The Insurgency Re-Excused

In an exercise that borders on selective, if not purely revisionist, history, wretchard at the Belmont Club plays off a Newsweek article to argue that what made the Iraqi insurgency possible was "the gift of time." In other words, because Blair insisted Bush go through the UN charade and because France, Germany, and Russia were so obstructive, Saddam was able to lay the groundwork for funding and arming the "insurgents" (who are really just Saddam's own henchmen plus a gaggle of international terrorists).

Wretchard (he?) goes into a detailed comparison-contrast of the Newsweek report and a previous Belmont Club post and has some interesting conclusions (peppered heartily with auto-back-slapping), but at no point addresses what I'm still convinced are the main factors that made the "insurgency" possible: 1) insufficent troops to prevent the borders from becoming porous and 2) disbanding the Iraqi Army.

On point 1, wretchard would disagree, I assume. In what would surely warm Rumsfeld's heart, he argues that the "economy of force" used against Sadr in April, 2004, is under-appreciated in the Newsweek analysis. Noting that "I hope future historians give it its due," he could be seen to be implying that the number of troops overall was appropriate because in one operation a leaner unit got the job done. At the very least it reads like an endorsement of the leaner, meaner armed forces vision.

The whole thing also reads like an excuse. There's no way to escape the implication that had Bush ignored the Europeans and even his closest ally Blair and charged into Baghdad sooner (when, exactly, is not clear), Saddam's supposed master plan of insurgency would have been less effective. But Hussein had years to plan such a response to an invasion. We had invaded before and kept threatening to do so. How much additional planning exactly was done in the months diplomacy was farcically being paid lip service to by the US?

None of which in any way excuses piss-poor planning, IMO. Even if Hussein was able to move things around a bit while we demonstrated (or at least pretended) we're not imperialistic conquerors (that we don't feel international law is quaint, international opinion is irrelevant, and international support is inconsequential), to paraphrase Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the reality you have, not the reality you want." Once we starting shocking and awing the Iraqis, it behooved us to still move heaven and earth to ensure an insurgency did NOT arise. We broke it. We owned it. Even if it didn't look like we'd hoped it would in pieces.

Comments

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

One comment about the disbanding of the Iraqi army: By the time we got anywhere near the now infamous "Mission Accomplished" phase, the Iraqi army had pretty much melted away (in hiding?) on its own. Disbanding it was much more of a pro-forma exercise rather than an act of dismissal. If they melted away intentionally to become guerillas, disbanding had little effect. If they melted away because they didn't want to fight in general, disbanding probably didn't have much to do with the insurgency.

[Edward]

That's a valid point Sebastian, but as I recall, most of the "disbanded" Iraqi army were more or less later approached to join the newly formed army. Clearly we knew who the higher-ups were and could track them down. Are there many officers unaccounted for that we could assume are now in the insurgency?

[Hal]

This is a complete smoke screen on Dr. H's part. They did not melt away into the population. We knew precisely who they were. They were complaining about not getting paychecks, we were actively purging them from government jobs. We had an entire ministry of defense which had each and every one of these people tagged and known (no, they were not looted).

This is a bizarre parallel universe that Sebastian inhabits.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"They were complaining about not getting paychecks"

If you aren't careful about how you use 'they' this might be true. The problem is some of 'them' we knew about, many (most?) of them we didn't. Knowing where the high ranking officers are isn't the same as knowing where their 1,000 men are.

[Edward]

Knowing where the high ranking officers are isn't the same as knowing where their 1,000 men are.

True, but in trying to imagine how 1,000 men, who are not being led by those who Hussein would have entrusted with his insurgency plan, would carry it off according to plan, the whole conspiracy falls apart, no?

It's a stretch at the very least.

[spc67]

"We broke it we owned it," is one of the dumber memes around. I'll put you in touch with my Iraqi relatives and you can talk about the sweetness and light that was Iraq under Hussein. Just dumb. It was broken for 30 years.

You're other points are valid.

[Edward]

Spc67, there's a lot of ground between Iraq under Hussein and Iraq as it could have/should have been invaded, secured, and given back.

The "we broke it, we own it" notion implies more than anything that we can't excuse any unforeseen complications as not our problem. By invading Iraq, we made the insurgency our problem.

By the way, what's the word on the election results from your relatives? (I've been following some of your comments on Tacitus.)

[spc67]

Edward,

Fair enough, I haven't gotten any new info since the neighborhood got back from the polls. Everyone is safe and happy, but that is all I know at the moment. Thanks for asking.

