War!
The Ghosts of 170 US Troops Demand It
By Mark I Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (107) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday, in Baghdad, under extraordinary security precautions, the United States laid out evidence that an elite force of the Iranian military is and has been directly responsible for the deaths of US troops in Iraq. According to evidence presented at the briefing, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force, has been providing highly sophisticated devices called explosively formed penetrators, EFPs, to insurgent groups inside Iraq since 2004. The first US soldier killed by one of the devices lost his life in June of that year. Since then, more than 170 US troops have been killed and 620 injured in attacks using EFPs.
Iran has long been the elephant in the room in regards to the war in Iraq. Up until now, the Bush administration has been reluctant to discuss Iranian involvement in anything other than generalities. This press conference has been rumored for sometime and delayed. One hopes that the decision to go public with this information signals a new determination on the part of the Bush Administration to do something about it.
Read on…
The Department of Defense set unusual ground rules for this briefing. Reporters were not allowed to record it and the briefing officers were to remain anonymous. CNN produced a video segment on the press conference, complete with pictures of some of the evidence presented. And that evidence is overwhelming. From the Washington Post:
The weapons displayed for reporters on two tables on Sunday -- rocket-propelled grenades, football-shaped mortar shells, the shaped explosive charge and about 40 tail fins of exploded mortar shells -- showed specific signs of Iranian manufacture, the officials said. The mortar tail fins, for example, were made from a single fused piece of metal, while other countries make mortar shells that have removable parts, the explosives expert said.
Two rocket-propelled grenades, with the markings "P.G. 7-AT-1," were said to be made exclusively in Iran.
But most damning are the EFPs. These are finely machined explosive devices that are designed to hurl a ball of molten metal at their target, penetrating even the strongest US armor. The devices have also been used by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, cementing the tie to Iran. US officials said that in Iraq, the devices are smuggled to elements of Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army by paid Iraqis. There can be no doubt that these weapons are designed and manufactured to kill personnel. The impact punches a hole in an armored vehicle, not destroying it, the slug searching out the vehicle’s occupants.
Iran’s involvement in EFP delivery to groups actively battling US and Iraqi forces has gone too long without an answer. Now that the United States government has publicly acknowledged Iran’s role, the question becomes is it prepared to do anything about it. There have been stepped up raids in Iraq against Iranian targets. Consulates, political parties with ties to Iran, and the Mahdi Army itself have all been targets of US and Iraqi action in recent weeks. But these actions, significant as they are, are not an appropriate response to the deaths of 170 Americans over a two and a half year period. The United States need to take decisive action against the networks, supply lines, and cross border sanctuaries where these weapons are manufactured, delivered, or warehoused.
Of course, the predictable criticism has already started coming in from all the predictable places. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller both acknowledged and brushed off the evidence at the same time.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said last month that he believed that Iranian operatives inside Iraq were supporting Shiite militias and working against American troops.
But he also asserted that the White House had a poor understanding of Iranian calculations and added that he was concerned that the Bush administration was building a case for a more confrontational policy toward Tehran.
Sen. John Kerry called for dialogue.
Ultimately, they want an Iraq that is stable. They want influence. They want to be players in the region. And we need to [recognize] that and engage in a kind of diplomacy that the Iraq Study Group recommended…
Sen. Jack Reed, who recently was quoted as saying that funding for the Iraq War was on the chopping block, was similarly not swayed by the evidence.
The question is: is this a deliberate policy of the Iranian government at the highest levels. Is it rogue elements within the government?" Mr Reed told Fox News. He added: "And then the other question is to what extent are there countervailing signals that the Iranians actually are trying to — not control, but not to further raise the stakes in Iraq," he said.
And last, but not least, the media went out of the way to question the timing of the release of this information, led as always by the New York Times.
That inference, and the anonymity of the officials who made it, seemed likely to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with Iran.
These factors serve to constrain the Administration’s ability to respond to Iran’s targeting of US soldiers. Nevertheless, the Administration must disregard the critics and demonstrate its determination to protect its soldiers, and the Iraqi people, from Iranian infiltrators.
America’s experience in Iraq would make it almost impossible to envision an invasion of Iran along the lines of the Iraq campaign. However, immediate action against the sources of armaments entering Iraq, wherever they are, is the minimum requirement. That action would require limited air strikes inside Iranian territory and crippling Iran’s ability to mount a direct response. That may lead to a wider war with the Islamic Republic, spreading to the Gulf States and perhaps even Saudi Arabia and Israel, as Iran brings its international terrorist network into the conflict. Should Iran choose to escalate the conflict in any way, its nuclear program and regime targets would become fair game.
The evidence presented in Baghdad should be enough to convince anyone who claims to support the troops that military action against Iran is necessary at this time. The time for debate has ended. The United States government has laid blame for the deaths and wounding of almost 800 US servicemen in Iraq squarely at the feet of the Iranian regime. There is no way to argue that one supports these troops without also advocating that military action be taken to prevent further losses. The United States has not taken direct action against Iran in the Global War on Terror, although many would argue that it should have done so earlier. If Iran were only interested in stability in the Middle East, it would not be acting to create so much instability in Iraq. Iran has crossed a red line and they have been called on it. There must be consequences and they must come now. Anything less would be dishonoring the sacrifice of 170 brave US troops and inviting more deaths.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Democrat to ailing GOP Congressman: Resign or be victim of "Dr. Kevorkian style euthanasia" — Comments (5) »
War! 107 Comments (0 topical, 107 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
You are right that Iran has had thirty years to engage in warlike rhetoric and use every subversive weapon in their arsenal to thwart American interests and undermine global peace and stability. There is no question that Iran deserves what it gets. But any military action, from a targeted bombing campaign to a ground invasion would be a dramatic new step. Call it a new war, call it an escalation of an old war, call it the last battle of WWII if you want, but we need to be careful to consider the consequences before acting. We have the luxury of vast military superiority, which means we also have the luxury of choosing when, where, and whether to strike. The only effective weapon that the terrorists have is fear, and the hope that it will make us behave irrationally.
If we go, we need to have a full committment with the nation solidly behind it. I can't imagine anything worse than dropping a few bombs, radicalizing the population, further isolating ourselves diplomatically, and then leaving the current regime in power. With a skeptical US public and a Democratic Congress, I am afraid that that is what would happen. If that is the case, we may as well write a check to Ahmadinejad.
_____________________________________________________________
The word "independence" is united to the accessory ideas of dignity and virtue. The word "dependence" is united to the ideas of inferiority and corruption.
~ Jeremy Bentham
what a joke! Yeah, please delete this comment and fill it with some condescending drivel.
I hope the war none of you will ever have to fight in goes well.
Wanna share why I shouldn't disable your account for engaging in it?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
That bloggers here would consider attacking Iran, when the majority of the public is displeased with Ahmadinejad, is short sighted. An attack on Iran would lead to the radicalization of millions in Iran, and rocket Ahmadinejad to popularity once again. The only action that should be taken in Iran should be covert action aimed at turning the public tide against their radical leaders and clerics. A US invasion and toppling of the Iranian government would turn the political tide in the country in the wrong direction.
