Article

2005-10-24 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

U.S. turns to Turkey for help on Iran, Syria

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2005-10-24 01:08|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Gotta go with .com on this one. We need to let Turkey twist gently in the breeze. Who knows how many American lives might have been spared had we gotten access to Iraq through Turkey. Find some way to do without them and let the EU continue their "separate but equal" charade with these back-stabbing polecats.

Posted by Zenster 2005-10-24 01:22|| 2005-10-24 01:22|| Front Page Top

#2 The U.S. Defense Department has discussed the use of Turkey as a base for American military operations in the Middle East, Turkish government sources said.

Boy, our officials have awfully short memories, don't they?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-10-24 01:48|| 2005-10-24 01:48|| Front Page Top

#3 A complex issue. However, the benefits seem to outweigh the costs and grievances: Turkey may yet prove helpful in any action against Syria or Iran. Turkey is also a stick with which to poke the EU. And lastly, it's in everyone's interest for Turkey not to go jihadi in the future.

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-24 02:00|| 2005-10-24 02:00|| Front Page Top

#4 Who knows how many American lives might have been spared

You say that as if the initial stages of the war cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Not to belittle the lives lost, but personally I feared something like 10,000 dead. IMO, passage through Turkey was a non-issue. It would have been nice, but the way I remember it, the US did just fine without it. So F Turkey.

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-24 02:14|| 2005-10-24 02:14|| Front Page Top

#5 Turkey may yet prove helpful in any action against Syria or Iran.

That's nice, 'cos they certainly weren't any help where Iraq was concerned. Had they been, we would have been saved a LOT of trouble.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-10-24 02:55|| 2005-10-24 02:55|| Front Page Top

#6 They turned down a 3 billion dollar bribe to go into Iraq through their territory. This cost a lot of lives and let the enemy escape intact because he wasn't surrounded.

Posted by gromky">gromky 2005-10-24 03:26|| http://communistposters.com/]">[http://communistposters.com/] 2005-10-24 03:26|| Front Page Top

#7 Escape to where? Seems more likely the regulars dropped their weapons and simply went home, while the die-hards prepared to fight another day, which would have happened regardless of whether Turkey provided passage or not.

we would have been saved a LOT of trouble.

But not in the long run, as is plainly the case now.

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-24 03:59|| 2005-10-24 03:59|| Front Page Top

#8 fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice, shame on me.

Hey Rafael, I got some beach front property in Florida I want to sell you. Great deal if you buy in the next hour. Sure, Wilma might wipe it out - but are you feeling lucky? Are you?

Posted by 2b 2005-10-24 04:24|| 2005-10-24 04:24|| Front Page Top

#9 Though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Posted by Hupeans Snerert2476 2005-10-24 07:18|| 2005-10-24 07:18|| Front Page Top

#10 It was a good learning exercise for Turkey, as they learned the EU is useless, and their "goodwill" gesture bought them nothing!

Hence the talks "Please can we be friends again?"

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2005-10-24 07:24|| 2005-10-24 07:24|| Front Page Top

#11 Rafael...You need to read some of the Lesson's learned from CENTCOM from the invasion. The plan was for the 4ID to roll down across the upper Tigris, and block and disrupt the ratline from Syria. That would have saved a lot of heartburn as the "alleged" WMD's escaped to Syria and the Bekka. Also it would not have allowed the islamo-cockroaches time to establish as strong a foothold in the Al Anbar. That's CENTCOM...not me.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2005-10-24 07:52|| 2005-10-24 07:52|| Front Page Top

#12 Without pressing danger to Turkey I doubt we can count on them for much of anything though the fence mending serves a purpose of it's own.

Posted by MunkarKat 2005-10-24 09:08|| 2005-10-24 09:08|| Front Page Top

#13 If we can't count on much from Turkey, let's find out for sure. If they aren't playing ball with us, it may be time to put them out in the cold and develop plans that consider them, France, Spain and Germany to be hostile powers. We should then ditch NATO and build an alliance of nations that are seriously interested in preserving democracy. But let's find out if they learned any lessons from the run up to Iraq, first.

Posted by Uloluper Phomoper1853 2005-10-24 09:49|| 2005-10-24 09:49|| Front Page Top

#14

Posted by .com 2005-10-24 10:12|| 2005-10-24 10:12|| Front Page Top

#15 I disagree with UP1853. There's value in uncertainty if you're the one who can manipulate that. Let the Turks wonder where they stand. Let their military, traditionally strongly supportive of us, fret. Let our true enemies (e.g., Iran) worry about what the Turks might or might not do. Let them spend time and effort trying to influence the Turks -- there's only so many hours in a day, so make our enemies waste theirs.

Whatever decision we make about the Turks, the rest of the world should never know it.

