updated: [Formerly] Secret Operations in Turkey! Progress or "Progress" in Iraq!

posted by Damozel | A SECRET STRATEGY!  Like most bloggers who comment on the war, I've really very little---as in "no"--- knowledge of military matters.  But here is one thing I do know:  I don't know what the US (the president or the Congress) should do about Iraq.  With the issue so politicized, I trust neither the Administration nor Congress (whether Republican or Democrat) and therefore am inclined to defer to the Brits, who at least have recently studied the question.

My kneejerk reaction to this revelation by Robert Novak in The Washington Post is: "....oh christ; a covert operation?"

The morass in Iraq and deepening difficulties in Afghanistan have not deterred the Bush administration from taking on a dangerous and questionable new secret operation. High-level U.S. officials are working with their Turkish counterparts on a joint military operation to suppress Kurdish guerrillas and capture their leaders. Through covert activity, their goal is to forestall Turkey from invading Iraq.

While detailed operational plans are necessarily concealed, the broad outlines have been presented to select members of Congress as required by law. U.S. Special Forces are to work with the Turkish army to suppress the Kurds' guerrilla campaign. The Bush administration is trying to prevent another front from opening in Iraq, which would have disastrous consequences. But this gamble risks major exposure and failure. (Washington Post; links in original).

My second reaction was "...which "select members of Congress"?"  My third was "Does Gordon Brown know?"  My fourth was "...risks major exposure?"  But since I know I don't know anything about the ramifications, I'm in the (for a blogger) invidious position of having to wait to hear what people who at least seem to know have to say.

I don't know whether it is a good idea, a bad idea, or just crazy enough to work.

What is Washington to do in the dilemma of two friends battling each other on an unwanted new front in Iraq?

The surprising answer was given in secret briefings on Capitol Hill last week by Eric S. Edelman, a former aide to Vice President Cheney who is now undersecretary of defense for policy. Edelman, a Foreign Service officer who once was U.S. ambassador to Turkey, revealed to lawmakers plans for a covert operation of U.S. Special Forces to help the Turks neutralize the PKK. They would behead the guerrilla organization by helping Turkey get rid of PKK leaders that they have targeted for years.

Edelman's listeners were stunned. Wasn't this risky? He responded that he was sure of success, adding that the U.S. role could be concealed and always would be denied. Even if all this is true, some of the briefed lawmakers left wondering whether this was a wise policy for handling the beleaguered Kurds, who had been betrayed so often by the U.S. government in years past. (Washington Post)   

You can see where it would annoy the Kurds, so for now I'm going with "unwise policy."  Running with the hares while you're hunting with the hounds usually is. At best, it is really, really tricky. 

Bruce Falconer at Mother Jones seems skeptical about the usefulness of our interfering with the Kurds. 

  None of the options are particularly attractive.  As Iraq sage (and Kurdish sympathizer) Peter Galbraith writes in the latest New York Review of Books, one option for withdrawing the majority of U.S. troops from Iraq, but leaving enough of a presence to contain the aftermath (and Iran), would be to base a smaller, semi-permanent force in Iraqi Kurdistan. But if Turkey were to invade northern Iraq, this would put the U.S. in an almost impossible position: balancing the continued peace and stability of Iraq's Kurdish areas (the country's only success story) against the deeply-held concerns of Turkey, one of America's best allies in the region... this despite the overwhelming hostility of its citizens to U.S. foreign policy. 

That there is war brewing in southeastern Turkey comes as no surprise. Even when I visited the region in early 2005, a time of relative calm, most Kurds I met there held the view that the Turkish government's long war against the PKK rebels [Kurdish guerilla fighters] was not over. The mere existence of "Iraqi Kurdistan" (don't call it Iraq) had given much-needed encouragement to the PKK, whose powers had been waning since the 1999 capture of their fugitive leader, Abdullah Ocalan. Moreover, sympathetic leaders across the border had allowed the PKK to shelter and reequip in the mountains of northern Iraq, while staging periodic raids across the border into Turkey.....

....PKK strikes into Turkey have become more frequent and spectacular, and the Turks have responded in kind with cross-border artillery barrages directed at guerilla staging areas. A rumor circulated earlier this summer that the Turkish military had poured into Iraqi Kurdistan in hot pursuit of Kurdish rebels. It was just a rumor, but one that didn't seem too far off.

The sabre-rattling in Turkey is growing louder, and it's unclear what the U.S. can do to calm things down. Bush apparently believes that deploying Special Forces troops to hunt down PKK leaders will help resolve the issue. This seems doubtful. But it could succeed in exhausting the patience and goodwill of Iraq's Kurds. What then? (Mother Jones) 

Yes, I would think that learning that US forces are going to be assisting the Turks will put some Kurdish noses out of joint in Iraq.