If you want to ban me over the chickenhawk comment, feel free.
[Previously N/Ted, but for the slow: there's a difference between advocating, well, war against acts of war and ascribing to the weird crypto-fascist theory that a 200+ year tradition of civilian control of the military should be tossed out the window in order to try to score points against the Bush Administration. The latter's militarism; the former's not.]
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I forgot that the verb, "act", when spoken by an imperialistic, neo-con, crypto-fascist (like me), is synonymous with random bombing of civilians, invasion of a “peaceful”, “sovereign” country, and general conquering and rampaging the likes of which have not been seen since Genghis Kahn.
Anyone familiar with an emergency situation knows that the first rule is to ACT. While everyone else is standing around with their jaw hanging open a few people are moving quickly to DO something. 99% of the time doing something is better than standing there. Even if you do the “wrong” thing it is almost always better than doing nothing.
In this case we have been doing NOTHING for a very long time. Now we have concrete evidence to take to all the people who would rather believe Iran than their own government, and STILL there are plenty of people who council for doing NOTHING, and use the pitiful straw man of a full blown invasion to deflect criticism of their entirely empty argument that at its core is nothing but inaction.
I don’t have to check with the military PC police when voicing my opinion, but since you bring it up…I have served my country quite proudly, thank you very much. I do not believe it is a prerequisite for advocating against the “run as fast as you can”, or the, “ball up in a corner and protect your face”, strategy that you seem to favor.
I am not in the habit of assisting in the stuffing of straw men, so I won’t even respond to this tripe.
Just know that there are plenty of us who don’t appreciate getting hit in the face repeatedly only to have our “friends” tell us that we are overreacting if we hit back. In my estimation anyone who stands around while their friends are getting beat on is not a “friend” at all. There are plenty of us who believe our military over the rhetoric of the Iranian regime, and no longer consider Iran’s long history of being a terrorist clearing house, or their direct involvement in insurgent activity in Iraq, “Alleged”.
Iran is our sworn enemy, not because we asked them to be, or made any such declaration ourselves. Their hatred of America has been the hallmark of their Islamist Revolution from the very beginning, and no one who has been paying attention would contest that in the face of huge, government sponsored rallies where “Death to America” is the favored chant.
You’re kidding yourselves if you believe, contrary to all their rhetoric, and all the Iranian fingerprints we find on terrorism across the globe, that this state is not already at war with us, and using every weapon at their disposal to inflict as much damage as they can while continuing to officially deny that they are at war with us.
We are at war. Up until and including now it has been solely on their own terms, and because of that they have been whipping up on us, as we stand there and do nothing. When I say, “ACT”, I mean exactly that. Covert OPs, check. Supporting dissidents, check. Propaganda warfare, check. Direct military action, check.
I don’t pretend to be a general, or pretend that I have a strategy or tactics that will halt the direction this war has gone for its duration. I didn’t advocate what action we should take for a reason, because I pray that smarter and more informed people have our backs. If they do not, and the wait and see crowd wins the day, I think that we are in very deep trouble.
These people have been trying to kill us for more than thirty years. Their level of patience and dedication dwarfs our own. They believe that because of this incredible advantage they will eventually bring us to our knees and make us submit to them. Crazy talk? They don’t think so. They are counting on our being timid, and afraid. They are counting on us being so cautious that we refuse to act against them. It has worked for a very long time, and it may work again, even as we have proof that they are killing our soldiers in Iraq this very day. That any American that is not totally outraged by this, and doesn’t demand that our government acts against a terrorist nation that is killing our soldiers, in my estimation is not my friend. They are just the sort of “friends” who will watch as a couple of bullies shine you up on the ground.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
For me the question is not whether the US is justified in going to war. I don't know how anyone could make the US the bad guy here - but I guess some people would try. The question is, what is the best way to protect ourselves from the threat. You may think that Iran is a greater threat already than anything that could come with an invasion, but I am skeptical. You said:
"using every weapon at their disposal to inflict as much damage as they can while continuing to officially deny that they are at war with us"
That is key.
Right now hardliners in Iran at least has to cloak their bloodier aims. That is not only because Iran is afraid of an attack, but because there are powerful people in the Iranian government who are afraid of an attack. Once we attack, all debate will be over and there will not be much opportunity for reform. Even if they do not pull off major terrorist attacks, they will almost certainly invade Iraq. Do we have the political capital and national resolve to fight full-fledged geurilla war in both nations simultaneously? My bet is that we would pull out quickly and prematurely with our tails between our legs, further emboldening terrorists and rogue regimes.
If Iran is really hopelessly bent on full war, it will be the test of our generation. I don't think we are ready yet. Maybe it will take another attack on one of our cities before we are.
______________________________________________________________
The word "independence" is united to the accessory ideas of dignity and virtue. The word "dependence" is united to the ideas of inferiority and corruption.
~ Jeremy Bentham
but no discussion of Iran is even worthwhile if you ignore the "allegation", and all the evidence supporting that “allegation”, that they are racing for atomic weapons.
If Iran reduces its support of terrorists, and curtails its own direct, terrorist activities in order to sooth a western world that is already terrified of a hot war against Iran, it will not be without a purpose. Iran needs time. They need to build a workable design that will fit on their existing or a next generation missile. Failing that they can always use a suicide bomber (abundant in that part of the world) to deliver the device.
Iran is not trying to beat the US military in Iraq. They are simply trying to turn the American people against the effort by working to increase the random violence to a crescendo. The reportage of body counts with no mention of objectives, victories, or triumphs is just a symptom of a media that is all too willing to become the instrument of our worst enemies. The dissection of these reports on RS is excellent, by the way, and you should go read them.
The Iranians need time. They need us to be hesitant. They need us to be loath to retaliate. They need us to be worried about what our “friends” think, and they need our government to be afraid about what the left in our own country thinks. They have everything going for them outside of the American military itself, and our CIC. They are the only things standing in their way. If we have proof that they are actively or passively killing our soldiers, and we do nothing yet again, I believe they will think that they have plenty of time to build their weapons, and negate the single advantage (our conventional military) we have over them.
Then we’ll have a front row seat to quite a show, and tickets that are bought and paid for by our own fecklessness and fear.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
Iran isnt some small country (Pop 60M) and any false flag act or " accident" can escalate very quickly and spread out to points East & West in a flash. Bush would be careful of walking into a trap that pins him and our forces in protracted ground conflict. Just as McArthur wanted to avoid the land battle in Asia - we should heed the same advise for the Near East/ Middle East battle space.
I cant see how anyone that sees our " success" in Iraq could possibly want to do the "same" thing in Iran ( only 4X the scope). Not only does an "Iranian war" campaign ( two phases: the quick phase and the long hit & run phase) stretch our military resources to the max but we have less to throw into the grind ( both machine & muscle).
Everyone is always thinking that we have a cardboard character here that just stands where we want them and allows us to take action(s) as we see fit. This character is moving and reacting too - sometimes faster and quicker out the gate than we are ( e.g. Lebanon War). Iran can take ( and is taking) pre-emptive actions just as much as we are. Oh and BTW - this is their backyard - not 9000 miles from CONUS. I mean we have given Iran a " target rich" environment to leverage - not only in Iraq but throughout the entire region.
