« Casualties in Iraq | Main | The Israelis lost in Lebanon »

06 October 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


We are still in Iraq because the plan always was to divide Iraq. The more violence, the more civil war, the better for Isrmerica and the midget masters of the universe.

The chaos, the incompetence plea, the Israelis working with the Kurds.. does anyone seriously think there was "no plan" for after the invasion..THIS was the plan.

Iraq had to descend into chaos in order for the
division of Iraq to "be" the "only" alternative.

Maybe not quite the entire Hashemite plan Cheney and Wolfowitz hatched up prior to the war but close enough.

Every dead American and Iraqi has been for the purpose of a seperate Kurd state and the benefits that would flow to
Israel and Uncle Sam.

And the "realignment" won't end until it is done...or someone puts a silver bullet and wooden stakes thru the neos chest cavity.


Another Yom

Speaking of "Muslim coalition troops"

Moscow continues to "think outside of the box. According to today's debka.com which is a Mossad site or is wired into it and where i get a lot of my disinformation

" DEBKA Exclusive: Moscow posts two Chechen platoons in S. Lebanon, one headed by an ex-rebel commander, “to improve Russia’s image in the Arab world”

October 7, 2006, 10:04 AM (GMT+02:00)

The Muslim commandoes of the Vostok (East) and Zapad (West) battalions of the Russian Army’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) (picture) are being sent to guard the 150 Russian military engineers. They arrived in Beirut this week to restore the roads in Lebanon damaged by Israeli bombing.

DEBKAfile reports: Moscow did not consult Israel before stationing Muslim Chechen troops on its border for the first time. "

very interesting

Best Wishes



My understanding (which is derived largely from reading the European press on this) is that Rice's attempt to forge an alliance of "moderate" ME states against Iran (moderate here being a wide-ranging term which includes kingdoms, sheikdoms, dictatorships and a pretend democracy in Egypt) was largely still-born. Most of Rice's potential allies demanded, as always, a solution first to the Israeli-Palestinian situation and real action on the long-promised two-state solution before any serious consideration of the Iran question. We'll undoubtedly hear more happy-talk from Condi on the Sunday talk shows - her favorite playpen cause none of the other kids there ever question her fabrications (watching Rice with Russert/Stepanapolis et al brings to mind Lucy explaining the world to Linus and Charlie Brown). She'll pontificate to her eager charges about "positive dialogue" leading to "potential agreement" with our "MidEast allies" regarding the "threats" and "dangers" to "regional stability" (i.e., the status quo) posed by the "Iranian Theocracy". Ergo zero substantive change.


"The purpose of Condoleezza Rice's visit to the Middle East is becoming clear - to encourage Arab states to form an alliance against Iran." As part and parcel, could her visits also be laying the last minute ground work for Rove's October surprise. Sam Gardiner and others note an uncharacteristic deployment and build-up of naval air and minesweepers in the AOR.


"Realism" as used in foreign policy is a term of art. Apparently there are two types. Offensive and Defensive.

What made the team of Walt and Mearsheimer that wrote the "Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" paper interesting is that Walt was a "defensive" realist and Measrsheimer was an "offensive" realist.

" Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to become hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive."

Also a hegemon will interfere with other states becoming hegemons in the role of offshore balancers as we interfere with China.

Our role in Gulf War I was that of an offshore balancer to prevent SH from becoming a hegemon. Presently Rice is working to prevent Iran from becoming a hegemon.

Defensive realism is sometimes called Balance of Threat. It modifies the Balance of Power Theory

"According to balance of threat theory, states' alliance behavior is determined by the threat they perceive from other states. Walt contends that states will generally balance by allying against a perceived threat, although very weak states are more likely to bandwagon with the rising threat in order to protect their own security. He points to the example the alliance patterns of European states before and during World War I and World War II, when nations with a significantly greater combined power allied against the recognized threat of German expansionism.

