Kirkuk: PUK Sides with Iraq not KDP

Iraq is moving to take back Kirkuk from Kurdish control. Moon of Alabama has a good rundown, "Iraq - The End Of The Kurdish Independence Project." David Zucchino's report in The New York Times, "Iraqi Forces Said to Seize Oil Sites and Airport Outside Kirkuk," provides illuminating detail of the split between Masoud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the rival Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) that is unfolding during the battle to retake Kirkuk:

Military commanders in Baghdad said their troops had taken control of an industrial district on the western edge of Kirkuk, as well as a power plant and refinery adjacent to the oil fields outside the city. The military command also said government forces had secured control of a military airport west of the city.

Among the sites the Iraqi forces claimed was a military base known as K-1, northwest of Kirkuk. Iraqi officers interviewed near the base on Sunday said that American forces had used the facility in the past.

K-1 was the main military base in Kirkuk Province for Iraqi government troops when they abandoned their weapons and fled an assault by Islamic State militants.

On Monday, a Kurdish commander from the governing political party in the Kurdistan region said his forces had mounted a counterattack about 15 miles west of the city. He said reinforcements with “sophisticated weapons” had arrived to support Kurdish fighters in the area.

“They are preparing to liberate the area” from Iraqi forces, said the commander, Gen. Mohammed Raiger.

A statement released by the Kurdistan Region Security Council said pesh merga fighters had destroyed five American-supplied Humvees used by Iraqi forces, and would continue to resist them.

“This was unprovoked attack,” the statement said of the government military advance. The council is controlled by the Kurdistan Democratic Party, or K.D.P., led by Mr. Barzani, the region’s president.

But a leader of a rival Kurdish party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, or P.U.K., said the party had agreed to vacate its military positions and hand them over to government forces early Monday morning. Wista Raool, commander of P.U.K. pesh merga forces south of Kirkuk, said the party sought to return the oil fields to the central government.

Mr. Raool accused Mr. Barzani and his party of “stealing” the oil from the central government. Many members of the P.U.K., which maintains its own pesh merga force, opposed the referendum vote because it was spearheaded by Mr. Barzani.

Iraqi military commanders said fighting broke out early Monday between advancing government forces and pesh merga fighters from Mr. Barzani’s faction, just as the P.U.K. forces were handing over their positions. The commanders spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to journalists.

Thoughtful commentary on Kurdish independence included Masoud Barzani's political survival (he is acting as president of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) after his term has expired) as a significant motive for holding the referendum. The PUK reluctantly supported the independence referendum but are not going to fight a war over it.

Big Win for Catalan Independence

The independence referendum yesterday in Catalonia was a success. The Catalan government announced that over 90 percent of almost 2.3 millions voters supported independence, this despite the mobilization of the Guardia Civil by the conservative prime minister Mariano Rajoy. Images beamed across the globe showed peaceful citizens attempting to vote being met by black-clad security officers in riot gear administering blows with truncheons and firing rubber bullets.

The old slogan from the streets during the WTO ministerial in Seattle came back to me -- "This is what democracy looks like!" It's a bad day for the Washington-Brussels consensus when Telesur can publish a headline like "Maduro to Spanish President Rajoy: Who's the Dictator Now?" and when The New York Times publishes within the first six paragraphs of its story ("Catalonia’s Independence Vote Descends Into Chaos and Clashes," Raphael Minder and Ellen Barry) that more than 750 people were injured in the crackdown.

Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont is looking for the European Union to condemn the violence, according to this morning's story by Raphael Minder, "Catalonia Leaders Seek to Make Independence Referendum Binding":

Mr. Puigdemont is committed to declaring independence, but he is also pressuring the international community to mediate in the conflict and to condemn the Madrid-ordered police clampdown.

“The European Union cannot now continue to look the other side,” Mr. Puigdemont said around midnight Sunday, although the European bloc has shown no sign so far that it was willing to support the separatist movement.

In a statement, the European Commission — the executive arm of the bloc — called for “unity and stability,” but it showed no sign that it would reverse its position and intervene on behalf of supporters of independence.

The commission described the dispute as “an internal matter for Spain,” and reiterated its warning that an independent Catalonia would not be part of the European Union.