Or are we talking about some other McArthur that didn't want to open up a front in China ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Re: While everyone else is standing around with their jaw hanging open a few people are moving quickly to DO something. 99% of the time doing something is better than standing there. Even if you do the “wrong” thing it is almost always better than doing
Not necessarily. Hippocrates' rule in medicine applies just about everywhere in life: First do no harm.
...is the same as 'doing no harm'. The fates of UA Flight 175, AA Flight 11 and AA Flight 77 might argue against that.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
There's always a war which some fight and others don't. There may have even been a war that you didn't fight but saw the necessity for doing so. Did you, would you, blind yourself to the necessity because you yourself weren't shouldering the rifle.
The point your senseless sarcasm struggles to make is that people not fighting should remain silent. Do you need a logician to tell you that doesn't follow? But if the "chikenhawks" are quited by a hoped for shame will the war's critics reciprocate and remain silent as well? Will You? Is something starting to dawn inside your head?
Free speech, which most liberals truly detest,is not purchased at the cost of a military uniform, it comes with citizenship and responsibility. It's not restricted to football games and movies and to claim that a citizen not manning a machine gun ought not to express a supportive opinion on war and military matters and is in fact a coward, only displays a desire that voices not your own should not be heard on what is a central issue of the 20th and 21st centuries, the confrontation with murderous islamic forces.
I would suggest that you dream up a sort of instant cliche, something equally dumb and insulting, but at least new. Have no fear, if it's pointless & crude enough other liberals will quickly adopt it and use it endlessly.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Zero meters. At least that's what we always said in the Army.
There's always a war which some fight and others don't. There may have even been a war that you didn't fight but saw the necessity for doing so. Did you, would you, blind yourself to the necessity because you yourself weren't shouldering the rifle.The point your senseless sarcasm struggles to make is that people not fighting should remain silent. Do you need a logician to tell you that doesn't follow? But if the "chikenhawks" are quited by a hoped for shame will the war's critics reciprocate and remain silent as well? Will You? Is something starting to dawn inside your head?
To me, that just sounds like a long-winded excuse for not being willing to fight yourself. But that's okay, we can still see it. I do think that if a person isn't willing take up arms, then one should be very careful about suggesting that others should go die in his or her place.
But by your logic, I shouldn't call the police if someone breaks into my house, unless I am willing to conduct the investigation myself.
We have police for a reason and it is to protect and take care of threats in our towns. They aren't only charged with protecting the homes of former policemen. They protect and serve everyone.
Same with armies. Nations have armies to protect the whole. Your service, noble as it is, does not earn you one more degree of protection than my lack of service earns me. And it sure as heck doesn't earn you more right to an opinion on the use of military force. If we were debating strategy or tactics, I would defer to you. But on the subject of the protection of the nation or of the armed forces themselves, I will not yield.
Funny, I would think that a former soldier would be more inclined to take action to protect the troops, not less.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I understand what you're getting at, but they're apples and oranges. Soldiers are completely at the mercy of their civilian principals. Once they sign up, they cannot legally quit, nor can they switch duty stations or choose which wars they fight in. On the contrary, police officers are not legally bound to keep working if they start getting screwed by their superiors. They can quit. Similarly, they can choose where they want to work to a degree. Let's take Dallas for example. Oak Cliff is a bad neighborhood in Dallas. If I want to be a police officer in the Metroplex, but I don't want to work in Oak Cliff, I can just go apply to be a police officer in Plano. Or Richardson. Or Highland Park--all of which are nicer areas. You can't do anything remotely close to that in the military.
The civilians who control the military have an extra responsiblity, therefore, to care for those in the military, considering the absolute power they have over them.
And you may not defer to me on the use of military force, but neither did this administration when they were warned that the invasion force was too small in Iraq. Sometimes the true costs of war versus the possible benefits are more apparent to those who fight them than to those who haven't.
Agreed that the military is not directly comparable to any other job in civilian life. However, every member of our voluntary military knows the rules when they sign on the line. That does not give the civilian leadership the right to abuse them or treat their lives cavalierly, but it also does not mean that the civilian leadership is hamstrung in directing the military if it never had and military experience.
In this case, I fail to see how it is abuse of the military to advocate taking out facilities that are leading directly to military lives lost. In my way of thinking, the cavalier act would be to do nothing about it.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
of having to point to my own service every time someone doesn't like an opinion I have that is supportive of military action. It’s absurd. It's as if they think they have a trump card that negates any further discussion, and it somehow invalidates the argument I'm making. Last time I checked we were not living in a Robert Heinlein novel.
The military does not decide with whom or where it will be tasked with doing its job. In this nation that power rests with the civilian government, which virtually ensures that a “popular” war is a figment of some fool’s imagination. I would not care to live in a country that engages in “popular” wars. That country simply could not be a free one. No free people want to see the flower of their youth, most patriotic, and most capable men and women die! No reasonable people want to hurt other reasonable people without just cause. Those that do are not free, but are slaves of a few powerful people who are dictating their opinions and stoking their prejudices and hatreds. Slaves in the service of totalitarians are not reasonable people. They are driven by fear as much as those holding the lash are driven by fear. Fear keeps the powerful in power and the weak in servitude. So it has always been, and so it is.
I hate the thought of the Iraqi people or the Iranian people suffering the wages of war, just as I hate the idea of our own men and women suffering them. But our soldiers volunteered because they believe what I believe. This nation and the liberal democracy that we believe in is the greatest and best hope for the survival and continued advancement of humankind, and it is worth our suffering and even dying to defend it. The rights eluded to in our Declaration of Independence and enshrined in our Constitution are true for all human beings, or they are true for none of them.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
To me, that just sounds like a long-winded excuse for not being willing to fight yourself. But that's okay, we can still see it. I do think that if a person isn't willing take up arms, then one should be very careful about suggesting that others should go die in his or her place.
To me, your rant sounds like dirty cover for the idea that there are no citizens who have not served for the State. Now, you may be ok with various forms of fascism, but this site is not.
Ours is a volunteer army that is constitutionally assigned to carry out the war policy of the civilian populace. It has been this way for over 200 years. It is a buffer to coups d'etat, fascism, militarism, and disabilities placed on those who neither had a war in which to fight, the ability to fight, nor the desire to fight.
If you don't like this two hundred year old tradition, move. This is not the Civil War; no one hires anyone else to "die in his or her place."
If you think you hold some special place because you once served in the armed forces, you might want to share that with the two editors here who did as well.
I'm being nice. This is your chance to retract the chickenhawking. There will be no second chance.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
I said that those who've not served in the military should think very carefully before deciding on when and how to use it. I think this debacle in Iraq speaks for itself. It is clear that our civilian principals didn't think "carefully" enough before diving in. That said, I think there needs to be overwhelming proof of direct Iranian government involvement in the harm of U.S. soldiers before a regional conflagration is begun. In my mind, some anonymous analysts showing off a few pieces of weaponry are not enough to initiate a hot war. Seems a little cavalier to me. But then, I'm not in the line of fire anymore, so what's it to me?