Walt identifies four criteria states use to evaluate the threat posed by another state: its aggregate strength (size, population, and economic capabilities), its geographical proximity, its offensive capabilities, and its offensive intentions. Walt argues that the more other states view a rising state as possessing these qualities, the more likely they are to view it as a threat and balance against it. "


for those that understand the bid :ask option system of odds tradesports has the handicap for bombing iran for various dates (as well as other politcal events)


Best Wishes


It is very doubtful that the administration had an agreed set of goals for the Iraq invasion. Different principals had their own aims:

Cheney and the oil barons : Getting control of the oil (the Chalabi spin). Their fallback position: at least the price of oil will go up.

The Likudniks : Installing an Israel-friendly government (the Chalabi spin, part 2). Their fallback position : a smashed-up Iraq.

Rumsfeld : Proving to the generals his new military doctrine (lots of airpower, small, hard-hitting ground forces). That's why he wasn't interested in post-war planning. His fallback : a place in history.

Bush : Who knows? Maybe, besting Pappy.

As for the future, al Anbar is not going to be the only jihadist base-cum-training ground (targetting the Middle East with occasional forays into Europe). The other one will be the Pashtun belt in Afghanistan and Pakistan (targetting Central Asia with forays into Russia)

It's going to be an interesting century. In a way I'm glad I'm not going to be around to watch it unfold.


It is always interesting to view some Amerikans discussing the fate of some people far from their own country. "Should we kill the green ones first or the blues ones?" - Should we "allow" Iraq to fall apart or not.

WTF is this an Amerikan decision. Why can´t you you just leave it to the Iraqis?

Ok, predator habit - you never lose that.


The tough thing about losing is that you lose.

Iraq was supposed to be a walk-over leading to an invasion of Iran by a loyal satrapy. Am I wrong?

What has happened is the opposite. Iran has a permanent presence in Iraq. And the US has been terribly weakened militarily. We lost.

And we now see that the Republicans' interest in government has been pecuniary at best. Perverted at worst.


If this is the best the US can do, then the world needs to look elsewhere for leadership.


It looks like ME policy change is in the air. James Baker and his Iraq Study Group are to meet with Iran and Syria. Does this mean that the Cheney era is over?

"I'm fairly confident that we will meet with a high representative of the (Iranian) government,"


Such a meeting would no doubt feed speculation here that Baker, a consummate "realist" who reportedly has been privately critical of the administration's Middle East policies, could help tilt the balance of power within the administration in favour of fellow-realists, centred in the State Department. They generally support greater flexibility in dealing with perceived U.S. foes in the region, and against right-wing hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney who have steadfastly opposed engagement with both Iran and Syria.

Indeed, Baker also announced Tuesday that his task force will meet later this week with the foreign minister of Syria, against which the administration has mounted a diplomatic boycott for almost two years. The task force has already met with Damascus' ambassador here, as part of a series of meetings with Washington-based envoys from Iraq's Arab neighbours.


If Iraq divides into three states- Iran will splinter too. No ground war needed.



Yeah, I’m disgusted and embarrassed by our country’s performance in Iraq. And else where, as well. And I think it is leading our nation to no good. There will be, and has been, a substantial price to pay for our self-deceit, and incomprehensible, and at times, illegal and immoral, behavior. Predator nation? At times? Sure, you bet. Sadly, for us and others.

But all that said b, and acknowledging from a moral and practical perspective we have to step back from Iraq (even though I know we won’t)…….I have to write: I would not be optimistic leaving shit to ‘the Iraqis’. They have not exactly bathed themselves in glory the past 100 years or so. Or left this world even a slightly better place. Leave it to THEM? Sure….why not. Some might say they deserve it. I don't if I would go that far.....but I would go close to it.

W. Patrick Lang


What is your logic in the statement about Iran falling apart?

Also. So far as I know there is no "National War Academy" in the US.

Thirdly - At the Rome meeting the map showed Turkey partitioned or Iraq? pl


Without being able to read his mind, the 'logic' probably revolves around Iran being multi-ethnic, and that multi-ethnic rivalries will tear the country apart.

