen a straw man that large since the Celts.
Something very hard for anti-American Lefties to wrap their minds around - as they argue that Al Qaeda and Iran are agencies the UN should endorse as having Equal Rights to be allowed in as occupying powers themselves...because...because..."Well, it's only fair, dammit!" If it only had a brain . . . . Alas, straw men and those who perpetuate them rarely do.
Something very hard for anti-American Lefties to wrap their minds around - as they argue that Al Qaeda and Iran are agencies the UN should endorse as having Equal Rights to be allowed in as occupying powers themselves...because...because..."Well, it's only fair, dammit!" Now that is a complete exaggeration. We at the United Anti-American Left League have formally declared in our last alamanac and gift catalog that we would be completely satisfied with Al-Qa'ida becoming one of the rotating seats at the UN Security Council -- and we're only suggesting that the Taliban name the next Secretary General, it hasn't made it to a full Party Referendum yet.
Al baiting aside, this is a pretty good indicator that Bush et al. honestly believe that overwhelming retaliation is the only useful response to terrorism. Even if it's someone else doing the responding. I'm somewhat sympathetic to this argument, but even if you're not, it is important to note that the proponents of retaliatory response are at least consistent. At least now we can argue the merits.
So, uh, the official right-wing position now is that we're "occupiers"? And it's totally cool because the UN designated us occupiers? I thought we didn't need no stinking UN. And, uh, it used to piss them off when people called George Bush an occupier. Oh, and also, sovereign nations are, by definition, not ones ruled by occupiers. I'm actually trying to think of a precedent in which a sovereign nation allowed its neighbor--in fact, its former occupier and historic nemesis--to bomb it. Certainly can't come up with any instances when the targeting was outsourced to the large foreign army in said "sovereign" nation. In other news, night is when it's dark and day is when it's bright. Just thought some of the trolls might need some other things cleared up along with sovereignty.
Iraq is not a sovereign nation. I can't recall saying that it was. Though if you want precedent (not one that reflects too well on the US), I understand that Russian tanks used to roll through Prague every so often to keep those terrorists and trade unionists in line. Also, not that it matters, but I'm not particularly interested in the right wing position. Or, for that matter, in defending Bush's honor. I prefered Gore in '00 and sat out the '04 election. (I despise Kerry, simply could not vote for him)
Actually, the complaints here don't make a hell of a lot of sense. The Turkish government is after the PKK, which is a Kurdish terrorist organization that represents the interests of those Kurds who live in, you guessed it, Turkey. The whole Kurdish region exists in between three states: Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. The Kurds are technically stateless, and what degree of political autonomy they officially possess, they only possess in the portion of their lands that fall in the territory of Iraq. So this situation is really quite complicated. If the PKK is using territory in Iraq as a kind of "safe zone," to evade the Turkish army, we might feel a trifle obligated to do something about that since we have been instrumental in the creation of that safe zone. While I think the Kurds generally deserve more than just an autonomous zone (if, for instance, Iraq splinters apart and all we get out of it is a functional Kurdish state in Iraq, I would consider that an excellent consolation prize), I am not a fan of the methods of Abdullah Ocallan and the peculiar brand of Islamic militancy his party is responsible for, and I am certain the Prez is far less of a fan than I. So that explains the intelligence sharing (which I am certain, by the way, was minimal). When the US government gives Turkey permission to enter "Iraqi" airspace, we are talking about space used almost exclusively by the US military. It isn't like Iraq has a budding airline industry. So, when we gave Turkey permission to enter the airspace of Iraq, it made sense that it would be us they would ask, because it would have been us blowing up Turkish aircraft or otherwise colliding into them if we hadn't known in advance what was up. The complaint about sovereignty is neither here nor there.
It's nice to see some comments from people who have a decent acquaintance with international law and military matters mixed in with the usual majority whose analysis of any question seems to boil down to, "Yeah, but Bush is really stupid, dude!". Thanks to Kolohe, Chris Ford, and heedless. Celtish straw men aside, it's not hard to see how one could get the impression that there has been approval on the left for weird interpretations of the sovereignty. I've read posts here recently advocating nuclear strikes against the US and higher US casualties as "only fair". Bosnia, Kossovo, Rwanda, and Iraq for sure need to be considered in deciding how to deal with sovereignty issues as we, hopefully, begin to do reconstruction at the UN. But there are a lot of similar issues and lessons in Abkazia, Moldova, Tajikistan, South Ossetia, Chechenia, Somalia, West Africa, and Sudan. Among others. In any case, it's good to see the governments of Turkey, Iraq, and the US able to work together in addressing the issue of terrorist factions in Kurdistan. It's hard to imagine the thought processes of anyone who would think otherwise.
Well said, gerontion. Strangeness in the posting que-didn't see your post before I sent mine.
As usual, Powell doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about, so he is reduced to vague generalities. The problems around Turkey attacking the PKK include the following: 1) Iraq is under US control as the occupying power, therefore technically Turkey is required to ask the US for permission to conduct any operations there. 2) Turkey ain't gonna do 1) above if it comes to a full-scale invasion because 1) the US didn't obey the UN when it invaded Iraq in 2003; and 2) Turkey knows damn well that the US has supported the Kurds - including the PKK and it's offshoot that is attacking the Iranians - since Day One. Many of the weapons the PKK carry have come from the US military, either directly or via the primary Kurdish party peshmerga. 3) The US is in no position militarily to stop Turkey doing whatever it wants because Turkey has 100,000 troops massed on the Iraq border and has no fear of the US forces in Iraq. Plus the US has no desire to start a war with Turkey over a bunch of Kurds. 4) Anti-US feeling in Turkey is now at its highest point in decades. Only something like 9% of Turks like the US. 5) The two main Iraqi Kurdish political parties support the PKK and its anti-Iranian offshoot. They also support the notion of an independent Kurdistan centered on oil-rich Kirkuk. 6) Turkey ain't buying 5) above at all, and an incursion into Iraq against the PKK could easily spiral out of control and result in a war between Turkey and all the Iraqi Kurds. The Kurdish parties have threatened to throw 100,000 Kurdish peshmerga into the fight if Turkey invades Iraq. 7) The Kurds happen to be one of the forces keeping the Iraqi government afloat to some degree. If the US takes a stand against the PKK, along with the Iraqi administration of Maliki, the two primary Kurdish parties may decide to dump the Iraqi government and declare independence. This would leave Maliki in even more of a bad situation in term of the Iraqi parliament than he already is. At the moment, Turkey appears to be backing off its intent to invade - probably because winter is setting in and the PKK will retreat making an invasion less effective. That's why they're reduced to using air power instead of ground troops. Look for serious invasion next spring because Turkey is through taking orders from the US and they are through with messing around with the Iraqi Kurds.
Jeekers - I encourage everybody to read Security Council resolutions 1546, 1637 and 1723. That's de jure, de facto is another matter, but they're not totally unrelated.
A wonderful suggestion, novakant. Knowledge of the basic facts is always helpful. Nice demonstration of vague, not to mention un-sourced and/or telepathy-based generalities Hack. Remember, never agree with me in public.
It's not "Pres. Bush". It's "Perez Bush". Pronounced like you think it would be pronounced.
While the US may have the legal authority to do so, this also is just another sign that all of Bush's pronouncements on governmental progress in Iraq are just BS. If Iraq was sovereign as Bush has said before, then he wouldn't have authority to do this. He only has this authority because Iraq isn't sovereign. Iraq isn't sovereign because he decides it isn't and the members of the UN powerful enough to make a difference have other interests they care more about than pressing the issue. "Something very hard for anti-American Lefties to wrap their minds around - as they argue that Al Qaeda and Iran are agencies the UN should endorse as having Equal Rights to be allowed in as occupying powers themselves...because...because..."Well, it's only fair, dammit!" Posted by Chris Ford | December 16, 2007 7:24 PM" Did a liberal priest rape you as a child or something? Who has ever said this? First of all, Iran is a nation-state who is a member of the UN General Assembly, so it wouldn't be eligible to be an agency. Give me the name of one lefty that anyone has heard of in the US that has said AQ should have equal rights as the US in Iraq. Besides, AQI is a self-fulfilling prophecy in that it only came about with the invasion.
Of course, ignorant Powell ignores the fact that these mandates are after the fact of an invasion which is accepted by every legal authority on the planet except him to be illegal. As the US IS an occupying power, however illegally, the mandates make sense - as I specifically stated in my post. What does not make sense is the US support of the PKK terrorist group in the first place when the Iraq Kurds were helping put pro-Iran Maliki into power, and now a 180 providing assistance to the Turks which has already angered Iraqi Kurds and will likely threaten the already weak Maliki government with a possible Kurdish pullout. I would also note that the current mandate due to expire in 2008 will, according to the Iraqi government, NOT be renewed and may be terminated at any time prior to the official expiration date. At which point the "sovereignty" of Iraq will be well and publicly established - or not. Guess which way I think it will go...and I'm sure al-Sadr agrees with me and intends to see it go the other way. "Remember, never agree with me in public." Anybody who agrees with you on anything is an ignorant nitwit.
Splendid, Hack. Now you can name JUST ONE "legal authority on the planet" that said the invasion was illegal. The chief legal authorities of the US and Britain, Congress and Parliament (which MAKE law) and the official legal authorities of most of the rest of the world's important democracies said it was. But hey, some people just know about these things by intuition, right? As long as fools like you disagree with me, I'm confident I'm on the right track. Hint: try getting your facts from the source documents rather than anti-American websites.
Chris Rock had a joke about how crackheads would be willing to shoot each other in the head if you could get high off it. That must be like watching Robert Powell and Richard Steven Hack argue.
He's one of yours, "reality". As Orwell said, "the best argument against the left is it's adherents".
Comments closed December 30, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Good on Turkey. Those Iraqi terorrists have gotten away with too much for too long.
Posted by sb | December 16, 2007 5:00 PM