But then, I did tell you to cut out the chickenhawking.
Seems a little cavalier to me. But then, I'm not in the line of fire anymore, so what's it to me?
Sometimes the true costs of war versus the possible benefits are more apparent to those who fight them than to those who haven't.
See, this is that tippy-toe dance on the edge of chickenhawking for which I have to confess some admiration. On the one hand, you're clearly suggesting that civilians are by nature too cavalier in decisions of war to be trusted with the power of war. On the other hand, you've couched it in terms with which no reasonable human can differ: Be careful about going to war, don't commit valuable resources without at least some certainty, etc. I leave to the side the silly bromides about "not enough troops"; if I have to listen to one more idiot rant on about General Shinseki being cashiered for speaking truth to power, without the mention of the word "Crusader" once in the diatribe, I'm gonna go on a shooting spree.
But anyway.
Here's your new operational ground rule. There is no chickenhawking allowed here, period full stop. If you play the cutesy dance again, I'll construe that as chickenhawking. If you feel unable to abide by this restriction, it takes me less than six seconds to disable your account.
I'm actually, believe it or not, the soft option. Play nice.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Keeping in mind that this is not a dispositive summary, but rather a sufficient thumbnail, the argument that one who either is not serving or who did not serve in the United States Military may offer an opinion or advocate a decision in favor of military conflict.
Think the movie version of Starship Troopers, and you're on the right track.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Actually I think you've got it turned around..or I do... It's not that someone who hasn't served can't express an opinion. That would obviously exclude 90% or more of the population. Chickenhawk is meant to bait a person, like the old "Pawk, pawk, pawk", flap the arms stuff, from our elementary school days, as a simple insult: that those who advocate war but don't serve are cowards. Obviously in anonymous settings like the internet, no one could have any such knowledge about whether a person is courageous or not.
I Like Ike
Either way the argument lends nothing to the debate and in fact is an attempt to shut down debate. Whatever your interpretation, it is not tolerated here.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
The taunt is an outgrowth of the underlying opinion -- which isn't that no one who hasn't served can express an opinion, it's that no one who hasn't served can advocate engagement of military force.
In either sense, it's un-American.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Dang. I hate it when I'm found out as a chickenhawk. Stops me cold.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
"I hope the war none of you will ever have to fight in goes well."
I would guess a good many of the comments on this site come from people like me, who have already had their physical wars, and are now reduced to attempting to watch the back of those, who do physically have to conduct our wars today, from the American leftist terrorists supporters who seek to destroy America. Somehow I just feel that is what is needed here.
De Opresso Liber
maybe more than one, for that matter - and I didn't sit in the bleachers. Oh and, I've been participating on this site for over two years.
Your trite comments here might be insulting if you could offer any other credibility to your 'warrior-ism' than the comments, themselves. Till then, you are just going to have to be content to be suspected of being some cynical, vaucous wannabe.
Many folks on this site have served in the military and in some honest-to-god soldierly outfits - and have also gone to war.
Very good opinions appear here. Many, about war and such, are downright brilliant not to say prescient. Get out your big red dictionary and try decyphering some of the larger words before you think about bad-mouthing those on this site.
...I think we should, instead, begin building the necessary political capital to allow the Israelis the latitude they'd need to engage the Iranians militarily.
However, it may need to await a change in Israeli leadership first. Olmert proved himself a weak sister last summer. He simply does not have what it takes to lead the Israelis to a decisive military victory.
Outside of their unfortunate political circumstance, brought about by Sharon's unluckily-timed illness, the Israelis are capable, motivated, and ready to end Iran's nuclear aspirations once and for all.
What they need is the political green light. And I think they can get it if the Iranians keep up their defiance.
so be it. But we should never advocate using them as our catspaw to take out an enemy. It demeans both us and the Israelis.
If we believe it is in the national interests to insert covert special ops teams into Iran we should do so. If we believe it is in the national interest to go to open war against Iran we should do so. If we believe it is in the national interest to turn the area into a glass parking lot we should do so. But we should be clear that we are doing so and what our reasons for doing so are, and that we will deal similarly with others who provoke us to that action. Our diplomacy problem is that other nations no longer believe we will keep our commitments to them because we are no longer willing to defend ourselves. We accepted stalemate in Korea, we accepted defeat in Vietnam and renamed it "victory with honor." And even now they know the demo*crats in congress are preapring to cut and run in Iran. If they are our allies, that complicates their situations. If they are our enemies, they are emboldened.
The Israelis are not going to stand for a nuclear Iran. Nobody should, frankly. But they particularly are not...because they know where those nukes will be pointed.
The problem is that Israel simply doesn't have the influence, on its own, to do much of anything militarily outside its own borders. It would need to have the approval, even if unspoken, of a number of nations...not the least of which are certain ones in the region.
I think a number of things complicate military action from the US right now. Bush is politically weak. The Dems are running Congress at the behest of an antiwar constiuency. Our military has its hands quite full as it is. And it could be argued (poorly, IMO) that a nuclear Iran doesn't necessarily threaten US interests.
Jacques Chirac basically said that in a recent interview -- before being forced to reverse himself by his handlers. It was one of those rare glimpses of blunt candor from a politician: he simply doesn't think a nuclear Iran would be that big a deal to anybody outside of Israel.
I think mustering the political capital necessary for some targeted Israeli airstrikes makes the most sense here. Obviously, there would be stiff resistance from Russia and maybe even China.
But the truth of the matter is: we and Europe have been desperately trying the diplomatic method to prevent Iran from moving closer to being a nuclear power and that method has failed. And it will continue to fail because I don't think Iran is too interested in anything anybody has to offer them....save for the dissolution of Israel and a Jewish diaspora. And that may not even be enough -- considering the relationship Iran has with some of its Sunni-dominated neighbors.
Not sure which is more risible. The idea that the Iranians want a stable Iraq is positively delusional. As for Reed's "rogue elements" - well, we don't know for certain who authorized war against us, but that should not prevent us from applying sufficient pressure on the regime to make it stop. Either someone in power in Iran has the authority to stop this - or we need to go in there and do it ourselves.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
A stable, Shiite controlled Islamic dictatorship that answers to Tehran.
As for "rogue elements", right on. The religious leaders have dropped a few hints lately that they are concerned that their firebrand president is getting out of hand. If there were ever a time for the Guardian Council of the Constitution to step in for the preservation of the Republic it is now.
____________________________________________________________
The word "independence" is united to the accessory ideas of dignity and virtue. The word "dependence" is united to the ideas of inferiority and corruption.
~ Jeremy Bentham
but when is the last time a totalitarian regime did the smart thing? We can count on them to be duplicitous and craven.
They won't do the smart thing, and I'm glad.
Now THAT, is a warmongering statement. But, it’s true. I don’t want stability in Iran. Give me messy anarchy over a totalitarian state any day of the week, month, or year. Give me hope over hopelessness. Give me an uncertain future over a certain one in slavery. I don’t want the Mullahs to retain control over millions of innocent people, and give them the time and room to keep inculcating them into a twisted cult of hatred and racism.