Posted by Steve White 2005-10-24 10:32|| 2005-10-24 10:32|| Front Page Top

#16 You guys are awefull rough on Turkey. Turkey is right there in the middle of all this shit. It would be like us next to mexico full of insurgents, no wonder they don't want to commit. The EU doesn't want them, the Arab states dont want them, Russia doesn't want them. Where do you think they will turn? To us, that's right. They don't have a whole lot to offer, but they have their strategic location. Being fresh out of friends, they may turn out to be a good ally someday.

Posted by Crimble Gromons1663 2005-10-24 10:33|| 2005-10-24 10:33|| Front Page Top

#17 This better mean "US leans on Turkey to Straighten Up and Fly Rigjt"...

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-10-24 10:34|| 2005-10-24 10:34|| Front Page Top

#18 Lol, CG. That's what I love about RB.

Posted by .com 2005-10-24 10:34|| 2005-10-24 10:34|| Front Page Top

#19 Turkey is right there in the middle of all this shit. It would be like us next to mexico full of insurgents, no wonder they don't want to commit. The EU doesn't want them, the Arab states dont want them, Russia doesn't want them. Where do you think they will turn? To us, that's right. They don't have a whole lot to offer, but they have their strategic location. Being fresh out of friends, they may turn out to be a good ally someday.

This was already the case when we needed access to Iraq. Little has changed since then save that the EU's tacit reluctance has become open hesitation. No big news here except that we've had just one more demonstration of unreliability from a country that was supposed to be one of our allies. Their "unhelpfulness" with Iraq was sheer ingratitude and not much else.

At some point the dithering has to end. Turkey has frittered away their chances and our patience.

Posted by Zenster 2005-10-24 12:44|| 2005-10-24 12:44|| Front Page Top

#20 The truck caravan to the Bekaa Valley via Syria was complete before the invasion -- I remember seeing the satellite pictures. Sending the 4th ID through Turkey as originally planned wouldn't have changed that (and I must admit I am really looking forward to seeing the goodies finally dug up!). The 4th ID anvil to the hammer that was the rest of the invasion force would have made the Sunni Triangle denizens feel immediately the cost of losing the war... as opposed to the slower attrition by which they are losing now. However, while the original plan would have definitely been "shock and awe", the current slow and inevitable gristmill leaves a certain mentality with no way to rationalize their losses as temporary or accidental. And by taking place in the full glare of Ummah attention, the lesson is being taught well beyond Iraq's borders.

Turkey appears by all accounts to be teetering between the attractions of the West and of the Ummah. Under their current administration they are leaning toward the religious side. But a great many Turks still see the attraction of Attaturk's dream: a secular Moslem state, just as Israel is a secular Jewish state, and the U.S. is a secular Christian state.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-10-24 13:19|| 2005-10-24 13:19|| Front Page Top

#21 A beautiful, if somewhat sterilized and bloodless, summation, tw, *kudos*

Work in more light regards the obvious US losses directly stemming from Turkey's perfidy - no matter how strategic they are to the cold calculus of realpolitik, and I'm sure a bona fide Gold Star mother could assist with that verbiage - and I'm your slave.

Posted by .com 2005-10-24 13:31|| 2005-10-24 13:31|| Front Page Top

#22 .com. you know I can't do the blood 'n' guts bit -- I haven't the imagination, and thank goodness not the experience. I rely on you and the others who've been stuck in for that. As for the comparison of losses (another bloodless word, I apologize), I'll have to rely on you military types for that, too. I wouldn't know how to begin to lay out the equation. All I know is that the current method appears to be working. Who was it that said all plans are perfect until the battle starts?

As for slaves -- fooey! Go make us some tea! ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2005-10-24 13:54|| 2005-10-24 13:54|| Front Page Top

#23 trailing...what you say about the 4ID is expanded and correct. However, the comment about the WMD's is true in light of hindsight and history (no offense intended). Part of the CONOP (and thus a reason for the 4ID in Turkey) was to sever the ratline and cut off escape routes for bad (read Baghdad area Baathists) guys and the WMD's.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2005-10-24 14:24|| 2005-10-24 14:24|| Front Page Top

#24 the obvious US losses directly stemming from Turkey's perfidy

You've mentioned that before, can you give some examples?

With 20/20 hindsight, given the relative ease and speed with which Iraq was taken, I don't buy that hammer and anvil plan. The jihadi plan all along was to give up and fight another day, hiding among (and behind) the civilian population. Passage through Turkey would be irrelevant in this case.
Besides, all major cities were bypassed. Total destructive war wasn't a part of the hearts-and-minds deal. Attacking from the north wouldn't have changed that.
Turkey deserves scorn, but this whole thing about passage through Turkey somehow changing the outcome is overblown, imo.

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-24 14:33|| 2005-10-24 14:33|| Front Page Top

#25 anymouse, I'm never offended by the comments of those (a good proportion of the Rantburg population, I fear, not to mention the outside world) who know more about something than this little civilian housewife. It's only those who know less that annoy me. After all, it isn't arrogance when one really is as good as one claims.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-10-24 15:15|| 2005-10-24 15:15|| Front Page Top

#26 Sigh.

tw - kettle's on the boil - or just short of it, doncha know. :)

Rafael. Sigh, again. Lordy, lordy, where to begin. I don't really know how to state the case, in one swell foop, when there is one hell of a sequence of events that just screams out the answer with every IED, with every rat's nest that has to be cleaned out, with every passing day. I'll pose a series of questions, I think. That would be best, since I don't really feel like writing a book.

Do you know much about military ops? I mean know, first-hand?

Have you paid attention to what has happened over the last 2+ yrs regards the Sunni Triangle - and nowhere else, actually?

Who do you think needed, more than any other region of Iraq, a first-hand lesson in tasting no-shit, bloody in your face, ass-kicking defeat for everything Saddam stood for?

Do you know what gets an Arab's attention, holds it, and focuses it?

Do you know what gets an Arab's respect? The real one that reminds him not to shoot you in the back, as soon as it's turned?

Do you think that if the war had been conducted as planned by the best of our military planners that it might have made a difference over the last 2+ years?
(Sure, they did the deed rolling up from the south - and largely pacified the path from Kuwait to Baghdad - in spite of the lack of the hammer from Turkey sweeping through SunniLand. But that's the point - an undefeated enemy is exactly that. The Sunni Triangle got a pass.)

Who in Iraq is the enemy of freedom for Iraq? Precisely those who never had to endure war. Precisely those who needed to.

If it had all happened as planned, and we will never know all of the aspects of "The Plan" since it was short-circuited before it even saw the light of day, I submit to you:

1) The insurgency, the real one composed of Iraqi Ba'athists and disaffected RG, would have been much shorter, much less bloody, and much less likely to have encouraged the flypaper effect. Those planners aren't stupid dolts, y'know. They do this shit for a living. They thought about the campaign. They thought about the aftermath. They thought about the occupation. They considered who we were fighting. They considered who would ally against us and with the Ba'athists. All of it. Much of this may have been a surprise to many observers, but it wasn't to those who were tasked with finding solutions and developing the plans to implement them.

2) Indeed, it's possible that the flypaper effect may have still occurred to some degree, but they would've found far less sanctuary, far fewer tribal leaders willing to shelter them and support them logistically, a far smaller Ba'athist treasury to get them started - it would've been pounded to shit with their tribal leaders suing for peace - as it should've been and would've been without Turkey's perfidy.

Sigh. I could roll out the sequence of events, again, that led to this, but I won't. It's about understanding what and who we're fighting. What will make them stop and be glad they aren't already dead. It's about why they were allowed the pass that created the circumstances that have fostered first, the insurgency, and then the foreign-fighter terrorism that followed on. Without a pass for the Sunni Triangle, that would not have happened with anywhere near the ferocity nor effectiveness.

Time is part of the equation, too. If you conduct a blitzkrieg then pacification is far more likely than if you give the enemy time to organize. That should ring true to anyone, military experience or not. They had all the time in the world, thanks to Turkey. The Pentagon took the second front force and made it the relief for the first - I believe they took the broken plan and tried to wing it - and muffed it. I believe the first CA being replaced by the second CA was part of that winging-it mess - and muff. Given all the time, it encouraged precisely who and what was the focus of this entire war: Saddam and his supporters.

I'm sorry, I don't feel like I've done a good job of this - some days are better than others for lucid commentary. Today, I just feel like watching another movie - and I've got Serenity cued up to go. I think I'll go watch it.

Perhaps someone else more eloquent can do better, but to someone who has played with fire, this is so clearly obvious that it boggles to have to explain it.

Posted by .com 2005-10-24 15:15|| 2005-10-24 15:15|| Front Page Top

#27 May I trouble you for a cup of Earl Grey with just a splash of milk, .com? Thank you so much. :-) I'm making brownies (from a box, admittedly, but still), and I'll be happy to share with all who need sustenance to support the mental effort of this thread. ;-) Popcorn won't suit, here.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-10-24 15:29|| 2005-10-24 15:29|| Front Page Top

#28 The US should privately be as close an ally to Turkey as they allow. Spite (rightious or not) has no place in diplomacy. The US should publiclly keep our distance to allow Turkey to get a handle on their domestic radicals.

Also the US should work with Turkey to win the War on Terror. I don't mean as a launching pad for military, or even using their troops, I mean the hearts & Minds.

The US should do whatever we can to get the Sufi brand of Sunni Islam to become top dog again. Turkey is Sufi land, we should put US dollars to spread Sufi Islam into Mosques in tactical areas currently dominated by the Wahhabist freaks. We should us US dollars to help them print up Sufi Korans if that's what it takes. We should try to get the Turks to come up with some kind of Islamic Council (to replace Egypt in that stead) or even a Pope (to replace the Imam of Mecca) so they can be seen as the leaders of Islam instead of the current million voices from a million mosques, most of which are frothing maniacs.

Posted by rjschwarz (no T!) 2005-10-24 16:28|| 2005-10-24 16:28|| Front Page Top

#29 I say let Turkey flap in the wind. They did us and Iraq great damage with their reversal of support for an invasion from the north into Iraq.

They were with us and then lined up behind France and Germany. They are not our trust worthy allies and can never again be allowed to think they are. They have yet to learn from their error. Yhat is thanks to our continuing to think we need to help them or support them when we do not. A series of Air bases in situated in Iraq would suit our current global situation much better then any in Turkey.

Let them feel the pain. Let them flap in the wind. Let them worry about Iran and the Kurds.

Posted by Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom 2005-10-24 16:29|| 2005-10-24 16:29|| Front Page Top

#30 raphael

there are a great many people, including some strong supporters of Op. Iraqi Freedom, who think that their were many mistakes made in the occupation, from the use of too few troops, to mistakes in how the CPA was staffed, etc. The gist of this POV is that going into Iraq was a good idea, and may yet be a success, but that mistakes made by Donald Rumsfeld in particular made it much harder than it needed to be. McCain and Kristol are particularly notable for this POV (Kristol openly).

One oft heard counter argument is that the reason there werent enough troops in the immediate postwar was because Turkey wouldnt let the 4th ID come through the north, and so their arrival in Iraq was delayed. Everything that has since gone wrong is attributed to that - had the 4th ID been present immediatly the insurgency would have been quashed at the beginning, and we'd be over and done by now. Ergo, Turkey was guilty of the greatest behavior ever.

While I cannot deny there is something to this POV, I think its perhaps a bit overdrawn. you can also see how convenient it is for people who despise McCain, and who want to hold Rumsfeld blameless.

Discussions of Turkey here cannot be understood absent that context, I think.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-10-24 16:38|| 2005-10-24 16:38|| Front Page Top

#31 .com,

No I'm not a military person, never have been in a uniform, or in a foxhole fighting for my life. Neither am I a complete dolt, and I can sometimes recognize that 1+1 doesn't equal 3. There's something in your reasoning that says 1+1=3 and in my mind that is inconsistant. Let's just agree to disagree. I understand the "1+1" part of your argument, and the "3" part of your argument, but there's something wrong with the "=" part of your argument. The connection isn't there. Sorry.

The importance of the 4ID in the initial stages is overemphasized, given the way events transpired. I would tend to agree with LH.

It's pointless delving too much into this, but why are you so sure that the whole passage through Turkey thing wasn't a form of deception? It's been done before in Gulf War I with the Marines (not involving Turkey though).

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-24 17:26|| 2005-10-24 17:26|| Front Page Top

#32 My movie's over, pretty good one, too.

ROFL. Wow, have I been told what's what or what? Lol. Where are my waders...

rjschwarx(No T) said:
"The US should privately be as close an ally to Turkey as they allow."

*slaps forehead* Fucking brilliant. What was I thinking? That allies should be counted on to provide the courtesies (i.e. passage) customarily accorded allies? Even when we went to the mat for them (i.e Patriot batteries despite France's scuttling the NATO vote, EU membership support, huge fucking aid package offer)? Silly me. Let's jump into bed with them. They're spiffy allies - as long as you don't actually count on them for anything. Sometime I dunno what gets into me. I just expect others to live up to the commitments they make. Sigh.

lh said:
"Everything that has since gone wrong is attributed to that"

Lol. Since I didn't say that, or even close to that, I call bullshit. That's your Donkdick exaggeration game, lh. You trot that sucker out pretty often. Does it actually work in other forums? Lol. Pisses me off something fierce. When you don't have a decent counter argument, you turn disingenuous, as you did here. I'm of two minds here. One sez laugh it off and one sez Fuck You. Decisions, decisions. Try being honest, eh? That bit certainly wasn't.

and then he said:
"it is for people who despise McCain, and who want to hold Rumsfeld blameless"

More Donkdick stupidity, not to mention totally irrelevant political blather from a Dhimmidonk operative. Does misdirection and muddling the message really work for you elsewhere? Amazing. Tripe.

Rafael said:
"There's something in your reasoning that says 1+1=3 and in my mind that is inconsistent."

Well gosh, that's really, uh, um pointless. And sooo persuasive. I'm stunned.

and
"The importance of the 4ID in the initial stages is overemphasized, given the way events transpired."

So, um, did you read a single word I wrote? Do you "get" any of it? I'm flabbergasted by this sentence. Pray-tell, just how did things transpire? I thought that was the whole fucking point. They went well, from Kuwait to Baghdad because our military is outfuckingstanding. Since the fall, they went badly everywhere we didn't go (except Kurd territory - because they're not Arabs) - which is the Sunni Triangle. From this region came 90% of the shit that "transpired" since the fall of Baghdad. These assholes have provided the logistics, support, funding, and rallying point for what became the flypaper "strategy" (in quotes because I don't think that was planned for because the Sunni Triangle was not supposed to get a pass on the war thingy and be allowed to foment and nurture the insurgency) -- which has yielded hundreds of dead, US and Iraqi, and I tried to explain why. Sheesh. Are we on the same planet?

and
"Let's just agree to disagree."

Fucking-A, Bubba. You got that right. Hey, no sweat. I live. I learn. You asked. I gave it a shot though, admittedly, not my best. You'll believe whatever suits you anyway, but I responded, as requested.

I will note that none of you actually addressed anything I wrote. Not a single point, actually. None of the relevant bits. None. Nothing addressed, nothing refuted, nothing added. Just pissed a bit, here 'n there, responding to no point and making no effort. I wasted my time. It's sad, really, that this isn't obvious, but such is life.

rjs has no standards for allies. The Turks are peachy. Check.
lh can't stop being a political animal - ever - and has no answers outside politics. Check.
Rafael has "feelings" that I'm a complete dolt -- I can't add 1+1 and get 2. Check.
Thx, I'll remember.

Wowsers. HAND.

Posted by .com 2005-10-24 18:36|| 2005-10-24 18:36|| Front Page Top

#33 This whole fucking shenanigan dance from the Turks is their half ass way of boot licking their way into a guarantee from us that we will contain the kurds.

Fuck Turkey, let the Kurds send the Peshmerga up their ass until the cows come home.

EP

Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-10-24 18:46|| 2005-10-24 18:46|| Front Page Top

#34 It's pointless delving too much into this, but why are you so sure that the whole passage through Turkey thing wasn't a form of deception? It's been done before in Gulf War I with the Marines (not involving Turkey though).

No. Having been involved in that OPDEC in GWI, it's MNSHO that the 4th ID movement through Turkey was not a deception. Here's an official history:

In early 2003, a force of some 2000 1st Infantry Division troops was deployed to Turkey to command and control Army Forces Turkey (ARFOR-T). Their mission was to receive and move the 4th Infantry Division across Iraq and into Northern Iraq. Units from the Big Red One included HHC, 1st ID; 1-4 Cavalry; 1-26 Inf; 1-6 FA; 2-1 Avn; HHC, Engineer Brigade; 9th Eng Bn; DISCOM; 701st MSB; 601st Avn Spt Bn; 4-3 Air Defense Artillery; 101st MI Bn; 121st Sig Bn; and the 12th Chem Co. Many other support units from Europe were also assigned. The Big Red One opened three seaports of debarkation, two airports of debarkation, three command posts and numerous convoy support centers along the 500-mile route from the Turkish coast to the Iraqi border. Six ships were downloaded and some 1200 vehicles, trailers and containers were moved to Mardin, Turkey. When the Turkish Parliament voted to deny US ground forces access to Turkey, ARFOR-T received a change of mission and began a deliberate deployment to collapse the line of communication it had built. The ships were reloaded and the Big Red One returned to Germany.

One does not do all this, then have it sit while diplomats go through a very public song-and-dance with Turkey, just to make a diversion. Not when it can be done effectively with a lot less.

Posted by Pappy 2005-10-24 19:23|| 2005-10-24 19:23|| Front Page Top

#35 Ah yes, .com in all his glory. He first starts the condescension: the "my argument is so obvious that if you don't agree with it, then you're obviously stupid and/or inexperienced" attitude. Then if someone disagrees with his argument, it's "HAND/FOAD". Same pattern, as always.

Let's see: The Sunni Triangle got a pass because Turkey didn't allow US troops through its territory. Hence all the problems with the Sunni Triangle (and Iraq by extension) can be indirectly attributable to Turkey.

The fact that one does not have to imply the other, bears no consequence in .com's universe.

I asked for examples, you provided none, because it's so fucking OBVIOUS. Well splendid. Good for you.

.com: Since the fall, they went badly everywhere we didn't go ... which is the Sunni Triangle.

So, like, is the 4thID still stuck at the Turkish border to this day? Because had they been in Iraq, everything would have been just super.

You know, there is an alternative explanation, inferred from events. If you cared I could present my case, but you don't so I won't.

HAND to you too.

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-24 19:32|| 2005-10-24 19:32|| Front Page Top

#36 Well, that's pretty brilliant work there, Rafael. I now wonder where your concern lies, with an answer to how it fits together or my tone. You're offended. Okay, life's hard and yes, I do think it's fucking obvious. My bad.

Again, you address nothing of relevance. I asked the questions that the success level and damage to US forces from the insurgency demands and, believing without hesitation that it's linked to the Turkey perfidy, I tried to explain why. There were far fewer troops in theater than was planned for - we sorta have a tried and true military policy of applying overwhelming force whenever possible - and there wasn't dick we could do about it, thanks to Turkey dragging it out until we were almost fully committed to that path. That was one hell of a come to fucking Jesus Jolt, I'll wager, back at CENTCOM. I tried to answer the questions, except for what gets the Arabs' attention and respect - which is applied power, of course.