Puigdemont will wait in vain for Brussels to say a cross word about Rajoy's crackdown. I can't help but note the contrast between Iraq and Spain. What would have happened if Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi had sent security forces into Kirkuk -- a city not part of the Kurdistan Regional Government, but one included in Masoud Barzani's independence referendum nonetheless -- to block the the vote? Almost certainly the European Commission would have criticized the use of violence, even though the Kurds illegally occupy the city and siphon off it's oil wealth.

What now? Puigdemont will declare independence in the next two days. Rajoy, joined by the feckless Socialists, will counter that the declaration is meaningless since the referendum was fraudulent -- unverified, illegal, its list of registered voters based on a contested census.

But with the number of injuries Catalans sustained, they will be united, at least in the near term, in the defense of their independence.

Mexican Standoff in Iraq's Parliament

It is important to follow the action in Iraq's parliament because it lies at the heart of the U.S.-peddled canard. From the capture of Mosul last month by Islamic State in a blitz that brought jihadis to the outskirts of Samarra, to the Kurds mobilizing the Peshmerga to control Kirkuk, USG, accompanied by a chorus in the media, explained the revolutionary turn of events by blaming the government of Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki. If only Maliki had been more inclusive of Sunni representatives, the story goes, Islamic State would not be flying the black flag over Iraq's second-largest city as well as claiming control of numerous border crossings. The United States has conditioned its support for a military response to Islamic State with a demand that Maliki has to go. 

Yesterday the Iraqi parliament, known officially as the Council of Representatives of Iraq, convened for the first time since the April 30 elections to give the U.S. exactly what it wants, a quickly formed  government without Nuri al-Maliki as the chief executive. And therein lies the rub. The Shiite parties are willing to oust Maliki. But this is not what the U.S. is really after; it has always just been a cover story to obscure the partition of Iraq. Hence the sudden turnabout by the Sunni bloc, effectively sabotaging the opening session of parliament and delaying the formation of a government for another week.

Rod Nordland has an excellent story today, "As Iraqi Violence Rages, Lawmakers Fail to Reach Deal on New Government," that lays everything out. But before we get to the pith of the Sunni sabotage, let's take a peek at the opening paragraphs where Nordland highlights Kurdish chutzpah:

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s major parties initially thought they had a deal ready when they sat down Tuesday to form a new government, but the effort collapsed in factional acrimony in less than half an hour. 

“We need our salaries,” shouted a Kurdish representative, Najiba Najib, complaining that the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad had not been paying Kurdish officials since the Kurdistan region all but broke away last month. When extremists with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, drove the Iraqi Army from northern Iraq, the Kurds took the opportunity to seize control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. The Kurds have long laid claim to the city, and insisted that they intend to keep it.

“You brought ISIS into our country and took the Iraqi flag down in Kirkuk and put your flag up!” shouted Mohammed Naji, a Shiite politician, at Ms. Najib. “Go and sell your oil to Israel.” 

The meeting’s rocky start did not come about for lack of incentive. American diplomats have suggested that any major new military assistance against extremists would come only if the Iraqis form an inclusive government acceptable to all sects. The powerful Shiite religious establishment had issued an edict telling legislators they had to conclude the entire deal by Tuesday. And around much of the country, Sunni militants pressed the government on numerous fronts.

As Nordland clearly explains, the process to form a government in Iraq is that first the Sunnis elect a speaker; the speaker then oversees the election of the president, a Kurd; the president asks the the largest parliamentary bloc, which is Shiite, to designate the prime minister, who assumes power with a two-thirds vote. Everything was supposed to go like clockwork. The Sunni alliance had its choice for a replacement prime minister lined up. And then suddenly after less than a hour the Sunni and Kurds walked out. Can you smell a rat?

Sunnis and Kurds were to have agreed on Salim al-Jabouri, a Sunni, to become the new speaker, replacing Osama al-Nujaifi. In exchange, they expected the Kurds to announce their choice for president, who has to be a Kurd, and the Shiites’ National Alliance bloc to announce a Shiite prime minister to replace the incumbent, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Both Sunnis and Kurds, along with some Shiites, have insisted that Mr. Maliki has to go. 

Sunnis at the last minute faced a challenge from Mr. Nujaifi, who wants to hold onto his seat, said the Shiite politician Haider al-Abadi, a supporter of Mr. Maliki’s State of Law party. And Kurds were nowhere near agreeing on a candidate for president. Kurds and Sunnis, however, said the Shiites reneged by not coming to the meeting with a nominee for the post of prime minister.