I hope they get even more belligerent and overt in their war against us. Maybe if they did that some of my zombie countrymen would wake up and smell the jihad. This terror regime has survived by hiding its plans in the shadows. Here we have physical manifestation of their scheming in our hands, and on display for the international press, and people STILL deny it.
I used to think that we would have to get hit here at home for people to wake up and understand that these people believe what they say. Obviously 9/11 was not enough, and we need a more severe demonstration of how much these people hate us. With some of the posts here, I’m quite sure we’ll get it. Maybe then we can talk about ACTING against a country at war with us.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
If liberty could be secured by ignoring the deaths of the 170 soldiers, that would be the right thing to do. It is not their deaths which makes it necessary to respond, it is the appearance of weakness before an enemy which requires it. It should have been done in 2004, but even now is better than never, so yes, send in the covert troops to prep the battlefield, then get our troops out of Iraq and into the battlefields that matter: Syria and Iran*. The more surprising and unexpected, the better. If we kill a few Chinese or Russian advisors in the process, so be it. We told them their were either with us or against us. If they have chosen to be against us, we need to show them they have chosen badly.
*I suspect that if this were to happen, it would be amazing how quickly "sectarian" violence would end, and how quickly peace would take root, even in Sadr city.
At the risk of opening the wound again, I would note that had Jimmah Caatah done the right thing in 1979 we would not be facing this problem now. Had Jimmah given the Iranians 24 hours to release our embassy personnel or we would start bombing Iranian facilities we would not now be in this situation. One of two things would have happened but either would have resulted in the end of Iran as a threat.
The lesson never changes and for some strange reason every generation of Americans is forced to learn it again.
John
----------
Liberals: Alchemists who have mastered the ability to transmute Lead into a denser form of Lead
Iran is and has been an enemy of the United States for decades. The attack on our Embassy in Tehran, the Marine barracks in Beirut, the kidnapping of Bill Buckley all warrant a response to Iran with the ultimate goal of regime change.
However, more Americans are being killed in the al-Anbar province by Sunni insurgents. Khobar Towers was blown up by Sunni terrorists. Several attacks killing Americans have occurred in Saudi Arabia. The majority of the hijackers on 9/11 were Sunni/Saudi. Saudi money is surely flowing over the border to Iraq, as is men and material. Saudi Arabia has terrain much better suited to our current equipment in Iraq (tanks, trucks, planes) than mountainous Iran. The Saudis have more oil than Iran. The bin Ladens are Saudi. The Saudi people have caused the US much more hardship, starting with the Oil Embargo in the 1970's to the attacks on our country and forces today than the Iranians. They are the people we should be planning to attack.
...but never jam today.
Lewis Carroll should have been a political pundit.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Iran has been at war with us for nearly 30 years now. We can not win in Iraq without seriously degrading the ability of the Iranians to foment violence against the Sunni. Similarly, any victory won in Iraq will be thrown down the toilet the day after Iran possesses nuclear weapons.
The only thing I disagree with in the main post is that it is simply strategically moronic to only bomb their EFP production sites- while leaving NUCLEAR WEAPONS sites intact to threaten us with destruction a year from now.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
We can punish Iran for this without going for regime change right now. Going after the nukes in my mind necessitates a decapitation strike on the regime itself. Hitting the production and transportation routes for the EFPs might have the regime change effect in any event as disaffected Iranians may do the heavy lifting for us.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
according to the VOA:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm
It's not that he disputes the evidence, just that he was unaware of it even after the presentation. He might endorse it later, I suppose.
Still, seems odd that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was out of the loop on something this important. That tends to undermine the quality of the evidence, in my opinion. I will take it more seriously when it comes from some General willing to go on the record instead of these mysterious anonymous sources.
If he's not disputing it, by definition he is not distancing himself from it. He just hasn't seen it yet. This is not such a great surprise to me. As I understand it, the Chairman of the JCOS is not in the direct chain of command. He is an advisor to the president. As this is a military intelligence and analytical matter at this point, I think it is plausible that the Chiefs would not have seen the whole package yet. Now, if and when the president is putting together a plan on what to do about it, the Chiefs will be heavily involved.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I see what you're saying about how Pace might not have been involved, that makes sense to me.
I'll stand by my use of the word "distancing" though, even though the headline goes too far to use the word "disputes". Not in the sense of disagreement, but in the sense of "whatever's in that report didn't come from me, as I am unaware of any evidence implicating the government of Iran", so that if it turns out to be bad intelligence it doesn't splash on him. Not disputing, but just -- well, I can't come up with a better word than distancing in that he is expressly disavowing any connection to the report. He could have just said neutrally, "no comment, because I haven't reviewed the evidence yet" or somewhat positively "that's disturbing, I can't personally confirm that report but we will be looking at it closely because our intelligence on the ground usually gets these things right." Instead, he went out of his way to point out his understanding of the evidence he was aware of did not implicate the government of Iran.
Just struck me as really odd, especially coming from the Voice of America, of all places. I guess we'll see what he has to say about it in the next few days, I'm probably making too much of it.
possibly. On that day the NY Times established that not all pre-emptive strikes are bad, it depends, like all else, on who's doing the pre-empting. Under an editorial headed "Bullying Iran" the Times outlined it's opposition to "brute force" and in favor of,of course you know the answer, "diplomacy".
I say pre emptive because this Titan of journalism has already staked out it's position against the country wherein their office is located & whose citizenship they enjoy. Pre emptive because the quasi official word is being passed along to the camp followers, liberal pimps, morally deprived, and mentally stunted, as to just what position they are to take should we have the gall to take any action against a nation that is already at war with us. Oh, memories of the Iranian hostage crisis of long ago float by.
The occasional liberal who thinks it daring to hint at destabilization and even goes so far to mutter about unspecified covert operations had better check his premises as well as the ground he once stood on. We did have such a visitor on this thread but he better look over his shoulder.
Bully Switzerland, Luxembourg, maybe. Iran never!
We went thru this kind of thing with the Soviet Union, change the enemy the position is the same.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Thanks to the Democrat party's CONSTANT anti-war drum-beat, I don't think we have the political will to attack Iran. Their leaders know this too, that's why they're being so cocky.
Of course, when Iran builds a nuke, we'll get blamed for not stopping them.
On another note, how can we protect Iraq's borders when we refuse to protect our own?
I still remember the images of those two towers falling down and seeing the smoldering rubble of the Pentagon. I still remember vividly the anger I felt. But I also remember that this country was unified and ready for a war. I remember how long it felt between 9/11 and the day we moved in to Afghanistan and kicked the crap out of the Taliban. If this were then, Iran would have been wiped off the map by now and would probably be one of our biggest allies in that hellhole called the Middle East. Back then it would not have taken a SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER's LIFE TO REALIZE THAT. Yet what happened? Now it's over 5 years later and it's as if we've totally forgotten as a country who attacked us and WHO OUR ENEMY IS. Today our American soldiers are being killed by the same terrorists who killed 3,000 American civilians. But now we don't stand unified as a country because it's not happening here at home. We're told that "Bush lied" and that "we've lost in Iraq" and that "now over half the country disapproves of the war and the President". Our servicepeople don't deserve this. Our servicepeople don't deserve politicians like Kerry and Reed and Rockefeller and Pelosi and Clinton who are as evil as the enemy as far as I'm concerned. Our country doesn't deserve what's being fed to them by the New York Times and CNN. How come so few of us realize what is going on? Where are my fellow countrymen on this? We were all one voice on 09/12/01. Funny how things change and it's only 02/12/07.
