Bear Flag Republic Radio Weblog

WSJ.  Turkey is in turmoil.  Yesterday, the Turkish stock market plunged 13% and its currency fell 5% as news of the Turkish parliament's decision to block the deployment of US troops reached investors.  Reports are that Turkish military is furious at the decision because it would prevent them from sending 50,000 Turkish troops into northern Iraq to prevent the establishment of an independent Kurdish state.  It's the worst of all worlds for Turkey:  they won't get financial aid from the US, they won't have a say on what happens in northern Iraq, and they will experience the negative economic impact of the war when it does come.  Despite this obvious downside, it is unlikely that Mr. Gul will risk the collapse of his government by forcing another vote (particularly after how badly he screwed up the last vote).

The situation is probably worse for US planners.  We have lost our second front against Iraq because we bet on the wrong horse.  What do I mean?  We had a choice 7 months ago to either 1) go with deployments in Turkey or 2) train and arm the Kurds.  We opted for Turkey and we lost big.  We didn't even hedge our bets. 

The Kurdish option, in my view, was always a very attractive and inexpensive option, particularly if it was only done as a hedge (ie. within limits so as to not infuriate the Turks).  We could have gained up to 70,000 peshmerga fighters highly motivated to oust Saddam.  We would have also gained an immense amount of legitimacy. 

That didn't happen.  I think one of the factors driving the decision not to work with the Kurds was that the US military has become very arrogant in regards to its capabilities.  US military planners now think that all of other militaries of the world are currently so backward, that working with them would slow us down (a mismatch as big as cavalry vs. tanks).  In this view, only the brits have a hope of keeping up, everyone else would just get in the way.  They wouldn't be able to handle the information flow.  A second factor is that the US wants to make this an antiseptic war with a low casualty count.  The thinking goes that if we allow the armed opposition to fight in the war, it would make it bloodier than it needs to be. 

Regardless, we don't have the peshmerga and we need a second front in the north or Iraq.  The troops off the southern Turkish coast would take a month to move to the Gulf and therefore will only be useful as a reserve.  The only way to create a second front would be to fly the 101st airborne to Kurdistan in the north and stage an attack from there.  However, that poses three big problems:  1) we need to fly these troops over Iraq's territory, and 2) they may be vulnerable to a strong Iraqi counter attack given that they won't have much armor and their numbers won't be that great.

This situation should have been anticipated in US war plans.  The early indicators was that it wasn't (given the DoD's reluctance to work with the Kurds as a hedge against Turkish noncooperation).  Let's see how good the strategists at the DoD really are. [John Robb's Radio Weblog]

comments < 9:26:29 AM        >

Here is the team that will probably end up in Kurdistan.  I bet they don't even unpack the helicopters when they arrive at port. [John Robb's Radio Weblog]
comments < 9:25:15 AM        >

North Korea MiG's Intercept U.S. Jet on a Spy Mission. Four North Korean fighter jets shadowed an unarmed U.S. spy plane for 22 minutes in international airspace.  When it rains, it pours.  North Korea will shortly have the capacity to produce 60 nukes a year (only months away).  The nuclear material is compact enough to easily smuggle to any country or group in the world for the production of full nuclear weapons or dirty bombs.  Its people are starving.  Its economy is nonexistent.  Everything is falling apart unless it can get fuel and money.  As a result it is resorting to nuclear blackmail -- pay us billions not to produce nukes.  The US isn't going to do it.  Will the South Koreans and the Japanese?  Will they pay North Korea $5-$10 b a year not to shut down their nuclear reactors?  Another possibility looms:  North Korea could attack the south if the US becomes entangled in a costly single front campaign around Baghdad.  In that scenario, all hell breaks loose because the US doesn't have the troops to fight both wars at the same time.  In that situation it is likely the US will use force multipliers like tactical nukes to emasculate North Korea's military.   Very scary times we live in folks. [John Robb's Radio Weblog]
comments < 9:23:52 AM        >

This is a very interesting article that may be the key to understanding the US strategy.  It reflects my thinking on the issue in that it focuses on the right thing:  what is the long term solution to the loose nuke problem?  The answer, of course, is to work on extending the network of connectivity and prosperity we enjoy here to the rest of the world.  The author's view and the DoD's view is that this should be done through aggressive military and diplomatic action, particularly against the rogue states that destabilize entire regions.  This seems to be too direct a method and one unlikely to accomplish the goal.  We have to be smarter.  Our current track is causing entirely too much damage to the world's economy, organizational infrastructure, and good will to be sustainable over the long term. [John Robb's Radio Weblog]
comments < 9:21:53 AM        >

Just to recap Bush's press conference last night.  Here is the outline:

9/11 awoke the US to the threat of terrorism.  We now know we are vulnerable to attack.  We will now proactively eliminate threats to the security of the US.  Saddam's leadership of Iraq is a threat because:

1. Ability:  He has chemical and biological weapons.
2. Intent:  He has ties to terrorist groups (he has previously called on terrorists to attack the US).
3. State of mind:  He has demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons.
4. Motive:  He has a hatred of the US.

The US is in favor of a diplomatic disarming of Iraq (to eliminate his ability to act on his threats).  However, the process has not worked and should end:

1. The US supported the process of arms inspections but it has not accomplished its goal in 12 years of effort.
2. Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons that they have not declared in this latest round of inspections (prima facie evidence of noncompliance).
3. Any additional attempts to follow this course of action would not result in disarmament.

The UN, as an organization that promotes collective security, is not working.  Here's why:

1. The UN sponsored inspections of Iraq have not worked over 12 years.
2. The unanimous acceptance of UN resolution 1441 last September stated that this was the last chance for Iraq to disarm. 
3. Given that Saddam's Iraq continues to flout the inspections and the UN's will, the UN seems unable to bring closure on this issue.

Here is what the US will do:

1. Provide the UN with one last chance to pass a resolution that clearly authorizes military action in the event of Iraqi noncompliance.
2. Regardless of whether the UN passes the resolution or not, the US will invade Iraq to disarm the country out of national security interests.
3. The US will change the regime in Iraq and help establish a democratic infrastructure.

[John Robb's Radio Weblog]
comments < 9:19:21 AM        >

More on Next Version of Windows. The next version of Windows, named Longhorn, is said to feature a 3-D translucent interface (sounds like Mac OS X) with a new Windows file system that will provide enhanced file searching capabilities (sounds like Mac OS X's Find and Sherlock search features). Am I missing something that is revolutionary and innovative? [Edward Mitchell: Common Sense Technology]
comments < 9:17:00 AM        >

Real Ham Radio. True stories from the front lines, where amateur radio operators were put to the test (from W2IK). [Edward Mitchell: Common Sense Technology]
comments < 9:14:30 AM        >