Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, February 24, 2008

37 Killed in Turkish-Kurdish Fighting inside Iraq;
Basra Instability Forces British to Postpone Departure

Turkish military land and air operations inside northern Iraq left 35 PKK guerrillas dead on Saturday, and two Turkish soldiers.

The PKK warned that it would blow up people in Turkish cities if the Turkish army did not withdraw. This threat would be more impressive if they hadn't already been blowing up people in Turkish cities.

Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari, himself an Iraqi Kurd, said of the operation, "if it goes on, I think it could destabilise the region, because really one mistake could lead to further escalation."

As if to prove Zebari's point, the leader of Iraqi Kurdistan, Massoud Barzani, warned the Turks of large-scale resistance if they advanced toward populated areas.

Aljazeera English has video:



Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the governor of Basra, Muhammad Misbah al-Wa'ili, has charged the Iranian deputy consul in that city of plotting his, al-Wa'ili's, assassination. He demanded that the central government look into the charges. He said that the Iranian consulate gave a large sum of money to one of his body guards to discover his exact itinerary.

Al-Wa'ili is from the Islamic Virtue Party (Fadhila), and is at loggerheads with a majority of members of his own provincial council, including members of the Basra Islamic List and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. He claims he has been the target of numerous assassination attempts and hints that Iran was behind them.

The Islamic Virtue Party is a splinter of the Sadr Movement of Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr (d. 1999), which does not recognized Muqtada al-Sadr. The Islamic Virtue Party is a Muslim fundamentalist party but is Iraqi nativist, i.e. it does not like Iranian infulence in Iraq.

Among Fadhila's major rivals is the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq (ISCI), with its own paramilitary, the Badr Corps. So al-Wa'ili's charges have something to do with his rivalry with ISCI.

The instability in Basra is so bad that a planned drawdown of British troops from 4700 to 2500 by March seems likely to be postponed. The Guardian Observer writes,


'In an unusually frank analysis, Colonel Richard Iron, military mentor to the Iraqi commander General Mohan al-Furayji, said 'There's an uneasy peace between the Iraqi Security Forces [ISF] on the one hand and the militias on the other. There is a sense in the ISF that confrontation is inevitable. They are training and preparing for the battle ahead. General Mohan says that the US won the battle for Baghdad, the US is going win the battle for Mosul, but Iraqis will have to win the battle for Basra.' '


Gen. Mohan wants to have the back-up of British helicopter gunships and armor when the big anti-militia campaign is launched.

The article also says that "there is no one in charge" in Basra and that the militias actually exclude the army from some parts of the city!

' Asked who runs the city now, Iron, who has been in Basra since December, said: 'There's no one in charge. The unwritten rules of the game are there are areas where the army can and can't go and areas where JAM [Jaysh al-Mahdi or the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr] can and can't take weapons.' '


The problem for Iraq is that whereas Baghdad or even Mosul can be subjected to a vigorous military campaign without that causing the country to collapse, I am not sanguine that Basra can survive a frontal assault and still remain Iraq's import-export entrepot. And, if Basra is depopulated or sent into a spiral of violence similar to the Sunni Arab areas of the north, it will not hold Iraq harmless.

McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq for Saturday:

'Baghdad

- Around 7 a.m. mortar shells slammed into the Green Zone. A U.S. State Department spokesman in Baghdad confirmed the attack and said there were no deaths, injuries or significant damage due to the attack.

- Gunmen shot Shihab Al Timimi, the Iraqi journalists syndicate chief. He was injured in an area close to the syndicate's headquarters in Al Waziriyah.

- Around 2 p.m. a roadside bomb targeted civilians in Beirut square, killing one civilian and injuring two others.

- Iraqi police found three bodies, one in Shaab, one in Al Qanat area and one in Saidiyah.

Al Anbar

- Around 11 a.m. three suicide bombers wearing vest bombs targeted Ibraheem Teeri, a tribal sheikh, in Al Shiha town north of Fallujah, killing Teeri and two policemen. . . [The attack was on a training center for Awakening Council members.]

Salahuddin

- Around 9 a.m. a roadside bomb exploded in front of Nouri Khalil's house, a member of Beiji city local council. It killed Khalil's wife and son.

- Around 2 p.m. a roadside bomb targeted Iraqi police vehicle on a highway south of Samarra, killing two police officers and injuring three others.

- Iraqi police today on the Tigris River near Samarra chased a suicide bomber in a boat. The bomber was wearing a vest bomb and he detonated himself before the police could arrest him.'

Labels:

7 Comments:

At 4:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Barzani has been by far less confrontational this time. He probably fears that the Turks may take him out, possibly by an intentional "accident".