I think I'm going to be sick...
I've seen people this distraught, and there is a section of the populace who have that low an opinion of the Democrats and the media.
But I'll note this: people can get away here with calling Democrats as bad as the enemy when they start videoing their decapitation of American hostages. Until then, they can find somewhere else to post.
Subject. Closed.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Not a troll....Yes out of line with my comparison between terrorists and Democrats. I still believe that the Democrats support for abortion is evil however. The same kind of evil as al Qaida no, so i do apologize for that. It just is extremely disheartening to keep reading about Iraq and have to come to terms with the fact that nothing can get done until the liberal media stops bashing Bush and the war and that will of course not happen. This isn't about our country or our troops for the Democrats it's about doing anything to discredit Bush so they can win the White House in 2008. It scares me to think what would happen if we were to fight a war against a China or Russia or North Korea if the Democrats were in charge.
Re: I still remember the images of those two towers falling down and seeing the smoldering rubble of the Pentagon. I still remember vividly the anger I felt. But I also remember that this country was unified and ready for a war. I remember how long it felt between 9/11 and the day we moved in to Afghanistan and kicked the crap out of the Taliban.
Um, yes. And we struck back at those who perpetrated the atrocity. The WTC and Pentagon are avenged, lacking only the body of bin Laden himself twisting from a gallows (and yes, that's a major lack)
Re: Now it's over 5 years later and it's as if we've totally forgotten as a country who attacked us and WHO OUR ENEMY IS.
Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, yes.
Re: Today our American soldiers are being killed by the same terrorists who killed 3,000 American civilians.
Strictly speaking those who did the deed on 9-11 did us the favor or removing themselves from this world too. As for their confederates, some of the Iraqi "insurgents" are Al Qaida, but many others are not. None of the Shi'ites are: Al Qaida is a Sunni organization and hates the Shi'ites (and is hated by them).
...Sunni or Shia in Iraq who would rather kill Americans instead of each other because as far as I see it, when given the choice it seems as if our soldiers are getting the short end of the stick. Frankly, when we struck back we were specifically told this would be a war that would last for years and years. This is a global war that will last for much longer (Cold War anyone?). If the 9/11 hijackers were the only enemies of America then you'd have a point, but I can very confidently say that if given the chance to be one of those 19, I'm sure any Shia or Sunni in Iraq would at the very least strongly consider it.
Full disclosure: Liberal, first time poster, and I belive that the Iraq war was and is a tactical blunder. But please humor me for a moment, and I think that you will be surprised. Additionally, I will not argue the veracity of the evidence presented.
The only viable response to a situation such as this, in my opinion, would be full scale mobilization and redirection of the US economy to war footing. Convert industrial capacity to the production of war material; start rationing luxury items, oil, and foodstuffs; fully mobilize all Reserve and National Guard elements, and consider, but do not impliment at this point, a military draft. Show the Iranian leadership that we "mean business" by officially declaring war (for the first time since WWII), and start massing troops on their borders from both the Iraq and Afganistan borders.
Don't waste time trying to get the international community behind the action, becaue they won't. Set a unilateral deadline for the current regime to give up power. If it is not met, invade, take out the leadership, military and nuclear facilities, and then redeploy across the borders. No occupation, no state building. If the theocracy tries to take power again, repeat the process.
If we have to do this, we should commit to it quickly, powerfully, and without reservation, and do it right the first time. And then leave it to the Iranians to work out their future, not us.
The only viable response to a situation such as this, in my opinion, would be full scale mobilization and redirection of the US economy to war footing. Convert industrial capacity to the production of war material; start rationing luxury items, oil, and foodstuffs; fully mobilize all Reserve and National Guard elements, and consider, but do not impliment at this point, a military draft. Show the Iranian leadership that we "mean business" by officially declaring war (for the first time since WWII), and start massing troops on their borders from both the Iraq and Afganistan borders.
I'm fine with all of those things if they are necessary to fight a war. What I don't see is why exactly they are militarily necessary - especially given the possibility that we are in a larger decades-long struggle in which, as in the Cold War, we will need the goose of our economy to continue laying golden eggs for a few decades if we are to fund a long-term strategy.
What concerns me when people on the Left call for economic sacrifices and collectivization is that the war is being used as an excuse for these things rather than that they are chosen out of genuine military need.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Is to actually pay the bills, instead of taking out loans to pay for our war bills.
The war ain't free, and we have to pay for it sooner or later. At the end of the day it's all about interest....
But I feel that we should bring all of the resources that we have at our disposal to bear, and quickly. Iran will not be the last war that we would have to fight if we go down this road.
Rationing and reorientation of our industrial production capacity is not the same as collectivization. And I'll be clear, depite my ideological underpinnings, collectivization cannot work, especially here in the US. But some economic sacrifice will be necessary to win and keep winning. If we keep fighting wars halfway, we will not have any decisive victories that will make our enemies tremble and embolden our allies.
Another opponent. Another set of manufactured evidence. Juan Cole unpacks the "evidence" so far:
http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/nyt-falls-for-bogus-iran-weapons.html
We've really gone far past the bully stage in our ability to interact with other countries. A bully with ADHD. How about a step back (literally--back into Afghanistan to finish the job we started to do until the bright shiny object of Iraq distracted us).
I can't imagine a worst way for the Republican Party to finish its implosion than a war on Iran. Well, how about one without Congressional approval? That would do it. The Republican Party: We took you to war when we didn't have to. We spent like sailors on leave, leaving you to pick up the bill. We expanded federal power at the direct cost of individual liberty. And we alienated our international allies to the point where even the British are considering pulling out. Nice job.
Next you will cite Chomsky and Ramsey Clark, perhaps?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
...site courtesy requires that all links to same must be clearly identified beforehand. Please follow this rule in the future.
Thank you in advance for your compliance in this matter.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I'm happy to cite anyone, left or right, who is reality-based. This new "evidence" is not.
And don't cite anything or anyone. Just give us your unvarnished evidence that shows this new information put out by the Administration is not "reality-based." Or it is just so because you want it that way.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I have no evidence that the new information is not reality-based. I also see no evidence that these weapons are connected to the Iranian government. So the information only indicates people are making weapons in Iran. We don't know who. We don't even know the identities of the presenters of this information. So how am I to judge the validity of the data based on unnamed sources? The only sensible thing to do is ignore this information until it is sourced and corroborated.
Now, I think it is silly that the Administration is presenting evidence that Iran wants to do America harm. Given the past 30 years history, isn't that a given? So what is the real message in the evidence? Is it directed at Iran, our allies, the Iraqis? I'm trying to figure out the point of the Sunday presentation.
