Look at some of the "personnel and facilities" the President is talking about defending in Irbil

[bigtree]

President Obama Thursday night on his Iraq airstrike order:

“We intend to stay vigilant, and take action if these terrorist forces threaten our personnel or facilities anywhere in Iraq, including our consulate in Erbil and our embassy in Baghdad."

The obvious question, which someone had the presence of mind to ask WH officials, is why doesn't the president just order the evacuation of 'personnel" in Irbil? What's so vital to our nation's interests in Iraq in Irbil, besides support for our troops we have deployed there,

We really didn't get a direct answer, just a reaffirmation of their commitment to maintain the personnel in that Iraqi town. Sure, there's a consulate there, but what's the benefit/risk analysis that compels the President to leave these U.S. 'personnel' in harm's way, at the risk of potentially destabilizing military airstrikes to defend them?

Here's an excerpt from a WH briefing last night. . . question was whether the administration is considering just taking the U.S. personnel we're defending with the threat of airstrikes out of harm's way - evacuating them?

Q I wanted to ask a question about those advisors and consulate employees in Erbil. Has any consideration been taken to perhaps try to organize some sort of evacuation of those employees of the U.S. government? And what does that pose as a challenge long term as you have advisors and State Department employees in that country at various locations?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, I can say we are -- obviously, anywhere around the world, we’re constantly reviewing our posture and our personnel. In a situation like this, we’re looking -- we had a similar circumstance obviously in Baghdad back in June. It’s a question of do we have the right people there, do we have to rebalance, do we have to bring in more people. So that is an ongoing conversation. But certainly and particularly given that, we will make sure that ISIL cannot approach Erbil, we’re very confident that our consulate is safe and our people will continue to be at work.

(not really answering that question... try again)

Q I just wanted to follow up on Jim’s question about the evacuation and ask why you didn't consider, as you did in Libya, evacuating the personnel from Erbil, instead of launching potential airstrikes to protect them?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. I’d just say on your first question, it’s our intention to continue operating in Erbil and Baghdad. We have in Iraq a significant amount of ISR and a capacity to closely monitor developments on the ground in the security of our facilities. We also had the request from the Iraqi government to take action. So we believe that provides us with the basis to essentially lay down a marker that we are going to take action with the airstrikes if we see movements by ISIL that put our people at risk.

Of course, we’ll always assess the footprint of U.S. personnel. But it’s our intention to defend against further ISIL encroachment towards Erbil. And as I said, we would apply the same principle as it relates to Baghdad as well . . .

Sure, we all understand the desire of the President to defend the Maliki government in Baghdad. Whether we agree with that goal or not, it's obvious that defense of the Iraqi regime is going to be a major part of our military deployment, outside of the desire to defend U.S. diplomats and other aspects of material and humanity that supports them in place in Iraq.

But what's so important about Irbil? Logistics? Possibly, but what makes Irbil so vital to that effort?

This might explain why Irbil seems so important to the President to include it in his new airstrike initiative . . . there's a 'secret' CIA facility there which is a base for our drones.

from McClatchy:

IRBIL, Iraq — A supposedly secret but locally well-known CIA station on the outskirts of Irbil’s airport is undergoing rapid expansion as the United States considers whether to engage in a war against Islamist militants who’ve seized control of half of Iraq in the past month.

Western contractors hired to expand the facility and a local intelligence official confirmed the construction project, which is visible from the main highway linking Irbil to Mosul, the city whose fall June 9 triggered the Islamic State’s sweep through northern and central Iraq. Residents around the airport say they can hear daily what they suspect are American drones taking off and landing at the facility.

Expansion of the facility comes as it seems all but certain that the autonomous Kurdish regional government and the central government in Baghdad, never easy partners, are headed for an irrevocable split _ complicating any U.S. military hopes of coordinating the two entities’ efforts against the Islamic State.

. . . U.S. officials have known for some time that it was likely that they’d need to coordinate any steps it takes both in Baghdad and in Irbil, where the Peshmerga has worked closely over the years with the CIA, U.S. special forces and the Joint Special Operations Command, the military’s most secretive task force, which has become a bulwark of counterterrorism operations. Peshmerga forces already are manning checkpoints and bunkers to protect the facility, which sits just a few hundred yards from the highway . . .

read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/11/233126/expansion-of-secret-facility-in.html

Kurdish fighters defending a CIA 'counterterrorism' base of operations, complete with a launching site for drones . . . that's awfully convenient.

