An eerie calm prevailed Sunday in the Iraqi capital Baghdad at the start of the working week, following a bloody night when security forces opened fire to break up the anti-government protests, killing at least 19.
Meanwhile, Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi called on protesters to end their street rallies, saying he is ready to meet with them and hear their demands. He said there were orders for the security forces not to use live ammunition, except in strict cases of self-defense.
I read elsewhere that there are possibly 100+ dead. Was there really that much of a strict case for self defense?
The government is certainly better than Saddam's. It should behave a lot better than just that point of extreme comparison.
Although Strategypage's discussion of Iran's setbacks in Iraq notes that Moqtada al-Sadr is behind the protests. I don't trust that three-time insurrectionist one bit.
Still, some restraint is called for. The unrest has grown and there are calls for the prime minister to resign.
My view is that this is an internal matter. Our emphasis should be not on who is in office, but how that is determined. As long as rule of law governs that process, we should be okay with it. The institutions and habits should be our objective. That has always been my view.
I know this is standard operating procedure in the region. But we bled to make them better than that. Unless those protesters were Iranian-backed thugs testing the waters for a coup, the security forces shooting to kill is unjustified.
As an aside, when I say that Hong Kong police have been relatively restrained in dealing with protesters it is not a defense of the Hong Kong police or China. It is a commentary on what it could be. Still, I haven't seen live feeds of Iraqi protests the way I've seen them in Hong Kong from Michael Yon. So it is possible that the Iraq situation is way escalated from the Hong Kong level of protests. Wait and see for my final judgment.
UPDATE: In neighboring news:
The White House said Sunday that U.S. forces in northeast Syria will move aside and clear the way for an expected Turkish assault, essentially abandoning Kurdish fighters who fought alongside American forces in the yearslong battle to defeat Islamic State militants.
That's not good for the Kurds. Although if we managed to convince the Kurdish fighters to get out of the future security belt Turkey wants to establish, it isn't an assault on the Kurds, hopefully.
I'm not happy that we couldn't deter the Turks. But critics of Trump's decision to move aside need to tell me if they are willing to go to war with Turkey or willing to let American troops be the trip wire the Turks cross which will lead to US deaths. Turkey is still our NATO ally and still needed to block the Russians from moving south from the Black Sea.
And remember all along I've said that the Kurds of Syria and the US-led Coalition had a common path for a while--fighting ISIL. The Kurds aren't on board fighting Assad. And I fully expect the Kurds to cut a deal with Assad for some autonomy within Syria.
This is complicated stuff. I'm not happy Turkey is moving in. But what are the realistic alternatives?
Really, the border area with Turkey is just a slice of the broader problem of staying in eastern Syria when forces opposed to our presence want us out.
We can at least tell the Kurds--quietly--where the Turks are heading so the Kurds can get out of the way. And watch the Turks to keep them from going postal on the Kurds.
UPDATE: So I'll ask again, what is the objective we are willing to fight and die for in eastern Syria now?
UPDATE: And remember, we have troops at a base in Turkey (Incirlik) that contains nuclear bombs who could be a group of hostages if America goes to war with Turkey over the Syrian Kurds in that border strip. Seriously, what do we do?
UPDATE: Trump threw an economic shot across the bow for the scope of Turkey's invasion:
Hours after announcing his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria — provoking alarm and outrage among foreign policy experts, Republican officials and right-wing commentators who warn it could empower ISIS in the region — President Trump on Monday defended the move as an expression of his “great and unmatched wisdom.” He coupled it with a warning that he’d “totally destroy and obliterate” the economy of Turkey if he’s unhappy with how the country carries out its planned assault on Kurdish fighters.
But the article says Trump ordered US troops out of Syria. My understanding is that the order was to get our of northern Syria near the border.
Also, this is interesting from the Department of Defense:
As the President has stated, Turkey would be responsible, along with European nations and others, for thousands of ISIS fighters who had been captured and defeated in the campaign lead by the United States.
We will work with our other NATO allies and Coalition partners to reiterate to Turkey the possible destabilizing consequences of potential actions to Turkey, the region, and beyond.
Did we just dump a lot of ISIL prisoners into Turkey's hands, sparing us and the Kurds the hassle and expense of dealing with them?
UPDATE: More related to the original post that digressed in the updates:
Popular protests [in Russia] against corruption and government mismanagement started up again this year and by June there have been over a hundred a week. At that point, nearly every province had experienced some of the protests. The government considers most of the protests “illegal” even if the grievances are real. The usual techniques for shutting down the protests are not working and it appears that by the end of the year the country will have experienced over 2,000 protests for 2019.
I have to wonder if the Russian empire is done breaking up after major losses in 1989 and 1991.
Who knows, maybe Russia will finally get that color revolution they claim America has been fomenting in between looking in Putin's eyes to see his soul (Bush 43), the reset (Obama), and puppetry fantasies (Trump's Resistance opponents).