Iraq’s complex system of choosing a government makes such deal-making difficult and essential. The speaker is necessary to preside over Parliament to elect a president, who then chooses the biggest bloc in Parliament, which picks the prime minister. But a two-thirds vote is required to choose the speaker, so politicians try to have the entire deal agreed on in advance. 

“We cannot jump to the last stages without taking the first step,” said Mr. Abadi, adding that it would be foolish for the Shiites to announce their candidate for prime minister now if the process ended up taking months. That, he said, might render Mr. Maliki a lame-duck leader in the middle of running a war, if someone else were chosen. 

So after Ms. Najib and Mr. Naji exchanged words, a recess was called by the temporary speaker, Mahdi Ahmed Hafith. Only 60 legislators returned from the recess, however, so there was no quorum to continue. Parliament was adjourned until July 8.

The United Nations pussyfooted around who was to blame for the failure of the opening session when it was obvious to all that Sunni prevarication was the root cause:

Within hours, the United Nations issued an unusually strong rebuke. “Politicians in Iraq need to realize that it is no longer business as usual,” said the top representative here, Nickolay Mladenov. “I call upon all political leaders to set aside their differences.” 

Mr. Mladenov called the June death toll “staggering.”

Keep watch for any statement issued by USG. To continue to blame Maliki's government at this point when it is clear that he is on his way out and that the Shiite alliance has a replacement ready would be compelling proof of a conspiracy to aid the advance of Islamic State and the de facto partition of Iraq.

What is going on behind the scenes is that the Sunnis and Kurds are bargaining. They want guarantees before they participate in any government. In the case of the Sunnis, they want the defense ministry; the Kurds want their seizure of Kirkuk blessed, as well as the right to market and sell oil. The Shiite bloc will not grant these guarantees. In order to shield the intransigent Sunnis and Kurds from blame and rebuke, the U.S., based on past practice, will step in with some sort of disinformation campaign. This looks to be the way things are going to go in the month of July.

U.S. (Non)Response to ISIS

As Russia speeds delivery of SU-25 fighter planes to besieged Iraq, let's take a step back and reconnoiter the U.S. response, or lack thereof, to the emerging ISIS caliphate. First, blame Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki. The idea here, as floated by USG and -- uniformly -- its media minions, is that ISIS is a creation not of the rich Gulf emirates, whose history of funding and exporting Wahhabi jihad is well documented, but of the democratically elected Maliki government because that democratically elected government is not more inclusive of Sunnis.

The most obvious shortcoming of this argument is the absence of proof that Sunnis, who would be open to participating in Iraq's government if only given a sinecure, have -- anywhere -- gone over wholesale to a medieval movement that considers democracy irreligious. What the reporting has shown so far is that a relatively compact force of jihadis augmented by ex-Baathist Sufis led by former Saddam henchman Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri took Mosul by blitzkrieg on June 10. The Kurds followed by taking Kirkuk a couple days later. The whole thing had the vibe of central planning.

There have been hints in Anbar that the Sons of Iraq, the "Awakening" movement that battled ISIS precursor Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) during the U.S. occupation last decade, has gone over to ISIS. But this has only been alluded to, not documented at any length in anything that I have seen.

No, what is going on in Iraq smacks of a "Great Game" operation. The U.S. has done nothing so far to stem the jihadis. The 300 military advisers and surveillance flights are more to keep tabs on the Iraqi Army and the assistance it is receiving from Russia and Iran. Let's keep our eyes peeled for any strike on ISIS by the U.S. I'm skeptical one will every come off. Maybe once it is clear that the jihadis are being routed Obama will order a cosmetic Predator drone attack on a column of retreating Salafi foot soldiers, if only to maintain the cover story that USG is concerned about a terrorist safe haven.

The second aspect of the U.S. response to consider, besides the scapegoating of Maliki, is the linkage to Syria. Yes, Syria is linked to Iraq and the rise of ISIS. There is no denying that. But using the ISIS capture of Mosul and most of the Syria-Iraq border posts as an excuse to forward a half-a-billion dollar request to train and equip a non-existent "moderate" Syrian rebel army is also a strong tell. The target here is not ISIS but Assad.