I never said "Hence all the problems with the Sunni Triangle..." - nor did I say - "Because had they been in Iraq, everything would have been just super." - geez, so you're a disingenuous exaggerating lying shithead, too. Is there some sort of school you attended where they teach you to lie through your teeth? That makes my day, bubba. But pointing these obvious lies out is, of course, my bad. That you post them is, what, understandable? Lol. Yewbetcha. It must, somehow, be my bad.

I'm supposed to feel bad because you took offense at my tone? This has been a fairly regular RB topic for over 2 years. I've have been consistent in my position because I think it's clearly a contributing factor to our death and injured toll - and I've said that clearly many times. You missed all those days, I guess. Who knew? That dumbfounding coincidence was part of the tone thingy that rankles you. My bad.

Well, I guess that covers it. So, if I follow you, the deaths and injuries from IED's, ambushes, rat-nests like Fallujah, Ramadi, Qaim, Tal Afar, et al, have little to do with the Triangle getting a pass? Is that your mysterious conclusion? And Turkey is what, a peach of an ally? You don't exactly say, and unlike you, I won't put words in your mouth - I guess I'll have to guess. What you did post is enough, actually, I consider myself fully educated regards your military acumen.

BTW, one does not have to imply the other, but I obviously think it does, but I said it so badly, offensively, terribly. Evilly, even. I am so unfair. My bad.

Oh, and to be agreeable and end on an upbeat note, yes, indeed, let's dispense with the HAND's then. Gotcha. My bad.

Posted by .com 2005-10-24 20:18|| 2005-10-24 20:18|| Front Page Top

#37 "We are not going to commit ourselves to helping the United States against Iran," an official said. "We also don't want to commit ourselves to anything that could be interpreted as cooperation for a military strike."...
"But by letting the US use bases for recon (*Stage Aside: Bases established and maintained by the U.S. since the 1950's, and then having to endure constant raghead ingratious drama since). "Iran and Syria will look at Turkey as a facilitator for the US, i.e., an enemy. Cannot have it both ways". {well, Duh. Let's just start up a glass factory, O.K.?")

Posted by Asym Triang 2005-10-24 21:07|| 2005-10-24 21:07|| Front Page Top

#38 You don't read what you type do you?

You said: the Sunni Triangle was not supposed to get a pass on the war thingy and be allowed to foment and nurture the insurgency

So they were allowed to foment and nurture the insurgency? Just like that? I assume you're implying that the Sunni Triangle got a pass because of Turkey, because the 4thID wasn't allowed to do what they do best.

Then you say: they would've found far less sanctuary, far fewer tribal leaders willing to shelter them and support them logistically, a far smaller Ba'athist treasury to get them started - it would've been pounded to shit with their tribal leaders suing for peace - as it should've been and would've been without Turkey's perfidy.

So Baghdad was pounded to shit at will, but the Sunni Triangle was not, because the 4thID wasn't there. Somehow, with all its might and technology and intelligence, the US military missed the Sunni Triangle. They meant to pound it to shit, but couldn't. It wouldn't be because there was no need to pound it to shit at that very moment, would it? If there was, they would have done it, 4thID or no 4thID.

Furthermore, 2,000,000 boots on the ground would not have made a difference at that time because the plan did not call for pounding the place to shit. There was no need to and would have been counter-productive to the whole hearts and minds plan.

Your focus on Turkey and the 4thID is misplaced.

So, if I follow you, the deaths and injuries from IED's, ambushes, rat-nests like Fallujah, Ramadi, Qaim, Tal Afar, et al, have little to do with the Triangle getting a pass?

It has little to do with the 4thID. If the Sunni Triangle got a pass, it's because the US military wanted it that way in the initial stages and not long thereafter.

And Turkey is what, a peach of an ally? You don't exactly say

I said they deserve scorn for what they did. Not strong enough? Ok then..they should be fucked. They should also be used for the tools they are.

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-24 21:30|| 2005-10-24 21:30|| Front Page Top

#39 Rafael,

You might want to read this in its entirety,

The real problem lies within the Sunni-Arab community itself. By eliminating Saddam's regime, the coalition simultaneously disenfranchised that community and decapitated it. Saddam had either co-opted the leaders of that community or killed them, and those that remained fell when he was captured. Radical imams and people like Zarqawi gained power within the Sunni-Arab community by stepping into a vacuum created by coalition success. Their appeal came, as it so often does, from their ability to focus anger and hatred. They spewed anti-Americanism, of course, and thereby drove countless young Iraqi men to their deaths in hopeless combat, but they also preached hatred against Shiites and the doctrine that Iraq should be ruled by the Sunnis forever.

Sunnis have dominated what is now Iraq for centuries--under the Ottoman Empire, the British, and subsequently. Even today, Sunni Arabs claim to be a "majority" in Iraq. For the most part, they do not mean that they are more numerous than the Shiites (though some propaganda tracts attempt to "prove" just that), but rather that they are (or should be) the dominant element in Iraq. In this sense, they are inherently hostile to any arrangement granting power to the Shia--which of course almost any real democracy will do. American assumptions that the Sunnis had been victimized as badly by Saddam as the Shiites and would therefore welcome democracy have turned out to be wrong, undermining U.S. military strategy in the Sunni Triangle.

