.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Monday, December 17, 2007

The US tries to avoid blowback from Turkish airstrikes

The US is simply trying to avoid the blowback, but really, as the US controls the airspace, this is a pretty silly distinction that I don't think any of those angered by the attacks will believe.
The US has denied it gave permission for Turkish aircraft to carry out air strikes against Kurdish PKK separatist rebels in northern Iraq on Sunday.

The US embassy in Iraq said commanders had not approved the attacks, but had been informed before they took place.


(The US is also supplying intelligence and satellite photos.)

Later: (NYTimes) Iraqis blame US

posted by mikevotes at 8:15 AM

13 Comments:

  • "The US embassy in Iraq said commanders had not approved the attacks, but had been informed before they took place."

    Isn't that the definition of tacit approval, which is the term I heard reported on NPR.

    By Blogger -epm, at 9:40 AM  

  • Well yes and no epm. Being informed of a possible airstrike is not precisely the same thing as giving tacit approval. I'm sure Dana Perino can explain it better than me.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:17 AM  

  • Again, there is a difference, but, because the airspace is controlled by the US, it's a subtle distinction, especially to those who had their houses blown up.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 11:43 AM  

  • You know when Marge Simpson knows Homer's going to do something stupid and she make that non-committal, groaning"Mmmmm...." That, to me, is tacit approval. We did at least that, officially, and probably much more unofficially.

    By Blogger -epm, at 12:00 PM  

  • Everybody knows what's going on here. So what?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:32 PM  

  • Well, the reason I brought it up as a post. It'll cause the rank and file Kurds to dislike us, and it will fuel the anti-American nationalist rhetoric that Sadr uses to create his movement.

    I sympathize with the Turks' situation, but from a US interests in Iraq viewpoint, being seen collaborating with this is bad for the US.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:43 PM  

  • So, in essence, we lack any sense of regional or global strategy. We are obsessed with a collection of isolated trouble spots, but fail to see the broader interconnections.

    By Blogger -epm, at 2:05 PM  

  • The US has talked itself into a corner on terrorism. It's impossible to condemn it in one place and overlook it in another without appearing totally hypocritical.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:24 PM  

  • EPM, They're only troublespots because the regional "strategery" doesn't match the reality of the region.

    ....

    Anon, I think the hypocritical boat has sailed.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 2:32 PM  

  • I think you're right. We're in uncharted waters.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:18 PM  

  • at this point, I doubt anyone really cares too much about whether we approve or disapprove of anything. our reputation is dirt.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:39 PM  

  • WRT the sailing of the hypocritical boat, I see it as proof that the ME is far, far more complex than Bush ever imagined in his "good guys" vs. "bad guys" world.
    As I've said here before, the region is a case where our putative allies have interests that go against our own, and our putative enemies have interests that coincide with ours.

    It calls for finesse, but Bush's tactics begin and end with "blow 'em up or not?". He's in over his head, and every party in the region is doing an end run around the dolt. Examples abound.

    The very fact that the rest of Iraq is yawning over incursions into their sovereign territory is prima facie proof that the idea of a nation called Iraq is fictional. It is an artificial construct of the British Empire that was only held together by Saddam's will - the Balkans of the Middle East.

    For me, at least, that is "the point".

    By Blogger Todd Dugdale , at 9:05 AM  

  • I believe the level of sophistication you mention is beyond Bush's capability.

    Also, Iraq's nationhood is generally only called upon by the Iraqis in three circumstances. 1) When someone is trying to claim power over the other groups. 2) When someone is trying to villanize another group's acts. 3) When someone is trying to lay claim to oil revenue.

    Iraqi nationhood has a facility within these political actions, but none of them really refer to a true nation as you indicate.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 6:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home