Hmm. Already the US are trying to destabilise Iran by encouraging the MEK kooks, and if I'm not very much mistaken by encouraging Beluchis, too.

I doubt it will work. My impression when I met (without exception exile) Iranians was: Wether they like the ayatollahs or not, they are patriotic. Now clearly, exiles mostly are. Still, I doubt Iran will fall apart easily. I'm pretty sure Iran will be able to quell any Kurdish uprising, probably in cooperation with Turkey (they did that already only recently). Iran will be able to repeat that in Beluchistan if neccessary. And all that not because they are so evil, but for a very palpable reason: Raison d'etat (don't know a better english term). They will not accept secession.

The Iranians have managed to absorb 1 million plus refugees from Afghanistan in their society, without the obligatory camps as in Lebanon or Pakistan. That's quite a feat for a country in wartime. IMO Kevin underestimates Iranian cohesion and resolve.

I think that Kevin's primary logic is hope.


Nur-al-cubicle blog reads the french and italian press. (She also has a blog on the new Pope) As far as I know Le Monde does not have an english edition so Nur (Light) must be translating.

She has a LeMonde article that says gasoline prices have quintupled in Iraki Kurdistan as Ankara retaliates. Iraki crude goes to turkey and some returns as gas. Turkey has stopped the trucks and what little returns now is on the back of donkeys.

Turkey is refusing to deal with the Kurds directly and insisting they go thru Baghdad.

It's often stated that Kirkuk has the oil. Negative for the city itself. But the province of which it's the capital does. hmmm

Best Wishes


Is this not the real "Mission Accompished" moment for the neocons?

Partitioning Iraq is an old dream:
"In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."

cited from Oded Yinon, "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties", published in 1982.

Interesting further plans in there...

W. Patrick Lang

Smug (b)

What you assert may be true, but you do not know that it is true.

sloppy thinking. pl

Jerry Thompson

I really think we are past the point "we" can direct any particular outcome in Iraq (partition, not-partition or whatever). Regime change in Iraq was always an uncontrollable event. This administration's fundamental error was to believe they could control the outcome (hubris, self-righteousness, bigotry?). The only thing we have under our control from this point forward is what we may do with our own assets -- to influence events on the margins. Barring some (for me unforeseeable) new commitment of forces and finances, from this point forward, we can only "influence" outcomes, not "achieve" them (direct or ordain them to fit our own design). Bottomline: "We" aren't going to partition Iraq, though the Iraqis might try. If they do, the more likely outcome is chaos and conditions completely unfavorable to our long-term interest. Corollary: "We" aren't going to hold Iraq together either.


William Safire, the NYT columnist and longtime Israel propgandist, now retired, had many many columns proposing that either the Kurds or once in a while the Turks take over the northern Iraki oil fields.

I was sure I could go to the "Clean Break" paper authored by Perle, Wurmsers (ux et vir [latin for man and wife]), Douglas Feith, and see the smoking gun about the dismemberment of Irak.


WRONG, it wasn't there. Of course, Feith, No. 3 at the Pentagon after Rummy and Wolfie at one time, is the guy that overruled Jay Garner and instructed Lewis Paul Bremer to fire the Iraki Army, Police and do a deep de-Baathization thus guarantteing a vigorous insurgency.

But, I did see a monumentous piece of ignorance i have to share. A little context for understanding the gaffe. Mohammed had two grandchildren. Hassan and Husain. The Shia mostly treasure Husain. The Sharif and Hashemite (although it's used sometimes a different way) honoric is for Hassanite descent. The Sayyid and Hussainite honorific is for descent from Husain. During Ashura, the Shia mourn Husain. More context, the Hashemite king of Irak was murdered in 1958. Now, for the quote from "Clean Break" which was prepare for Bibi Neyatenyahu PM of Israel

" King Hussein [Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan] may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein. "


I could be wrong, but I don't think the Shia thought much of Sunni King Husain now succeeded by King Abdullah II. I believe, they saw him as under American control. During Gulf War I, he was allied with SH. I just think it shows the monumental ignorance of the NeoKons.