I realize that's not a valid argument against military action to help the Kurdish civilians besieged by the insurgent fighters that we're bombing at the base of that mountain nearby. It's not an argument I'm trying to make.

That military action doesn't appear to be a negative consequence to anyone except the objectionable ISIS/ISIL forces that our warplanes are destroying their weapons and fighters with our 'targeted' airstrikes; that is, aside from the already demonstrated destabilizing and counterproductive effect of U.S. military presence and activity in Iraq.

Still, the president's singling-out of Baghdad (obvious) and Irbil (not so obvious) in his address to the nation, as areas which he intends to defend with his new order authorizing airstrikes, begs the question of why we would insist on such a self-actualizing risk in maintaining and defending "personnel and facilities" in Irbil. Why the emphasis there?

I think this 'expanding' CIA 'counterterrorism' base, complete with a launching site for our drones, makes it more clear why the president emphasized that defense of Irbil in his address.

Is it a permanent base of operations? Is it authorized by our legislature, or is it assumed to be covered by the original AUMF? Kurdish fighters defending our 'expanding' CIA facility in Irbil . . . what will we discover next?



A Kurdish peshmerga fighter takes his position behind a wall on the front line with militants from the al-Qaida-inspired Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)

[The Magistrate]

1. Erbil Is The Kurdish Capital, Sir

For almost a quarter century we have fostered to some degree the autonomy, of not outright independence, of a Kurdish entity in the northwest of Iraq. We are not protecting Erbil because a C.I.A. station is there; the C.I.A. station is there because it is certain Erbil will be protected.

[bigtree]

3. thanks for your perspective

. . . I see that the article defined that in part... the disconnect that the Kurds have from the government in Iraq and our country's desire to maintain our relationship -security or otherwise with the Kurdish people.

I would note that the Kurds have at least 16 oil companies competing for a share of their resources. It would seem naive to not recognize the U.S. interest in those economic relationships; including our own country's businesses which have a share in all of that.



I don't think it's out of the realm of reasonableness to assume the U.S. is more intent on defending their 'expanding' CIA facility than a host of diplomats in their consulate in Irbil.

History would seem to support the notion that our economic interests also play a part in the defense of that region of Iraq, to the point of maintaining a CIA counterterrorism base there. Our interest in destabilizing the Syrian government would also seem to be an interest of ours in maintaining that counterterrorism base in the north.

I'm not sure it's clear to Americans that our military interests in Iraq include such a consequential base of operations for our CIA. Evidently, Iraqis are more aware of this than we are.

[The Magistrate]

8. Kurdish Oil Has Been A Bone Of Contention For As Long As It Has Been Known Of, Sir

Which is since the latter stages of the Great War. Mosul was then still a predominantly Kurdish city, and M. Clemenceau, who was uninterested in colonies, allowed it to fall into the English portion, though earlier French governments had claimed it should be part of their Syrian portion.

A great portion of the early years of English occupation of Iraq under League of Nations mandate saw fighting in Kurdistan, both against purely native risings, and against attempts by Turkey to take the area on the cheap with local help. When Iraq became more or less independent before WWII, a chief object of its armed forces remained checking secessionist unrest in Kurdistan.

Kurdish unrest also involved Iran, Syria and Turkey, and in the seventies and eighties Kurds were made use of in various ways, and betrayed when the time came, against Iran and Syria, while subject to massive repression from Turkey. And of course, rebellions against Saddam more recently you know of.

One upshot of this history of unrest is that Kurdish oil has not had nearly the presence in the oil market one might expect. The area simply is not safe for investment, or for working. The companies most active there are not U.S. companies; the only clearly U.S. company I see on that list is Hunts.

I do not place a lot of credence in a claimed U.S. 'interest in destabilizing the Syrian government'. We did not start the popular uprising there, nor direct the mis-cues of its government that broadened it out into major fighting. The Assad regime is one we have long resented and disliked, and viewed as potentially dangerous, and doubtless there was desire to capitalize on an opportunity presented, but that is not the same as contriving the opening. We have been most ginger, and properly so, in my view, in providing assistance to the rebellion against Assad. It is very difficult to argue we get much benefit out of the present state of affairs, even pre-I.S.I.L. prominence, so I cannot agree with the proposition the situation was deliberately created to be what it is, and would say that if it ever was policy to simply destabilize Syria it has been a failure of grand proportion. Destabilizing Syria certainly would not work to the benefit of extracting oil in Kurdistan.