I think it is silly that the Administration is presenting evidence that Iran wants to do America harm. Given the past 30 years history, isn't that a given?
So what do you suggest we do about it, given that (a) you are against military action and (b) thirty years of non-military action has gotten us here.
1. Are you aware of any basis for the implication that armaments are privately manufactured and distributed in Iran without the knowledge of the government and the secret police?
2. As to the identities of the presenters, we don't want to compromise the identities of intelligence agents, now do we? This is not an anonymous presentation - while the specific presenters may be anonymous agents, the presentation was made on the record with the backing and endorsement of the Bush Administration. Which is not anonymous.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
1. I am not in need of evidence here. The administration is. Implication is no longer an option after the failures of the previous intelligence evidence. They have to prove it to us. I guess.
2a). Valerie Plame. It appears given the prosecutions evidence that this administration will compromise the identities of intelligence officers if it suits their purpose. We'll see if the defense can present countervailing evidence that proves the prosecution witnesses are lying.
2b).Prove that they were intelligence officers. Why was the evidence not allowed to photographed or video-taped? Where is the linkage? More importantly where is the money trail? All of this material has to be paid for at some point in some way. Show the money trail and you have real evidence.
It appears given the prosecutions evidence that this administration will compromise the identities of intelligence officers if it suits their purpose.
The prosecution has presented no evidence "that this administration will compromise the identities of intelligence officers if it suits their purpose". In fact, the prosecution is twisting itself into a pretzel to avoid addressing this issue, because as everyone but you now knows, Plame was not classified and her name was not released by the WH, but by State.
In the trial you are watching, what evidence has the prosecution presented to show that the administration outed any classified agent?
In the one I'm watching, Plames names was revealed by Armitage, who has not been charged with anything, indicating that her name was not a secret.
1. Post-revolutionary Iran has a confusing and, to us, almost incomprehensible political structure. It isn't a top-down totalitarianism like the USSR or most fascist or authoritarian states where the top is in control of everything, and it isn't a federal democratic, separate power structure like the US, where power is divided but everything is more or less open and each part knows what the other is doing, behind the scenes if not openly to those without security clearance.
It's fairly anarchic. Power is held by different groups of religious, secular, militaristic, and even industrial and popular groups who tolerate the system and each other only tenuously, but are in basic agreement, but yet who don't always share information or resources. The government is fairly weak, sitting on top of all this. There is good reason to hope the system falls someday, as it will happen long before you get a total collapse like the USSR had, or a military defeat like Nazi Germany, depending on which groups defect. The simplest way to think about it is the various groups who supported the revolution kept and actually increased their separate power (and later others joined them in gaining power and influence) while only superficially coalescing into a single entity.
All this is to say, yeah, there are factions within Iran capable of running factories capable of producing such arms without the central government knowing, or even if knowing, not condoning or approving it but not being able to do much about it. The governmental secret police in Iran is actually quite weak, while various underlying factions in Iran have their own spies and "public police", such as those of the fundamentalist factions who go around punish women for their dress and such, who are everywhere.
So, while it is certainly possible that arms are entering Iraq with the government's blessing, it's just as likely that the formal government doesn't know about it and wouldn't condone it, or knows about it and would stop it if it could, but can't.
That said, if anyone wants to argue that any government that can't keep its own society and supporters from supplying military arms to a warzone to be used against the US should be held to be de facto opponents of the US, I can't readily argue back. The only question is whether it is best to topple that government through direct war, or to figure out who to support so the various factions of people of that country topple it themselves if possible.
2. The identity of one of the presenters has been outed, by an Iraqi press source. I won't say where unless you ask, as it was a breach of journalistic ethics and possibly against American interests, but it's out there. He is a high level officer and public relations specialist who pretty much is always on the record before reporters, giving open briefings and available for one on one interviews to get official US military positions. The other two are intelligence specialists who it clearly makes sense shouldn't be outed.
The question here is why the public relations specialist wouldn't appear on record, introducing the intelligence guys on the condition of anonymity but putting his own name on the line for credibility (and from what I can tell the press thinks this guy is basically a strait shooter). This person isn't himself an intelligence specialist, he was brought in as a press facilitator.
I think these points explain why the press is skeptical about this presentation. There is good evidence the weapons are coming from Iran, but if you know how Iran works it is hard to pin it on the government. And the press was surprised that the PR officer wasn't willing to appear on record, even if they understood why the intelligence specialists weren't.
The State Dept.? Do all relevant government agencies concur on this?
"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this," he said. "It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
"It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
It is clear that at least some elements of the Iranian government are involved, since the people we have arrested are Iranian embassy staff.
The State Dept.?
Who?
as do a lot of taxpayers, because we are funding an organization to gather intelligence about sovereign states. The DoD is not, as its primary role, tasked to gather such intelligence. So I question why in this case it is the agency presenting these findings.
If it was clear that elements of the Iranian govt. were involved and the presentation on Sunday was to confirm that involvement, it is reasonable to expect evidence to support that contention and not have to resort to the use of inference.
I believe that the last time our government tried to make a case concerning state-involvement in terrorism, the Secretary of State was the one to present the evidence to the world at the UN because his credibility was deemed most relevant. Not the SecDef or other DoD official.
The key intelligence findings here are collected in a theater of combat; naturally, DoD would be intensely involved.
It's not at all clear what use there is, in any event, in separating the military and intelligence functions.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Seriously. You want it both ways: Anyone critical of the evidence needs to give more than a citation to a very good rebuttal of the evidence (again, read the thing before you criticize). On the other hand, the government evidence needs to be taken at face value.
What ever happened to the Right? Used to be that self-serving information from a bloated, overgrown and predatory government was looked at critically. Now, it is swallowed whole, with a full glass of water.
The new evidence, among other things, says that Iran is giving their hated weaponry to use against the US. Nonsense.
That's rich coming from the wing of American politics that believes every one of us creates their own reality, meaning essentially that there is no such thing.
Claiming that you, and you alone, own reality, and any opinion that does not match up with yours is automatic grounds for dismissal based on the premise that it does not conform to “reality”, is the kind of make your own reality/fantasy that “liberals” are quite famous for. Only a fool who couldn’t make a coherent argument would claim to own reality. You, and your “Reality based community”, are that joke and in very poor taste I might add.
Any logic 101 student ought to be able to eviscerate your empty and circular arguments.
Why don't you listen to what our enemies say and do, and then get back to us if you want to discuss "reality"!
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
1. Please provide the name of the person from whom that quote comes.
2. If unable to do so, don't be so quick to complain about anonymous sources.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I hope we gather indisputable, solid, overwhelming evidence as a basis of an invasion of Iran, or the public will turn against us again.
Please provide source and explanation showing that Gen. Pace has reviewed the evidence in this briefing and found it unconvincing.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm
He hasn't seen the evidence, but it is pretty clear that the conclusion doesn't jive with his understanding of the situation.