I could be wrong and often have been. It would be interesting to hear an expert's opinion on Shia regarding this matter.

Best Wishes


@Will- a copy of the Clean Break paper is available at:



Looks like the Iraq partition strategy is going to gain some momentum after the elections.

The Baker commission has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls “cutting and running” or “staying the course”.


Baker, a leading exponent of shuttle diplomacy, has already met representatives of the Syrian government and is planning to see the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations in New York. “My view is you don’t just talk to your friends,” he said last week. “You need to talk to your enemies in order to move forward diplomatically towards peace".

That last comment by Jim Baker is really a slap on the current Bush/Cheney/Condi strategy. Does he come back as Secretary of State?


Makes one wonder, assuming partitioning Iraq is something that the Israelis sought, what they'd been feeding the folks in Tel Aviv. Partitioning Iraq and giving the Kurds de facto independence seem to mean that Israel would be happy to trade Turkey for Iraq as its long term enemy. Why should anybody want that?


-What is your logic in the statement about Iran falling apart?

Also. So far as I know there is no "National War Academy" in the US.

Thirdly - At the Rome meeting the map showed Turkey partitioned or Iraq? pl-

Another news link

The map

The original article


"I could be wrong, but I don't think the Shia thought much of Sunni King Husain now succeeded by King Abdullah II. I believe, they saw him as under American control. During Gulf War I, he was allied with SH. I just think it shows the monumental ignorance of the NeoKons.

I could be wrong and often have been. It would be interesting to hear an expert's opinion on Shia regarding this matter. "

Wrote Professor Juan Cole. He said NeoCon idea was laughable.

My words now, Feith ignoramus was No. 3 at the Pentagon!!!!!!!!!11
Best Wishes


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160345410223&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724>Attacks soar in Iraq's north

Car bombings, shootings on rise in Kirkuk, Mosul

Hundreds flee homes to escape sectarian violence
Oct. 9, 2006


That does not bode well for Kurdish independence.


I wonder about a tri-partite Iraq.

Will the land of the two rivers really host three states. Iraqi man may have been a largely mythical being but I see no similar dream that moves men to action on the horizon.

In the North we'll have nascent Kurdistan, a state with inbuilt extra-territorial ambitions that Turkey, Syria and Iran with their restive Kurdish populations are not likely to view kindly. Kurdish secession probably isn't viable in the longterm unless they take the Kirkuk field with them and that will trigger war with the Turkomen and Sunni in Kirkuk itself. If they get the Kirkuk field do they have the refining capacity and secured infrastructure to exploit it? And let's not forget Kurdish man is nearly as fabulous a creature as Iraqi man, Kurds have as a long history of internecine warfare as oppresion.

In the center we'll have an embittered, impoverished Sunnistan which commands much of the oil and water infrastructure that the country once relied on. This is a people with a firm belief that they have a God given right to rule. Their like-minded but more radical brethren in the Gulf Kingships may be useless soldiers fit only for suicide bombing but will surely sponsor them. The Sunni are the clear losers and have the capacity to deny their neighbors the fruits of victory.

To the South a fractious Shiastan having nearly all of the viable oil fields and the main oil port. It is likely to rapidly become a de-facto Iranian dependency. A stepping off point for further adventures by the regions emerging large predator. A beast with blood grudges to settle by going North, much to gain by carefully infiltrating West and finally a revolutionary mission that aims at a new Jerusalem.

And what of the large concentration of all the ethnicities in multi-ethnic Baghdad? A huge bloodbath surely.

Are we likely to see Bush going cap in hand to not just Turkey but Iran and Syria as the situation demands? At this late stage what humiliating bargain could he strike to secure their much needed cooperation? The time to talk was after 9-11; he has squandered DC great advantage. The terrifying mystique of untested US power evaporated over Fallujah a couple of years ago.

Is Iraqi partition realism or is it just one last gulp of the kool-aid that can be hawked as a righteous crusade for self-determination to a gullible GOP base until the 08 is safely out of the way?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad