29 January 2005: Plan A?

On the eve of the Iraqi elections, it is impossible to avoid thinking about various arguments that have been made by skeptical observers concerning the ways that the occupation of Iraq has been a planned disaster, not an accidental one or result of "incompetence". Seymour Hersh is particularly annoying to me in this department, with his insistence that the horrible results in Iraq are the fault of blindly deluded "true believers" in the White House and Pentagon. In his latest speech, he offers no analysis of how the neocons came to their current position of policy influence beyond this: "...the amazing thing is we are been taken over basically by a cult, eight or nine neo-conservatives have somehow grabbed the government. Just how and why and how they did it so efficiently, will have to wait for much later historians and better documentation than we have now, but they managed to overcome the bureaucracy and the Congress, and the press, with the greatest of ease." And that's it, then?

Invoking some kind of cultism is not necessary to explain the obvious probability that the Iraq quagmire is, barring the emergence of a really strong antiwar political bloc, actually a very helpful excuse for keeping US forces in that part of the world until the next stages of "middle east transformation" are ready for execution. But what else might be going on? What about the option of partitioning Iraq into three ethnic states (Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south, and Sunnis in the middle) or a loose federation of same, that has been favored in some quarters? If there is a designed failure at work, this option could be the intended "reluctant last resort". Hersh wrote about this last year in a New Yorker article called "Plan B", in which he alleged that Israel has stepped up covert links with the northern Kurds (a relationship they have cultivated for years) out of fears that US "incompetence" may lead the new state to fail, forcing Israel to prepare "other options". But I have to question this a little, given that Hersh has made some odd claims lately, such as the claim that Iran was the prime mover behind the faking of Iraqi WMD evidence, tricking the US into invading Iraq. I'm not the only one skeptical of this. So, extending this skepticism, what if Hersh's "Plan B" is actually "Plan A"?

Suppose, for whatever reason, that a partitioning of Iraq is the real agenda and the attempts at unified "democratization" are a charade. One implication would be that neighboring non-Shiite states might be further destabilized, especially Saudi Arabia. This could be a benefit for those pushing an agenda of regime change or "reform" there as long as Iran could be controlled. On the Kurdish side, neighboring Turkey would be very upset, even more so if there were moves by Israel and its Kurdish allies to reopen the Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa oil pipeline. How to keep Turkey from boiling over?

One promoter of the "three-state solution" is the CFR's president emeritus Leslie Gelb (policy-wise, a 'neocon'), who wrote a New York Times editorial on the subject back in 2003. This is where I think there might be an interesting connection, although it may be a stretch. Gelb directed the 1965-67 'Pentagon Papers' project for the DOD which would make Daniel Ellsberg famous. Gelb's boss was Morton Halperin, also closely involved with Ellsberg and one of his defenders. Ellsberg is legendary as a "whistleblower", but a close look at his history reveals that he is most likely not what he seems (I have a page with some penetrating skeptical viewpoints of the Ellsberg legend, including Douglas Valentine, here). This is crucially important, because Ellsberg is currently the right-hand-man of alleged 9/11 "whistleblower" Sibel Edmonds. Many 9/11 researchers have already pointed out that Edmonds' take on things is a limited-hangout which reinforces questionable official claims about the alleged culprits and is based on the discredited "incompetence" theory. She is also being supported strongly by the victims' families who have unfortunately proven themselves to be duped supporters of "war on terror" police-state advances, which is incriminating enough already. But what is also notable is that her allegations focus strongly on one country: Turkey. Some of her allegations about a "semi-legitimate" organization caught up in the events of 9/11 involve unspecified members of a US-Turkish policy group, the American-Turkish Council. That this group is chaired by Brent Scowcroft, and the fact that Scowcroft and his circles (who are conspicuously public critics of reigning Iraq policy, cynically or otherwise) are now resolutely in the White House dog house according to beltway insiders, leads me to have just a little bit of skepticism that she is pointing us to where the really big action is at this point in time. Looking at the bigger picture, I wonder: are sensitive and incriminating issues related to 9/11 being manipulated and selectively used to blackmail or otherwise put the thumbscrews on certain circles in Turkey and the US in order to get them to play ball with a hardline Iraq policy involving either a partition or a provocative Mosul-Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline plan?

more commentary on Leslie Gelb and the partition option:
"Let's Divide Iraq as We Did in Yugoslavia!" by Michael Collon