[smlook]

Edward,

Could you please have a chat with Ted Kennedy? It sounds like he needs some of your advice.

[Hal]

Here's a good quote from an excellent article by Eliot Weinberger

I heard that Paul Bremer’s first act as director of the Coalition Provisional Authority was to fire all senior members of the Baath Party, including 30,000 civil servants, policemen, teachers and doctors, and to dismiss all 400,000 soldiers of the Iraqi army without pay or pensions. Two million people were dependent on that income. Since America supports private gun ownership, the soldiers were allowed to keep their weapons.

[Anarch]

Fair enough, I haven't gotten any new info since the neighborhood got back from the polls. Everyone is safe and happy, but that is all I know at the moment. Thanks for asking.

Keep us posted if you wouldn't mind. I'm always interested in what those actually present have to say.

[And here's to their future health and happiness, btw. After what they've been through, they deserve it.]

[Jesurgislac]

Keep us posted if you wouldn't mind. I'm always interested in what those actually present have to say.

Seconded.

[And here's to their future health and happiness, btw. After what they've been through, they deserve it.]

That too. I wish them well.

[Edward]

Could you please have a chat with Ted Kennedy? It sounds like he needs some of your advice.

I'd be honored to chat with the distinguished Senator, smlook, although I'd be the one seeking advice, not offering it, but thanks for the comparison!

[smlook]

Edward,

I guess you aren't familiar with his call for vacating Iraq.

I wouldn't compare you to Ted Kennedy. I'm not that mean.

[Lee Scoresby]

The problem wasn't just that we didn't have enough troops to defend the border - we didn't have enough troops to, first, keep basic infrastructure intact and second, defend the multitude of well-known weapons caches that were later pillaged by insurgents or Iraqis looking for easy cash. I have heard, over and over again, American administrators complain that when Iraqis walked into their offices and said "there's a weapons cache at so-and-so, you should secure it" there was nothing that could be done because the military had too few troops to do the job. Thus, poor planning greatly ehanced both motive and opportunity for the insurgeny. Then there's the other idiotic decisions, like the American laissez-faire experiment - a great idea when one of the most important goals of an occupying authority is to make the population dependent upon you for their livelihoods. I could go on and on, but the idea that waiting for the UN caused the problem has to be among the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.

[Edward]

I am familiar with it smlook. I don't agree totally with Kennedy's approach, but I do think it's time for folks to start asking the question.

I wouldn't compare you to Ted Kennedy. I'm not that mean.

One man's gasbag is another man's hero.

idea that waiting for the UN caused the problem has to be among the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.

In a vaccuum, I can see it actually, but in the real world it is stretching the bounds of accountability to ludicrous lengths.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I don't think you are understanding Wretchard's argument about the delay. He is saying that the UN and France's pressure on Turkey helped create a situation where we were not able to invade from the north and south simultaneously. This lack of attack from the north made it possible for those in the army who wanted to organize clandestinely in the north to do so.

[Jesurgislac]

Lee Scoresby: I have heard, over and over again, American administrators complain that when Iraqis walked into their offices and said "there's a weapons cache at so-and-so, you should secure it" there was nothing that could be done because the military had too few troops to do the job.

Indeed. It's ironic, isn't it: if Bush & Co had really believed in those stockpiled WMD that they lied about so extensively, they truly would be the William Topaz MacGonagall of military strategists, failing to allow sufficient military resources to accomplish what they claimed was the principal objective of the war.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: He is saying that the UN and France's pressure on Turkey helped create a situation where we were not able to invade from the north and south simultaneously.

Because of course, it's just not possible for Turkey to have decided independently that it didn't want to support a war on Iraq - Turks clearly having no capacity to make independent political/strategic decisions.

If that's really his argument, it's disgustingly racist.

[Anarch]

Because of course, it's just not possible for Turkey to have decided independently that it didn't want to support a war on Iraq... If that's really his argument, it's disgustingly racist.

Er, why?

[Anarch]

More concretely: why is that necessarily the reduction of his argument? And why is it racist to conclude (erroneously, IMO, but we're talking about the moral character of the argument not its truth) that Turkey folded under pressure?