At Shakesville (formerly Shakespeare's Sister), Bruce Barron wonders what quid pro quo the Bush Administration has offered the Iraqi Kurds. Also:

"No one should be surprised by George Bush's exposed scheme to have Delta Black Ops Team Bravo Commando Force take out selected PPK leaders in exchange for Turkey not sending waves of troops across the border into Iraq. This was inevitable, given Bush's predilection for military solutions - when your only tool is a hammer, you treat every situation like a nail - and the desperate need to forestall an outright Turkish invasion of northern Iraq.

Whatever was in place before Novak wrote this article, the fact that it's no longer clandestine seems certain to change it.  Which makes me wonder:  Who the hell leaked it?

PROGRESS IN IRAQ! or INSIDE BUSH'S BRAIN.  In his Washington Post piece, Novak implies that some people seem to think that President Bush is a bit out of touch with reality.

Even faithful congressional supporters of his Iraq policy have been stunned by the president's upbeat mood, which makes him appear oblivious to the loss of his political base. Despite the failing effort to impose a military solution in Iraq, he is willing to try imposing arms -- though clandestinely -- on Turkey's ancient problems with its Kurdish minority, who comprise one-fifth of the country's population.  (Washington Post) 

But, hey, what about this editorial in today's New York Times?

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.  

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference....   (New York Times)

"Sustainable stability" is good enough for me, seriously.  Let's get there and get out, right?  And hey...maybe, just maybe, he's confident this time because his strategy is working out!  Wouldn't that be great?  It wouldn't excuse him for getting us involved in the first place, but it would at least go some way toward alleviating my concerns about the fate of the Iraqi people.  Right?   Continuing in this cheerful vein, the article continues:

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. (New York Times)

So could it be that President Bush is upbeat because...because things actually are going well?  I note that both the articles authors are from the Brookings Institution, which is described here as " United States nonprofit public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C.. Brookings, traditionally considered liberal, is devoted to public service through research and education in the social sciences, particularly in economics, government, and foreign policy. Its stated principal purpose is "to aid in the development of sound public policies and to promote public understanding of issues of national importance.""  Would Brookings Institution say it if it weren't so?

Well, maybe.  Andrew Sullivan, at The Daily Dish seems as always to know how far to consider the source  Amid all the above-quoted jollity, I didn't include the one advance which---according to Sullivan---really would represent a major advance.

American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq) (New York Times).

 

Sullivan:  "Sorry, but count me unconvinced. Pollack's only sources are American advisers and the "high command." Well: they would say that, wouldn't they?"  Sullivan compares the NYT article to one published two days ago (also in the NYT),  "General Training Iraqis Cites Problem of Sectarian Loyalty" which pretty much says the opposite.

So who's right? Pollack's "American advisers" or the general tackling the problem itself?                 I get the sense that Pollack has been snowed by a great Pentagon presentation. Or, as Matt notes, is just a sucker for his old friend Petraeus....

Wait.  "His old friend Petraeus"?  Wait...what?  Sigh.   See, I knew there'd be a catch.

To get back to Sullivan.  He comes as close as anyone to summing up what I (in my military ignorance) feel is probably the right approach to Iraq:

And so Pollack and O'Hanlon want to extend the surge into 2008. If that means keeping some forces temporarily in place to help local government emerge in a way that can, at least, impede al Qaeda, then few will disagree. If it means another indefinite commitment of US troops to occupying Iraq in the absence of any viable central government, then the answer must be a firm no. The benchmarks for the surge remain what they always were: has it created the conditions for a national settlement? If it has, there's a reason to stay. If it hasn't, we need to start getting out, in a way that protects, as far as possible, whatever local achievements we have managed to accomplish.(The Daily Dish)

RELATED BN-POLITICS

• Krugman on Bush's Enablers   
• Can this Coalition be Saved?  Brown and Bush "Seek to Establish Rapport."
• Meanwhile, in the UK, One of the Iraq Commission Chairs Offers the PM This Guidance...
• Note to Congress and Especially to My Fellow Democrats: There are No Easy Paths Out of Iraq.

LINKED, CITED, OR QUOTED

• Robert Novak, Bush's Turkish Gamble (Washington Post)
• Bush and Brown Pledge Unity at Meeting (New York Times)
• Paul Krugman, All the President's Enablers (New York Times)
• Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, A War We Just Might Win (New York Times)
• Bruce Falconer, U.S. Special Forces Hunting Turkish PKK Leaders (Mother Jones)
• Philip Barron, Quid Pro Quo (Shakesville)
• Andrew Sullivan, Pollack Perks Up (The Daily Dish)
• Stephen Farrell, General Training Iraqis Cites Problem of Sectarian Loyalty (New York Times)