The decapitation of the Sunni-Arab community in Iraq posed another problem as well, beyond the vacuum exploited by Zarqawi and radical clerics. It meant that there was no recognized authority figure who could speak for that community or control it. The contrast with the Moqtada al-Sadr uprising was stark: At a pivotal moment in that rebellion, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the recognized leader of the Iraqi Shia communities, spoke against Moqtada and urged the Shia not to support him. Sistani thereafter worked to broker several deals that gradually stripped Moqtada of his base and ultimately eliminated the military threat he posed. There was no leader who could perform a similar service in the Sunni-Arab regions.

The failure to occupy the Sunni Triangle after the war in April 2003 aggravated these challenges. Besides allowing Zarqawi and his ilk to step in, it also meant that the Sunni Arabs of Iraq never felt that they had been defeated. They did not fear American forces, as evidenced by the fact that Fallujans of all ages, men and women, came out to watch the first battle of Falluja as though it were a spectator sport--not the behavior one would expect of a people in awe of America's military might.

Posted by Whogum Jugum1864 2005-10-24 21:32|| 2005-10-24 21:32|| Front Page Top

#40 If the Sunni Triangle got a pass, it's because the US military wanted it that way in the initial stages and not long thereafter.

Don't think so. The US military stopped romping and stomping because organized resistance stopped. Then the "insurgency" began. Our mistake was pulling the punch on Fallujah the first time.

Posted by Ebbains Hupomoque9033 2005-10-24 21:42|| 2005-10-24 21:42|| Front Page Top

#41 Furthermore, 2,000,000 boots on the ground would not have made a difference at that time because the plan did not call for pounding the place to shit

The 2000 troops were a preparatory force to receive and move the 4th Infantry Division from the Turkish coast to the Iraqi border.

One does not create a deception by settting up three debarkation seaports, two debarkation airports, three command posts, convoy support centers along a 500-mile route, and unload six ships of some 1200 vehicles, trailers and containers.

What it was, was a combined screwing by the State Department (who deliberately didn't do their job), France (who offered a bribe to the Turks) and Turkey. A pox on all of them.

Posted by Pappy 2005-10-24 22:07|| 2005-10-24 22:07|| Front Page Top

#42 From the link provided by Whogum: Once the few malcontents committed to the old despotism were eliminated or cowed, ran the common wisdom, the coalition would be able to withdraw. The focus on a small military footprint that would minimize the appearance of a U.S. occupation made sense in this context.

So it seems they did wanted it that way. True enough, it did make sense at the time. Reinforces what I said earlier. The 4thID wasn't needed, in that context.
The insurgency came after the organized resistance stopped, as Ebbains points out, by which time what Turkey did or didn't do, wasn't a factor.

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-24 22:12|| 2005-10-24 22:12|| Front Page Top

#43 Pappy, point taken. I am now convinced it wasn't a deception. It was only a (weak) suggestion on my part.

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-24 22:15|| 2005-10-24 22:15|| Front Page Top

#44 Sigh. What an obvious waste of time.

EH - Would there have been a standing core of Ba'athist insurgents if Fallujah and Ramadi and all the rest had been thumped in the 4th ID sweep? I suggest, with no hesitation, that the stomach and manpower for it would've been seriously reduced. I agree that stopping the cleansing process on Fallujah the first time, when the politicians undercut the military, was a serious SNAFU. I additionally assert it would've been a lesser issue had it been militarily pacified prior to that - during the invasion - by the 4th ID.

You present your assertion as obvious.
I submit mine is just as obvious.

Rafael - I have read what I've written - several times, before submitting.

You take from the article what you want to take. The Plan, worked on for several months, went down the shitter - and that was because of Turkey. Period. Full Stop. Got that? It was turned into trash on March 22. They played us like a fiddle - and for as long as possible. We were screwed.
Pentagon Abandons Turkey Deployment Plan
We were fully committed to The Plan.

After the flush, everything that followed, from the brilliant drive from Kuwait to Baghdad - to the gaping military vacuum in the Sunni Triangle - was a direct result of that fact. They winged it - and it didn't work nearly as well as they hoped. The proof is the Sunni Triangle and the price we've paid for that vacuum.

Why did we leave the triangle alone for so long? Simple: political positions were taken and had to be defended. Stupid, but true. To fix this, we had to stand up functioning Iraqi troops to both take over posts elsewhere to free our people up and to assist us in cleaning it out.

What has happened since decent numbers of capable Iraqi troops have come online? We've gone after the triangle - to do the job left undone since Day One of the invasion.

You guys can stroke each other if you're inclined. I say it's bullshit.

There was a CA military vacuum in the Triangle and it was filled by the bad guys. Those who say differently have their motives. The Pentagon? They wanted it that way? Lol. okay - that's just dumb. Simply dumb. Why?
No invasion force overlooks the primary opposition's home territory unless it's forced by necessity - or they're idiots.
The bits you cherry-pick and think support your view are classic, after the fact, ass coverage bits for the level of damage suffered in the post-major ops period.

Everything you said about pounding things to shit is wrong. Every notion, every word, every implication. I believe it's intentionally disingenuous, too.

But that's alright. You can tell yourself that you get it and I don't. But you might consider that I'm not alone, despite the pathetic reaction to this thread. You are the ONLY person I've ever encountered on this topic that makes the claim that that the exclusion of the 4th ID had no real effect - unless EH wants to jump on that bandwagon, that's unclear - and I'm summarizing your posts - if that's wrong, then pick the nit, baby, but that certainly fits, IMHO.

Others argue we should make nice. Others argue how important and strategic Turkey is. Others argue we should just get over it and stick to realpolitik.

But none of them have made that singular assertion and made a case for it - it's all yours. It's a total load of shit and anyone with military experience will verify that as a fact.

Sigh. Been through this so many times. Fuck it. Believe what you wish.

Posted by .com 2005-10-24 23:17|| 2005-10-24 23:17|| Front Page Top

#45 my 2cents: If we had been able to grind down from Turkey, so many apparatchik Baathists may not have fled the capital, been contained there and killed as they should be. Just like a balloon, they press out in the direction of least pressure, in this case: "Akbar! We've been beloved relatives even though I had your children tortured... can I set up an IED shop in your garage? No? Well, I have a gun...."

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-24 23:24|| 2005-10-24 23:24|| Front Page Top

#46 Yep, after all that's been said here, Turkey made little to no difference. Yup, yup....

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-10-24 23:34|| 2005-10-24 23:34|| Front Page Top

#47 There's one blaring inconsistency in your argument. Even if the 4thID drove through the Sunni Triangle on schedule, they would have thumped the regular Iraqi army first, disbanded them, and told them to go home. As was the pattern throughout Iraq. According to "The Plan" there would not have been an initial pounding to shit of everything and everyone in sight. The die-hards would have survived to fight another day anyway.
What reason would they have, at the time, to pound to shit everyone in the Sunni Triangle? At that time, in the initial stages, before the insurgency,...,none whatsoever.

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-24 23:43|| 2005-10-24 23:43|| Front Page Top

#48 It was turned into trash on March 22. They played us like a fiddle - and for as long as possible. We were screwed.

well, not to say I told you so, but they should have listened to me. Yup! I kept saying that Turkey was going to screw us. Everyone kept disagreeing with me telling me that I just didn't understand the Turks and how the military was going to step in and save the day. It was obvious to me, as someone who was new to military blogs and didn't have a vested interest in believing that Turkey would act like Turkey would have acted perhaps 2/5/10 years earlier.

Not that it would have made much difference. I'm sure it was worth pursuing it as far and and fast and as furious as we could for the benefits that would have been obtained if they could have gotten Turkey to cooperate.

As someone who believes that Turkey will stab us in the back given any opportunity to do so and can never be an ally, I was persuaded by rj's post about keeping the diplomatic ties open. Much in the same way that you say hello to your enemy when you pass them in the halls and attend the same meetings they go to so you can see what trouble they are brewing. It doesn't hurt and can provide some benefits. But all the same, you should never, ever trust them or get your self in a position where you rely on them. The current turkey will be always be one to smile and shake your hand, but only for the purpose to look for an opportunity to stab you in the back. JMHO

Posted by 2b 2005-10-24 23:45|| 2005-10-24 23:45|| Front Page Top

#49 Turkey made little to no difference

To the ongoing insurgency, in the long run...no. But that's just my opinion. I know, it's hard to fathom there are differing opinions.

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-24 23:47|| 2005-10-24 23:47|| Front Page Top

#50 WTF? That makes no sense at all.

The "pattern all over Iraq" was both wasting RG units and taking out the much more dedicated feydayeen. That was the hardcore opposition. What war were you watching?

What are you talking about? What you posted is gibberish. You should pound some shit, methinks. You think you're being cute, I don't.

Posted by .com 2005-10-24 23:51|| 2005-10-24 23:51|| Front Page Top

#51 #50 in reference to #47.

Posted by .com 2005-10-24 23:54|| 2005-10-24 23:54|| Front Page Top

23:56 Seafarious
23:54 Frank G
23:54 .com
23:51 .com
23:47 Rafael
23:46 Zenster
23:45 2b
23:43 Rafael
23:40 trailing wife
23:38 Phil Fraering
23:34 Bomb-a-rama
23:33 Zenster
23:24 Frank G
23:23 badanov
23:20 2b
23:17 .com
23:16 Zenster
23:12 Frank G
23:12 2b
23:08 Jackal
23:07 2b
23:03 Barbara Skolaut
22:59 2b
22:52 breaker breaker