[Gary Farber]

"He is saying that the UN and France's pressure on Turkey helped create a situation where we were not able to invade from the north and south simultaneously. "

I don't claim anything resembling thorough or comprehensive or undoubtedly correct knowledge on this (you know, like I do on other stuff I limit myself to commenting on ;-)), but it was my overwhelming understanding at the time that the reason Turkey didn't let us go through them was due overwhelmingly to opposition by members of the Turkish Parliament, for reasons of nationalism and doubt about the wisdom of the invasion, based upon the widespread opinion of almost everyone in Turkey, not because of outside diplomatic pressure (which we ourselves, of course, used to our utmost, and which is not lacking in comparison to France).

But, as I said, I don't claim this is Inarguable Fact. Do you have some cites for some reports offering strong support to your thesis that France and/or the UN is really to blame, Sebastian? I'll have no problem believing them if they're credible. What's your source for this?

[crionna]

why is it racist to conclude (erroneously, IMO, but we're talking about the moral character of the argument not its truth) that Turkey folded under pressure?

Or even that they weighed the benefits of offers from various sides and, whether they had an internal opinion or not, simply chose France et al's offer over that of the US?

[Jesurgislac]

Anarch: why is it racist to conclude (erroneously, IMO, but we're talking about the moral character of the argument not its truth) that Turkey folded under pressure?

I responded to Sebastian's reduction of the argument: "the UN and France's pressure on Turkey helped create a situation where we were not able to invade from the north and south simultaneously" - which appears to say that Turkey lacked any capacity to make its own decisions about the Iraq invasion. If that's not racist, what is?

[sidereal]

Some relevant history.
Originally posted at

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/05/international/europe/05TURK.html

but now gated.
So grabbed via here, which seems like a weird place.

That sense of disappointment was magnified by the fact Turkey's leaders, after weeks of debate, had endorsed the American plan and predicted its passage. On Saturday evening, they discovered that they had underestimated the number of favorable votes in their own party.

"It was a real disaster," said Sule Mazuri, a director at ABN Amro Bank in Istanbul. "This showed that they couldn't even do what they wanted to do." But in a another sense, some Turks saw in the vote a break with the politics of the past. For 50 years, Turkey's political system has been dominated by tightly controlled political parties, with many of their leaders drawn from the same political class, and by the Turkish military, which has long acted as a primary force in domestic politics. Both were stalwart, and sometimes unquestioning, American allies.
...
"The people now are not following what their leaders say," said Neyazi Oktem, a law professor at Bilgi University in Istanbul. "Quite honestly, the concept of democracy has changed in Turkey."

Twelve years ago, the Turkish people also opposed their country's involvement in the Persian Gulf war. But the government, led by the charismatic President Turgut Ozal, thwarted the popular will and practically destroyed itself in complying with America's request. The foreign minister, the defense minister and the chief of the military resigned. The economy went into a tailspin.

This time, the American request was met by a raucously democratic response. Recalling the economic problems prompted by the first gulf war, and the divisions in international attitudes, ordinary Turks marched in the streets against the war in numbers that far exceeded those of a decade ago.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Not my assertion, that would be Wretchard's assertion. But my recollection is that Turkey suggested it wouldn't allow troops without a UN resolution at about the time that France was talking about a veto. I also explicitly recall an issue regarding NATO training and a separate problem when France strongly hinted that cooperating with the US on Iraq would cause problems for joining the EU. But I'll have to research that after I file this Form 4.

[Sebastian holsclaw]

"which appears to say that Turkey lacked any capacity to make its own decisions about the Iraq invasion. If that's not racist, what is?"

Umm that is quite a leap from even my argument much less Wretchards. If I were to say, just by way of example, that a particular Muslim person had been tortured until he agreed to sign a false confession, it wouldn't be racist to say that he (like almost anyone in that position) had cracked under pressure.

[Jesurgislac]

To be fair, Sebastian's presumption that Turkey has no independence of action - that the Turks did not decide for themselves not to support the US (which is certainly not borne out by the record) is not nearly as strongly stated in Wretchard's article as it is in Sebastian's reduction of the argument.

The presumption was, presumably, that the Turkish Parliament couldn't possibly have turned down those billion-dollar bribes from the US just out of principle: there must have been some other counter-offer - the US must have been out-bid.

I do not recollect it being assumed that any other country which opposed the US invasion of Iraq did so because another country decided for them that they should. The invasion of Iraq was massively unpopular in Turkey: Turkey had good reason to suppose that the US could not be trusted (promises made during the Gulf War were not kept after it): and there was strong political resentment, clearly stated in the Turkish parliament, about the double standard they perceived between the US's treatment of Israel and of neighboring Muslim nations. Plus, the simple fact that the majority of the EU was opposed to the invasion of Iraq (the vast majority of it, if we count by popular feeling rather than by government action) and Turkey needs the EU rather more than it needs the US.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: If I were to say, just by way of example, that a particular Muslim person had been tortured until he agreed to sign a false confession, it wouldn't be racist to say that he (like almost anyone in that position) had cracked under pressure.

The only pressure being put on Turkey was by the US. The US kept offering billion-dollar bribes, increasing the bribe each time Turkey refused. If you were to say that a Muslim must have been put under pressure from somewhere else because he repeatedly refused a large bribe to do something he thought was wrong, I would say that strongly indicates you think a Muslim doesn't have the capacity to refuse a bribe or to refuse an opportunity for wrong-doing unless under pressure from another source.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: But my recollection is that Turkey suggested it wouldn't allow troops without a UN resolution at about the time that France was talking about a veto.

And naturally, you feel it's just not possible that Turkey could decide for itself that it wouldn't allow troops without a UN resolution?

[crionna]

The presumption was, presumably, that the Turkish Parliament couldn't possibly have turned down those billion-dollar bribes from the US just out of principle: there must have been some other counter-offer - the US must have been out-bid.

I'd say that if you have to presume, you're up for a Carnak. I'd further say that to base a charge of racism on that presumption is not even close to fair.

[Jesurgislac]

Crionna: I'd further say that to base a charge of racism on that presumption is not even close to fair.

When I see Sebastian acknowledge that Turkey has the capacity and the will for independent action, based on their own judgement of the political situation, and they decided not to support the invasion - then I'll believe he's not making a racist judgement about Turkey.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Wretchard's post is a bit hard to follow, but Turkey's refusal to cooperate seems to be secondary, though not unimportant, in his argument.

Still, whatever the reason for that refusal - and blaming it on the French is altogether too convenient - perhaps it could have been anticipated, or at least allowed for, if anyone in the Administration were familiar with the term "contingency plan."

How big the "gift of time" was is open to debate. Surely Saddam anticipated an invasion very early in the game and planned accordingly.

[Phil]

What race are Turks?

[sidereal]

Even if Sebastian did believe Turkey is particularly susceptible to outside influence, it doesn't necessarily mean he based that impression on race, so that charge seems a little premature.

[sidereal]

"What race are Turks?"
Turk!
Great language.

[Jesurgislac]

Even if Sebastian did believe Turkey is particularly susceptible to outside influence, it doesn't necessarily mean he based that impression on race, so that charge seems a little premature.

Fair point, actually. Though it's hard to see what else he's based that impression on: certainly not actual Turkish behavior, which proved during the run-up to the Iraq invasion to be most unsusceptible to outside influence.

[crionna]

Jesurgislac: When I see Sebastian acknowledge that Turkey has the capacity and the will for independent action, based on their own judgement of the political situation, and they decided not to support the invasion - then I'll believe he's not making a racist judgement about Turkey.

So, you mind-read his "true" feeling about the Turks, and then demand a statement debunking your mind-read? That ain't right.

[smlook]

Jes,

Are you sure?

"-up to the Iraq invasion to be most unsusceptible to outside influence."

You can prove that their desire for EU membership had nothing to do with their decision. I personally would love to see your proof of this. As someone who has spent much time in Turkey. The majority of Turkey is just dieing to join the EU. They hate taking more loans, but they love the EU.

[Gary Farber]

"...which appears to say that Turkey lacked any capacity to make its own decisions about the Iraq invasion. If that's not racist, what is?"

I'm afraid that my view is that it is a huge and unnecessary, and therefore uncalled for, leap from that "appearance" to a conclusion the argument means that the only possible reason to make such an argument (however right or wrong it is) is a racist motive.

Purely hypothetically -- in reality, as I said, my understanding is that Turkey was motivated overwhelmingly by democratic pressure of the citizenry, as well as honest reasoning by some of the leadership -- Turkey could have been overwhelmingly pressured by France/the EU. That doesn't take racism; we're pretty indiscriminate, ourselves, for example, about which countries we pressure (basically, anyone, whenever our government feels strongly enough about a given issue) without being noticably racist in whom we choose to pressure. When we pressure France or Spain or Britain or Georgia, are we being racist?

I'd also keep in mind that accusations of racism are a conversational hand grenade, and best reserved, in my view, anyway, for cases that are indisputable and utterly clear. And I don't see this as one; I think Sebastian is being wronged here. But that's just me.

[Gary Farber]

"If you were to say that a Muslim must have been put under pressure from somewhere else because he repeatedly refused a large bribe to do something he thought was wrong, I would say that strongly indicates you think a Muslim doesn't have the capacity to refuse a bribe or to refuse an opportunity for wrong-doing unless under pressure from another source."

However, we didn't desire to invade Iraq through Turkey because Turkey is Muslim. We desired to invade Iraq through Turkey because Turkey is the northern border of Iraq. In this specific and limited context, the fact that Turkey is Muslim is completely irrelevant. If we were talking about invading Spain, we'd be pressuring France, and if others were also pressuring France, they wouldn't be doing it because anyone concerned was anti-Christian. (Also: Muslims aren't a race; even if you are correct, you need another term, whether it be "anti-Muslim" or "bigoted against Muslims" or the in vogue "Muslimophobic" (which seems to connote oddly to me, but I digress).)

[liberal japonicus]

This is not directed at Sebastian (I have to say to Jes that the phrase is so short that it is impossible, and therefore irresponsible, to determine what the intent is) but bear in mind that some have suggested that Turkey's status as a Muslim nation had some bearing on its decision. In fact, in a thread here, the opinion that the EU, because the EU is an 'all-Christian' club, simply can't accept Turkey as a member. Since we don't have a particularly pithy term for 'anti-religious-foundation-of-the-country prejudice', I assume that is what has Jes using racism. I hasten to point out that Seb seems to have a wait and see attitude towards Turkish inclusion to the EU, as illustrated by the comments here

smlook flips that equation over, and claims that Turkey's desire for EU membership drove the decision. This might be probable if France's government has something to offer concerning EU membership. Here is a summary of the EU25 various positions on Turkey's membership. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems unlikely that any direct quid pro quo has been offered, given the current situation.

I'd also note that the War Orange Plan post that Wretchard touts seems to really misunderstand how big a screwup MacArthur made in the Phillipines. (quick n' dirty link)

[novakant]

The chaos in Iraq is France's fault!

OMG, what p*ss poor argument. See, it's pretty simple:
We, the euroweenies, never wanted this war (and even more so if one values the will of the European people higher than that of the European goverments). We would have only accepted war as a last resort, had Saddam not complied with the inspections and had Blix turned up some credible evidence of an immediate WMD threat. The US had decided to go to war (or "introduce their new product") after Cheney's speech to the Veterans, the rest was pseudo-diplomatic windowdressing. Of course we, the euroweenies, tried everything in our power to prevent a war we deemed unnecessary (at least given no new evidence). So there was a genuine difference of opinion when it came to assessing the threat posed by Iraq and both sides acted accordingly - live with it.

As far as responsibility for the chaos in Iraq is concerned: it's not our fault that the Bush admin is run by people who are utterly incompetent when it comes to postwar-planning, peace-keeping and nation-building.

On apersonal note(and you probably won't believe me, but what the heck): as soon as it was clear to me that the US would invade (Cheney speech), I hoped, but had grave doubts (Chalabi anyone?), I truly hoped that BushCo would get it over with quickly and get it right, for the sake of the Iraqi people. Alas, they didn't and they messed up even worse than I could have imagined, because they were stuck in ideological schemes removed from reality and simply didn't care enough. The blatant incompetency of the whole postwar op still drives me up the wall - and I could care less about all the fingerpointing, triumphalism and feelings of vindication, if these clowns had only done their homework and gotten the job done.

[dmbeaster]

Its amazing the extent to which Bush apologists will invent sheer numskullery to avoid any admission that maybe some mistakes were made, and we are now suffering the consequences.

Blaming the insurgency on a delay in commencing the invasion is pure fiction. Without doubt, the biggest factor was a lack of manpower to secure the country after conquering it. Probably the clearest evidence of that is the fact that the insurgency has slowly escalated over months. If was fully organized because of the alleged delay, it would have come into full ofrce from teh beginning.

As for Turkey, internal politics resulted in denying us access. The leadership was willing to take the enormous US handout in exchange for access (dare we say bribe?), but the blowback from the popoulace, which was enormously against it, caused it to shift position. It had nothing to do with the UN or France.

Well, now we know why the same nitwits who created the mess are still in charge -- they did nothing wrong according to the official right-wing line (and the election result allegeldy proves it).

[CaseyL]

The pro-war faction's Francophobe obsession is apparently very useful for erasing and revising recent history. Some of us still remember what actually happened, though.