Threatening with "resistance" if the Turks attack is surreal: they have already attacked on a large scale.

The Peshmerga also staged a large demonstration around the Turkish base in the Iraqi Duhok province where most of the action is. But they stressed that it is a peaceful action by the Peshmerga as local civilians, and not as an armed group.

The Turkish government can't lose by these very popular attacks, and the Iraqi Kurdish warlords can't win: they can't side with the PKK although they want to; and issuing threats against Turkey can make things a lot worse to them. Expect more action, on long-term basis.

The argument that the military action against the PKK cannot work because they have failed in the past is flawed. Turkey has given more rights to its Kurds who generally do not like the leftist PKK anymore. Also, Turkey now has the US resources to precisely locate the PKK camps, and check their movements in real time, leading to big PKK losses.

 
At 4:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Among Fadhila's major rivals is the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq (ISCI), with its own paramilitary, the peshmerga. So al-Wa'ili's charges have something to do with his rivalry with ISCI."

One of your more amusing slips.

Since when did the Badr brigade swear loyalty to the KRG?

 
At 8:19 AM, Blogger ecclOneNine said...

Jim H. from the 22-Feb thread said: "Turkey invaded Iraq. The unintended consequences we've been fighting a rear-guard action to contain are bubbling closer and close to the surface."

Jim - if you are reading, I put this here, since the old thread seems stale now, and Juan is talking again about Turkey today. Consider for a moment the notion that there is an unstated Machiavellian initiative here. Then, was it really unintended ultimately to have Turkey invade Kurdistan?

Ideally, the US invasion would have gone swimmingly, and the whole country would have greeted us with garlands, and given us their oil for pennies (and USD pennies, not Euro pennies). But, despite all the public blame-gaming about poor planning, these people at the Pentagon are not novices. It's obvious that none of the publicly stated reasons (finding Usama, ousting Saddam, WMD, Iraqi freedoms, saving the whales) were why we went in, and it is excellent cover to have people think this was just incompetence on our part. And, to have a president that comes across as ignorant and without understanding is even better, as he validates the impression.

Oil, or much more accurately, the trade of oil in USD, and ALL that implies, translated into keeping the current geo-political-monetary paradigm intact, is why we went there. I think when people say it's all about oil, it misses the larger point. If it were just oil, the bet was a poor one, because the stakes have not justified the wager. Maintaining the hegemonic paradigm of global empire, of which monopolized oil trade in dollars is a major component, helps us appreciate the otherwise seemingly maniacal, and insane desperation to stay there. Victory is never defined, because it would tip the hand. Victory is total subjugation of the region for the benefit of the western powers. Period. We never planned to leave.

Things however have not gone according to design. I think the obvious initial fallback was to segregate the country into parts, divide et impera. Let some ethnic cleansing and the moving around of a few million people take place, and when it settles, you would have some clear lines that could be drawn. I think this is still the plan. Remember, in this scenario, the well-being of the people is not the goal. The securing of the oil trade, and the successful establishment of a pro-western policing presence is the goal.

The US military is exhausted, the coalition of the willing is neither a coalition nor willing, so time to bring in NATO. Let Turkey storm in and take over Kurdistan (which this will escalate into). They will win. There is no doubt about that. And all the pain and woe will be absorbed by them (and of their own choice!). The end result: NATO country controlling Kurdish oil fields; NATO country bordering large part of Iran.

True, Turkey with a lot of oil may make Turkey too powerful for American/Anglo/Western European tastes, but I'm sure people have given a lot of thought to that also, as well as how to squeeze the most advantageous oil arrangements for the oil companies. Things are seldom what they seem? No, I don't think things are ever what they seem.

 
At 10:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Prof. Cole,

Thanks, as always, for your highly concise, and compelling, report. I would be very interested to see how the statistics you've compiled in the first months of 2008 compare with those from the past two or three years. Hence, we might be able to state even more specifically just how much "progress" has been made.

 
At 12:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

General Mohan says that the US won the battle for Baghdad. What a great victory! -- the vaunted US military pacifies a liberated capital city in only five years! It took a new general. The last one couldn't do it in three years but he (Casey) was kicked upstairs to army chief of staff. There's a medal of freedom in his future, no doubt.

The instability in Basra delaying a Brit pullout is of course the pattern for the US military to stay in Iraq forever, its current arming of both sides in a civil war as a part of the instability promotion.

Instability is a US goal. Bush, speaking in November: "And now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding -- this time regarding my policy in the Middle East. Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be 'stability.' And once again they're wrong."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071101-4.html

 
At 1:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets see future now...

 
At 1:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon at 4:14 pm:

The BBC website has a good section on Irag including this Baghdad maps and monthly casualties

 

Post a Comment

<< Home