We have, since the 'no-fly zones' after the first Gulf War, been the protectors of the Kurds, in a manner reminiscent of how in Ottoman days Russia was protector of Armenians and France of Maronites. Kurdistan is effectively autonomous now because of this, and in reach of sovereign independence. Its capital is Erbil. That will be protected, by the Kurds and, in a pinch, protected with our assistance. It is because of this military and intelligence assets are based there.

I will add that I see nothing particularly nefarious about a country, including my country, taking steps to protect its economic interests; that is what countries have generally done, to the degree that are capable of it, anyway. That we have interests there does not alter the fact that a fundamentalist crusade is menacing many people there, and has declared its intention to exterminate believers in a particular ( and peculiar ) religion of some antiquity, and does not amount to a good argument for giving the crusaders a free hand, lest someone find a profit in a few years because it was done.

[bigtree]

10. not necessarily 'nefarious,' no

. . . but Americans are all free to decide for ourselves what's 'in our interests' in Iraq, not withstanding, of course whatever concern we may have in protecting or defending against one 'fundamental crusade' or the other.

[The Magistrate]

13. But Then What Is The Point, Sir?

One does not bother to describe normal things; it does not advance a narrative, people fill those in for themselves. You do not in describing a person not that he has two arms, two legs, because everyone does and it is not interesting that someone is like everyone else. If one arm is missing, or one leg is stiff, that you mention, because it is not ordinary and so provokes interest and set the figure apart from the usual.

Since self-interest is as universal among states and and corporations as two arms and two legs among people, and so is expected by everyone, and taken pretty much for granted as present by all, there is little point to calling it to especial notice, unless one wants to suggest something unusual about it, and there is not much that 'unusual' could be except skullduggery of some sort beyond the normal allowance.

[bigtree]

16. the point?

. . . it certainly doesn't appear to mesh well with your own.

My original question was: What's so vital to our nation's interests in Iraq in Irbil, besides support for our troops we have deployed there?

You've outlined and defined what you view as our nation's interests in military and CIA activity and action in that region. I think I've defined my own. On some points we appear to agree, on others, not so much.

[The Magistrate]

17. I Am Afraid Your Meaning Is Unclear, Sir

Are you claiming I have accused the government of the United States of altruism in its relations to Kurdistan?

[bigtree]

18. ha!

here's an administration perspective for ya . . .

Countries that intervene militarily rarely do so out of pure altruism.

- Samantha Power (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations)

[The Magistrate]

19. Not Bad, Sir

"Action in the international sphere which appears to be morally insupportable generally turns out in time to have been bad politics.'

[sabrina 1]

24. There isn't anything unusual about it. That isn't the question on the minds of many Americans

Perhaps is TOO usual, our involvement in all these wars with one excuse or another. We are used to the warmongering, though certainly not happy about and apparently the will of the people is of no consequence.

The question really is, 'how has the entire debacle in Iraq and wherever else we are these days, benefited the American people? We know it has certainly COST them, trillions of dollars but more importantly thousands of the lives of our troops.

If someone could list the benefits to the American people, who after all pay for all of this, rather than go into all the intricacies of who are the good guys and who are the bad, we seem to change sides regarding that so it gets confusing, that would be of more interest to those who pay for the whole mess.

I know that Defense Contractors and Private Mercenary Corps like Blackwater, now on its third name change, benefit hugely, but other than that, in what way have the American people benefited?

[Chathamization]

2. How threatened is Irbil really?

The Peshmerga vastly outnumber ISIS (something like 20 or 40 to 1), even if you include other militant groups that fight besides them (that we hear suspiciously little about). They're fairly well trained, they'd be defending, and would have the support of the population. The map here shows that their (all of "them" referred to as "ISIS", just as "they" were referred to as al Qaeda before) success have been in fighting Shiite sectarian government forces stationed in Sunni areas rather than widespread conquest.

[pinto]

4. It's no secret "secret" that we have always supported a semi-autonomous Kurdish state.

There was a no fly zone established back in Hussein's time, to protect the Kurds. American investment in the Kurd economy has been long established and well known. Among all parties.

Not everything is a devious CIA plot.

[bigtree]

5. I don't know where you're reading about a 'devious CIA plot'

. . .what I'm thinking is that our government and military have more of an interest in defending this 'expanding' CIA counterterrorism base than they do diplomats or the buildings that house them. I'm guessing that's why the President took pains to mention defense of Irbil along with Baghdad in his announcement of his authorization of airstrikes.

You're free, of course, to draw your own conclusions. I suppose, though, I'm not as sanguine in my view of such an active CIA base of operations there or anywhere else in Iraq.

[pinto]

6. I thought that was your implication. I may have misread your comments.

Maybe I could have phrased it better to state a devious US Administration agenda in defending an "expanding" CIA base.

In re: the oil interests in the region, take a look at the list of players cited in this thread. Multinational interests. Multinational investments.

Oil remains a keystone energy commodity at this time. I would be surprised if multinational groups weren't involved in that business.

That will change over time, yet today oil remains vital to most industrialized economies.

[bigtree]

9. no doubt it is an important U.S. interest in Iraq

"We’re not there for figs.”

[pinto]

12. Yeah, it is. So let's bring it into a simplistically local perspective. Where do you shop?

Do you drive to the store? Are the produce, meats and hard goods trucked in to your local market? Are they transported by train? Plane?

All of that involves oil. No judgment meant here at all. My point - oil remains a vital commodity for most economies. Yeah, "We're not there for the figs". No one is, across the board.

Yet, I do like figs...

[bigtree]

14. talking reliance on oil

. . . of course, there are other energy options.

We should invest as much in developing those as we do defending oil. Priorities . . .

[pinto]

15. Agree. +1.

Priorities.

[sabrina 1]

25. We are spending trillions of dollars for that? WE have oil, which we apparently sell to foreign

Oil Cartels. How about we leave the rest of the world to their own devices, keep our own oil HERE and spend the War Trillions on Alternative Energy development. Had we done decades ago we would have all the power we need right here without wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of US lives in order to control other people's oil.

How do we benefit from this? Defense contractors and other insiders, mercenary groups et al benefit hugely, but the rest of us are PAYING for something we have right here in our own country, and enough money to develop other sources of energy.

[morningfog]

7. Good post. What are these interests and why keep them there?

But they state it flat out, "it’s our intention to defend against further ISIL encroachment towards Erbil." That is not the same as protecting US personnel and facilities. And, it clearly doesn't matter. We'll strike whenever we want, where ever we want, for any goddamned reason we want. Because, after all, Bush broke it with his illegal war, so we are forever obliged to continue to employ our military.

[bigtree]

11. we may well be obliged

. . . while others are advantaged.

[bhikkhu]

20. I don't see any point in demonizing the Kurds, for having long been our allies

yes, they were allies under bush, and all that entailed, but they were also allies and under our protection before that, while they were a semi-autonomous state at odds with (and sometimes at war with) Saddam. They're in a treacherous region, but they've done a good job of maintaining peace, and keeping an independent and civil society. I think anyone knowing their history would wish them well.

[bigtree]

21. no 'demonizing of the Kurds' in anything I've written here

. . . I wish them well.

[bhikkhu]

23. Well enough, then

Pointing out that our actions there aren't nearly "pure altruism" is true, of course.

[certainot]

22. bush/US fed the kurds to saddam once- we owe them. ANY involvement means

all that MIC crap.

[bigtree]

27. kick

[bigtree]

28. "There is a countererrorism component that we are already preparing for."

August 9, 2014
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON IRAQ
South Lawn

excerpt:

"My team has been vigilant, even before ISIL went into Mosul, about foreign fighters and jihadists gathering in Syria, and now in Iraq, who might potentially launch attacks outside the region against Western targets and U.S. targets. So there’s going to be a counterterrorism element that we are already preparing for and have been working diligently on for a long time now."

[TBF]

29. Yes -

Like most info I find the details on sites like El Jazeera rather than our own media.

Share prices were dropping --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/10245900

Like everything else in this country all you have to do is follow the money.