Turkey's internal debate over whether to join the Coalition was carried out in full view of the world, with frequent news updates. The escalating bribe/aid package the Bush Admin kept offering got to be kind of funny, like those TV ads for 'exciting new products!' that keep adding salad spinners and Ginzu knives to sweeten the deal.

The adamant opposition by Turkey's citizens - 90% opposed joining Bush's Coalition, and weren't shy about saying so - was also in full view. There was a fair bit of commentary at the time about how the Bush Admin didn't seem to respect democracy when democracy didn't do as the Bush Admin wished. There was also a fair bit of commentary on pro-war blogs about Turkish stupidity, perfidity and lese majestie: how dare the Turks defy the US!

But now it's France's fault? *sigh*

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

I heard that Paul Bremer’s first act as director of the Coalition Provisional Authority was to fire all senior members of the Baath Party, including 30,000 civil servants, policemen, teachers and doctors

I would like to point out that Bremmer's first objective was to prevent a "civil war" which required deferring to the Shia and the Kurds on certain issues and thus Baathist were put out.

On the Turks and Turkey, there were two issues which prevented our invasion from the north. First, the Turks wanted the northern oil fields of Iraq, which we wisely declined. Second and related, the military factions in the parliament voted against the Americans which caught a number of politicians by surprise. Some postulated that the military factions wanted to bring the government down.

Did the French play a role in this drama, probably but it wasn't the critical driver.

[liberal japonicus]

the Turks wanted the northern oil fields of Iraq, which we wisely declined.
and
Some postulated that the military factions wanted to bring the government down.

I note that the grammar tells me you are willing to defend the first but not the second. Be my guest.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

I note that the grammar tells me you are willing to defend the first but not the second.

[or if you think a little harder]

The first was an external matter, where we had a role to play and the second was an internal Turkish issue, where we had no role to play.

I thought the Turks played their hand badly, as did the Americans. I just don't blame the French.

[Jesurgislac]

Crionna: So, you mind-read his "true" feeling about the Turks, and then demand a statement debunking your mind-read?

Sebastian seems to feel that Turkey (and, arguing from that, the Turks) have no ability to make independent decisions. Any decisions they make will be because people who aren't Turks (for example, France) put them under pressure to make a decision. That's not a "mind-read", that's based directly on what Sebastian has written in this thread, which I have quoted.

Now, if Sebastian didn't mean what he wrote in this thread about Turkey being incapable of deciding things for itself, all he's got to do is say so.

[Anarch]

Sebastian seems to feel that Turkey (and, arguing from that, the Turks) have no ability to make independent decisions.

Jes, WTF? Sebastian said no such thing, your repetitions notwithstanding. He cited Wretchard as saying that the UN and France leaned on Turkey; it's a contention I strongly disagree with, but it has nothing whatosever to do with claiming that Turkey is somehow being incapable of making its own decisions -- caving under pressure has nothing to do with an incapacity to make one's own decisions and everything to do with, well, caving under pressure -- or somehow imposing a racist paradigm on the situation. Please, get the bee from out your bonnet and let it go already.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: He is saying that the UN and France's pressure on Turkey helped create a situation where we were not able to invade from the north and south simultaneously.

Wretchard's statement was passive voice: Sebastian restated it in active voice, giving the action to France and the UN, not Turkey.

Sebastian: But my recollection is that Turkey suggested it wouldn't allow troops without a UN resolution at about the time that France was talking about a veto.

And naturally, Turkey couldn't possibly have come to that decision independently...

[liberal japonicus]

[or if you think a little harder]

Sorry for not being clear, I'm wondering if you have any evidence for the fact that Turkey demanded Iraq's northern oil fields (and that we refused, but if you could just point to some evidence of the first clause, I'd be satisfied)

[smlook]

"Because of course, it's just not possible for Turkey to have decided independently that it didn't want to support a war on Iraq"

Interesting, just the other day at ObWi I heard someone making the comment that the Iraqi election was worthless cause no one really knew who was running with so many parties listed. It's good to know that the Turks are smart enough to make their own decision, but the Iraqis aren't.

[Edward]

All this "racism" talk is bordering on violating the posting rules folks...let's bring it down a notch please.

Thanks,
e

[Jesurgislac]

Smlook: just the other day at ObWi I heard someone making the comment that the Iraqi election was worthless cause no one really knew who was running with so many parties listed.

Can you cite who said that, which thread, what comment? I don't believe you can, because I don't actually believe anyone said it: I think you've misremembered.

Edward: All this "racism" talk is bordering on violating the posting rules folks...let's bring it down a notch please.

Okay. Sorry.