So in both cases -- first, the blame-Maliki game; then the funding request for a discredited Syrian opposition -- USG is doing all it can to avoid confronting the real problem, which is ISIS and its Gulf sponsors.

It is truly pitiful, and one wonders how much longer it can continue, what with Russia and Iran acting with alacrity and the jihadis starting to suffer their first military defeats of the blitz. I'm sure the hope in Jidda and D.C. is that the gains of the blitz can be locked in -- Kurdish control of Kirkuk; Salafi control of Mosul -- and a long, grinding, costly (for Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia) guerrilla war commences.

There will be a price to pay politically in the United States. If the conflict grinds on and Obama continues his feckless dithering, Democrats will hemorrhage. If Iraq convincingly rolls back the ISIS blitz, the Fourth Estate will shriek that the sky is falling. Let's hope for the latter.

Caliphate Rising with Tacit U.S. Approval

In addition to yesterday's Cantor bombshell there was the far larger bombshell of the successful offensive against the Iraqi city of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS is now on the march to Baghad; in addition to controlling Mosul, ISIS controls Saddam Hussein's birthplace, Tikrit; the home of the largest oil refinery in Iraq, Baiji; it threatens Samarra, home to the Shiite Al-Askari Mosque, the 2006 demolition of which kicked off the Sunni-Shiite civil war allowing the U.S. invasion forces to successfully divide and conquer Iraq. Now, Kurdish troops are reported to have established control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. As Thanassis Cambanis points out in "Sunni Fighters Gain as They Battle 2 Governments, and Other Rebels,"

. . . Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, a militant Sunni group whose thousands of fighters have occupied crucial swatches of Syria and have now surged into northern Iraq. The group has vowed to create a caliphate spanning the Sunni-dominated sections of neighboring countries.

In doing so, it is simultaneously battling the Syrian and Iraqi governments and Sunni rebels it considers insufficiently committed to Islam. Having seized vast areas of Iraqi territory and several large and strategic cities, including the country’s second-biggest, Mosul, it controls territory greater than many countries and now rivals, and perhaps overshadows, Al Qaeda as the world’s most powerful and active jihadist group.

Many of us have been transfixed by the relaunching of the Cold War in Ukraine over the last five months, but it is important to remember the operating logic from last year in Syria when ISIS came from out of nowhere to become a dominant belligerent in the jihadi war against Bashar al-Assad's Baathist government: a gain on the battlefield by the Syrian Arab Army was usually followed by an ISIS attack against softer targets in Iraq.

The battlefields of Iraq and Syria are linked. This is why the Obama administration has been unwilling to assist the Iraqi government of Nuri al-Maliki in bombing ISIS staging areas, as Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt report in "U.S. Said to Rebuff Iraqi Request to Strike Militants":

As the threat from Sunni militants in western Iraq escalated last month, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials. 

But Iraq’s appeals for a military response have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was over when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011. 

The swift capture of Mosul by militants aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has underscored how the conflicts in Syria and Iraq have converged into one widening regional insurgency with fighters coursing back and forth through the porous border between the two countries. But it has also called attention to the limits the White House has imposed on the use of American power in an increasingly violent and volatile region.

Despite the fact that Al Qaeda groups are purported to be the existential enemy of the U.S., the real enemy for the United States is Iran and the Shia-led nations of Iraq and Syria. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Some experts say that such American military action could be helpful but only if Mr. Maliki takes steps to make his government more inclusive. 

“U.S. military support for Iraq could have a positive effect but only if it is conditioned on Maliki changing his behavior within Iraq’s political system,” Kenneth Pollack [a former C.I.A. analyst and National Security Council official, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution] said. “He has to bring the Sunni community back in, agree to limits on his executive authority and agree to reform Iraqi security forces to make them more professional and competent.”

But so far, the administration has signaled that it is not interested in such a direct American military role. 

“Ultimately, this is for the Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqi government to deal with,” Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday.

ISIS, risen phoenix-like from the moribund fragments of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), has always been seen as a Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) project. Half or more of ISIS fighters are foreigners. ISIS attracts manpower from other jihadi groups because it pays better and is more organized. The caliphate rising in the Levant and Iraq is being carried out with the tacit blessing of the United States.