And it's quite different from saying he's disavowing the Iranian connection:
"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this," he said. "It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
In other words, Pace knows what is clear from Iraq - that Iranian-made stuff is being used against our guys. The sensitive intel part of this is tracing it to the regime, although personally I find that a matter of logical inference given the nature of the Iranian regime.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
...this comment from Pace..?
"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this," he said. "It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm
My interpretation of the phrase:
"It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved.."
...suggests Pace has some knowledge of this evidence presented on Sunday so that when he says:
"I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
...suggests that Pace in not convinced the Iranian government is involved for reasons other than because he has not yet been briefed on the matter..
.
There is nothing to agree with or disagree with here regarding Iranian Government involvement, since this claim was not supported by evidence.
The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the “highest levels” of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops. [Washington Post, 2/12/07]
Indeed, while the specific intelligence on the explosive formed projectiles is no longer disputed in the intelligence community, the CIA is questioning whether their export from Iran represents a strategy of the regime or the rogue actions of one of its security services, known as the Quds Force. [New York Sun, 2/12/07]
If we put enough hurt on the Iranian government, it will stop. Which is really all that matters. This ain't a criminal trial, it's a matter of us establishing that we need to stop this from continuing.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
The claim that "highest levels" of the governemnt are involved in this is essential to these briefers, since we know that Saudis are funding Sunni insurgents, and putting pressure on Iran without putting pressure on Saudis would make us look hypocritical. If no connection to Iranian "highest levels" is found in these attacks, then we would have two rogue elements from two different countries fighting against us. This without mentioning Syria and other countries.
Cloudy factionalism in the Saudi government, the profound disinclination of Europe to have us interfere too strongly in their oil supply, the current cost/benefit ratio favors engagement, our own disinclination to give OBL the present of no-fooling invading the country that owns Mecca & Medina, our need to keep some sort of airspace channel open for Israel, our public stance is hiding some pretty intense counterintelligence work... the list goes on, and I haven't even touched on the bad reasons.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
we know that Saudis are funding Sunni insurgents
Link please.
you made a rather startling claim and presented no evidence. You've been asked by Dan for a cite. Provide it.
Because by now I'm confused: who, here, is disputing our government's claim that elements of the Iranian military are engaged in smuggling arms to Iraqi terrorists? I don't care if you are or not - but on the 'skeptic' side there seems to be a division between the people who don't think that the Iranian government is sanctioning this and the people who don't think that the Iranians are involved at all. Let's figure out who's arguing what.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
My particular focus is on highest level of the Iranian government. When the Saudis were said to be funding Sunni insurgents, nobody claimed that highest levels of the Royalty were involved in this. The obvious solution to this is to pressure the Saudi Government and Iranian government to find and annihilate, or stop, these elements from meddling in Iraq.
Of course, the Saudi pressure part is not too popular around here.
If you will recall, White House pressure was exerted when it became apparent that some members of the House of Saud funded jihadists linked to al-Qaeda. Admittedly, such funding wasn't popular with the royal family as a whole for obvious reasons, but it did happen.
As for Redstate, quite a few of us here have taken the Saudi royal family to task time and time again, so to say that "is not too popular around here" is to regurgitate a Farenheit 9/11 talking point. You generalized far too much there.
...that the Iranians aren't involved. More accurately, he's signed off on Cole's apologia for the Iranians*. Which is mostly based on a strange belief that Shi'ite terrorist sponsors won't give weapons to Sunni terrorist groups trying to kill Americans; not to mention Cole's almost-deft conflation of killed and wounded to mean killed.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*It's up there. One link to a particular hate site in a thread is plenty, frankly.
And Iran works hand in glove with them. (Sunni and a secular dictatorship, no less!)
Hamas are Sunni, and they are funded by Iran.
Only problem is weapons are being manufactured in Iran, not Saudi Arabia. Not that we shouldn't be pressuring the Saudis, too, but you usually attack the problem at it source.
Anyone who funds terrorists to kill us is as guilty as rogue elements of a Government supplying arms for the same purpose.
When the allegations of Iran involvement in Iraq started coming out in December, I'm sure you all had your reactions. Some were surprised, some angered, some shocked, some in denial and a variety of other positions. The reaction of American soldiers when we read the news from back home. "It's about time someone noticed." It has been an open secret here for as long as I can remember. That's why it seems ridiculous to me for people to try and assign sinister motives to those giving this information out. It's not about going to war with Iran, it is about letting the American people, and the world know what Iran has been doing all along.
In fact, when we would be talking amongst ourselves immediately after the ISG report came out, it was tough to determine whether we should laugh or cry at the insanity of Baker, et. al. suggesting that not only should we talk to Iran about Iraq, but the assinine assertion that a stable Iraq was in the best interests of Iran. Since when does the best interests of the band of religious thugs running Iran have anything to do with the best interests of Iran as a whole?
While we are on the subject, I am a very poor excuse for a chickenhawk. Army Reserve, deployed to a major U.S. base in Iraq which is actually fairly close to Iran. I very rarely go outside the wire, so IED's and EFP's do not threaten me all that much personally. A dust-up with Iran, however, would very likely see missle attacks on the base that I sit on.
I guess that is the difference between most soldiers and most "non-soldiers" - it is my job and my deepest privilege to allow more harm to come my way in order to safeguard others.
The members of the U.S. Army, as well as the other services are proud to be here doing what we do. Anyone that claims to support me by interfering with my mission is misguided at best.(Much more polite terms than what we use here in the sandbox to refer to those people.)
I have met numerous Iraqi people. The overwhelming majority of them are just like you and me in a lot of ways. They want food on their tables, saftey for their families, and a chance to determine the course of their own lives. They are grateful beyond words for what we have done for them here, and more than anything they want the violence to end so that we can go home. The one scenario that scares them the most is for us to leave before the country is secure.
Take what I say for what you want to take it. I'm no General, nor am I a politician. I've never worked for the CIA or the Dept of State. I guess the only thing I am an expert on are the things I see with my own 2 eyes.
We're all in your debt. And I hope with all my heart, for your sakes, for our sake, and for the Iraqi's sake, that our country gives you everything you need to finish the job properly and come home.
Feb 13th,
An official from the Pentagon Joint Staff said last night that Pace had seen the briefing slides but had "no personal knowledge of any senior involvement by senior Iranian officials."
Thanks for your contribution, dominickfranco. When I wrote the OP, I had no idea that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had not been personally contacted by Ahmadi-Nejad or by the Supreme Leader and heard their confession. Until that happens, I will suspend my calls for military action.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
War with Iran, or rather the escalation of a war that was declared on us more than thirty years ago, is indeed upon us. It is not a question of America escalating anything now. They have struck and struck and continued to strike us, and we have known it all along. These latest attacks, directly on our armed forces, are merely more of the same, but with terrorism’s hallmark of increasing boldness every time we refuse to confront them. Have we learned nothing about our enemy?
We must act, and act with enough force that not only the Iranian agents, arms smugglers, and agitators in Iraq feel the consequences, but we must make the terror masters in Iran feel it too. We must impress upon the totalitarian Mullahs that there are consequences for trying to tear down civil society in Iraq, and consequences for attacking our military. To do less is to invite them to continue to escalate, and continue their jihad.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan