When are we going to admit that Iran is at war with a sovereign Iraq - as well as with America?
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in War — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
MOSUL, IRAQ -- Attempts by Iran's totalitarian government, via its Revolutionary Guard corps, to destroy a Kurdish organization fighting for women's rights and other civil liberties has begun to affect the ethnic population in northern Iraq, as well. According to a deputy minister in Kurdistan's regional government, attempts to destroy the Iranian Kurdish fighters has resulted in several Iraqi border towns being hit with indirect fire, wounding multiple women, killing livestock and destroying property, and causing nearly 1,000 people to flee their homes in search of safety.
While the fighting in extreme northwestern Iran does not, at this point, represent a mass border crossing into sovereign Iraqi territory, the fighting between the Kurdish freedom fighters (whose stated goal is a "free federal democratic and secular Iran," and who are "considered close to," but not a part of, the Kurdish Workers Party, which the US considers a "foreign terrorist organization") and the large numbers of Revolutionary Guardsmen who are massed on the Iran/Iraq border, combined with the massing of Turkish soldiers on Iraq's northern border, is creating an extremely tense environment for residents of "The other Iraq," as Iraqi Kurdistan - perhaps the most stable and autonomous region of the country - refers to itself.
Almost entirely devoid of American troops (and of terrorism) to this point, Iraqi Kurdistan, whose residents largely go about their daily lives as though the entire nation was not embattled in a war for its survival, has now been hit twice in recent days, first by an al Qaeda suicide car bomber, who detonated his vehicle in a market, killing several people in the area (the blast's concussion killed hundreds more by causing their mud-brick homes to collapse), and now by the Iranian shelling.
Read on.
The response to the killing of Iraqis by Iran's Revolutionary Guard should not be one of surprise to any who have followed the course of the Iraq war (and postwar) to this point. While Tehran is raising the outcry that the Kurdish freedom fighters (known as the PJAK) they are trying to exterminate along the Iraqi border are "a terrorist outfit being sponsored and armed by the US to increase pressure on Iran" - a statement which, as the UK Guardian reported from its own eyewitness accounts of the equipment the PJAK are using, is patently false, despite claims by Dennis Kucinich and Seymour Hersh to the contrary - the Islamic Republic is denying its proven-beyond-dispute interference and involvement within Iraq itself.
From establishing training and base camps for both Shi'a and Sunni fighters, to funding and equipping insurgents within Iraq, Iran's involvement in the fight against Iraq and against the coalition has been very real and very pronounced for quite some time now. That involvement includes the supplying of terrorists in Iraq with the materials necessary to assemble EFPs, or Explosively Formed Penetrators - an improvised explosive device which, in recent months, has become the number one killer of American troops in Iraq.
Most recently, Major General Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division (whose 3rd Brigade is one of the 'Surge' Brigades), which is responsible for the area from Baghdad down to the area south of the Tigris and of Salman Pak, publicly stated that his soldiers are currently "tracking about 50 members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps in [their] area," saying that, while none have been captured at this point, they "are being targeted" like any other insurgent fighters.
Only weeks ago, a Public Affairs officer within Multinational Force-Iraq privately expressed his concern to me that the media were spiking or deliberately misrepresenting reports made by the military about Iranian involvement and the capture of Persian fighters within Iraq. "We would arrest three members of the al Quds force (part of the Revolutionary Guard), and the story that would come out in the papers the next day would be, 'Three Iranian diplomats arrested from embassy.' I'd call the folks at the papers and say, 'Look, these folks weren't diplomats, and they weren't at an embassy. They're Iranian soldiers and they were taken while fighting against the coalition in Iraq.' I'd say to them, 'We have evidence - from weapons to ID cards to uniforms - that proves beyond a doubt who and what they are,' and I'd offer to bring them in and walk through each piece of evidence with them.
"They'd never take me up on it, and would never correct their stories."
Though of Iran's miltiary involvement within its western neighbor - when made - are nearly always mitigated by inclusion of the phrase "according to the US military," the facts are in the open for all who care to see them. An unwillngness to risk becoming embattled in yet another war at this point is entirely understandable; however, to deny the fact that Iran is at war both with a sovereign Iraq and with America is to blind oneself both to the truth on the ground in the middle eaast, as well as to the very real enemy of America, and potential killer of its people, that Iran has set itself up to be.
Tehran has chosen this course for itself, independent of American action. No foreign policy of America's has forced them to work round the clock - illegally - to develop offensive nuclear weapons. No foreign policy of ours has caused Tehran to kidnap soldiers, diplomats, and tourists for use as a bargaining chip in a most dangerous game. No policy of the civilized world has caused the Iranian government - a United Nations member state - to make the total destruction of Israel - another UN member - not only a policy position, but a priority. No coalition action in Iraq has forced Iran to send its money and materiel across its western border in hopes of killing as many American soldiers as possible.
Iran has made every one of these choices on its own. How long will it be before America decides to wake up, and chooses to realize what Tehran has done - and chooses to accept the indisputable fact that, whether we like it or not, Iran really is at war not only with the sovereign state of Iraq, but with America as well?
Despite the existence of an American media apparatus which still openly regrets "not doing more to stop the Iraq war" - and which apparently hopes to make amends by ensuring that Iran is safe from US attack regardless of the former's actions, every moment that we delay - or deny - the realization that, whether we like it or not, Iran really is at war with us, the danger increases. Ignoring it, most unfortunately, will not make it go away. Only by accepting the truth, and acting to deal with it, can the situation be remedied. It is in our best interest to begin to do so very, very soon.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The Fight For Iraq Is Lost — Comments (90) »
When are we going to admit that Iran is at war with a sovereign Iraq - as well as with America? 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I suppose the administration isn't broadcasting it because the nation is war weary and is skeptical about its motivations.
There is no public will to back a war with Iran, partly because Iraqi reconstruction was botched, and party because the stated justifications for war turned out to be untrue.
I am a supporter of this war, but this administration does have a severe credibility problem.
The reason Rice is pursuing diplomacy the way she is is because she understands that there is no political will in this country right now for a war against the Iranians.
The Iranians know this too. At this point, they have the advantage, as the Japanese did in, say, November of 1941.
Precisely because we have such a hideously bad Central Intelligence Agency that couldn't put the hearse in the right spot in a two-car funeral, we're in a tight spot when it comes time to justify a preemptive attack on a sovereign power. No one believes us. Ahmadhi-Nejad could show off a mock-up of Little Boy complete with the uranium pellet on his nightstand and no one would believe us, especially among the all-important bien-pensant in the media who help mold opinion.
Nobody cares if Ahmadhi-Nejad wants to exterminate World Jewry. Don't you understand? That was a deliberately falsified translation of what he said that the right wing fabricated to start a war against peace-loving Iran!
Only when the Iranians overreach, and they will, will we be able to hit them. You can count on fascists to always, and I do mean always, believe their own propaganda and think they can get away with an overt attack against us. Until then, diplomacy.
Neil, he was accurately describing the political mountain that Bush has to climb in confronting Iran. We believe him, but the media and the Democrats don't, and that makes all the difference.
You never go into a conflict lacking national unity, especially when you're playing the game on the visiting field.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
He dind't say the public believes that the reasons for going into Iraq turned out to be false. He didn't qualify it at all; he just said the reasons turned out to be false.
That kind of untruth cannot go unchallenged.
...who was ticked, as I was, that the CIA got the WMD thing wrong and tried to fob it off on the Administration. If it turns out that he's just peddling the Talking Points, well then, I withdraw my statement. Most antiwar types don't reiterate support for the Iraq war, however, after having posted a criticism of the Administration's reason for going into it.
Seems odd, I know. That's why I had a different interpretation than you did.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
I think he was a war supporter...who was ticked, as I was, that the CIA got the WMD thing wrong...
I'm still not sure that they did.
Until someone can accurately account (or even semi-accurately account) for what happened to all of the Iraqi WMD that existed c.1998, I'm going to assume that they are buried in an underground bunker in someplace like the Bekka Valley and we and the CIA just haven't been able to track it down.
*Everyone* assumed that Iraq had extant WMD in 2003. Until someone can show me how everyone was wrong, I'm going to go on assuming that everyone was right all along, and all this post-game handwringing is woefully misplaced...
The only thing in your post I would correct is:
"We believe him, but the media and the Democrats don't, and that makes all the difference."
The dems and media (for the most part do believe him).
They are not blind - they are however, corrupt to thier cores and are willing to sell every man, woman and child in the world down the river to gain a political advantage for the siezure of power. They get the same information as GWB, but there have been far too many example of where, in the case of the drive-by's, the facts were deliberately ignored or deliberately altered to fit a predetermined story line. One that futhers thier agenda regardless of the truth.
They are utterly despicable.
The party of the Left, the democrats, deserve a special level of contempt for thier naked lies and constant repositioning of 'prinicples' based solely for political expediency. Like "the Surge is a failure", "the Surge is only partially working", and when it suceeds "the Surge was my idea last year!" all dutifully and unquestioningly 'reported' by the jackals of the press.
They deserve no accomodation or accord in this matter. They lie, cheat and steal to gain power. The truly frightening aspect of this is, what if they do?
that require no military action. I was heartened by this report for instance...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/21f32f0e-5048-11dc-a6b0-0000779fd2ac.html
Bush is providing the right sort of pressure, economic. I encourage everyone to visit
divistterror.org for ways you can help in leading an economic boycott of the nation.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
that is
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
There's no question we are justified in attacking Iran, but I don't think it would be a wise decision for us to do so.
First, it seems Iran WANTS us to attack them, in order to unify and radicalize its citizens.
Second, do we have we have even have the manpower to effectively fight Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan all at the same time without some sort of draft?
Third, the American public clearly doesn't have the stomach for another war in the Middle-East, the political will just isn't there.
For now the best way to deal with Iran is to aggressively support internal forces that want to overthrow the current regime. Tough economic sanctions with teeth will help push this along.
No one can defeat the United States on the battlefield, our only obstacle is getting our citizens and government unified. We didn't have that in for the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, largely because those two countries didn't attack us first. We did have a unified country in WWII because of Pearl Harbor, and we all know how that turned out.
As much as I hate saying this, I don't think we can effectively have an all-out war with any country unless that specific country has attacked us first.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
I would hope that we would take a more aggressive stance (and use more liberal rules of engagement) against the Iranian interlopers. Since he has 'fessed up about his "formal ties" with Hezbollah, same goes for al-Sadr.
terror org?
Or would war have been necessary against the damn government of Germany?
haha
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
After all, ignoring Hitler worked out pretty well.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Clearly, with the surge in Iraq, we need more troops. The army has had trouble meetings its goals (Marines too?) and Iran is attacking up 'unofficially'. The sooner a draft is introduced (and not by Rangel) the sooner we can begin to clean up the region.
There is a book called “The Iran Threat” by an Iran expatriate Alireza Jafarzadeh. He is often on FOX News Channel and offers comments on developments in Iran.
This book lays out in fairly clear terms, how Iran started planning to takeover Iraq when Bush started planning to invade Iraq.
EVERYTHING this man has said about what those plans were, who was going to take what role (explains Qods forces, the revolutionary guard, etc.) has proven to be correct by anything I have seen or read about Iran’s involvement in Iraq, including this story.
The author still has connections in Iran and allies with the MEK (an Iranian group wanting to overthrow Ahmendinejad but are just another bunch of crazed jihadist) but the MEK have deep sources in Iran and provide current information.
The book outlines the plan for obtaining a nuclear weapon and all the ways Iran spreads disinformation about it to disavow the plan, and ways to delay delay delay until a weapon is acquired. He explains where Iran gets it supplies and what countries are building each component.
I’d say Iran’s plan are working quite well and Bush does nothing to stop them except try to intimidate by putting aircraft carriers offshore. What is he waiting for?
I am continually stunned when I see this news reported as if it is supposed to provide never before reported information.
The evidence in this book, on its own, if verified by someone of authority (and the author cites all the documentary evidence and reports needed) would be enough to declare war on Iran tomorrow. We won’t though because we are stuck in Iraq bringing democracy to all those “ordinary moms and dads”.
The idea of a conscript army presupposes an inefficient military. Even someone with minimal military experience must realize that, in going to a draft, performance will suffer.
There has been no real showing that either the Army or the Marines are having trouble in either retaining troops or enlisting recruits. Anyone with experience in training recruits will tell you that, without the personal motivation and desire of the volunteer, it is a difficult task to develope even a limited capability in draftees. I have seen some exceptions but, in most cases, a draftee would rather be elsewhere.
It's a great recruiting tool for the left. With a draft, maybe they'd finally get a chance to replay of the glory days of the late 60s and early 70s.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
for the left, than the draft. Mothers, fathers, every relative, friend and just anyone the draftee knows will get the message that if we just surrender it won't be necessary for Junior to go and risk his life for people that don't matter.
Many of these same people would be willing to support, to some degree, the volunteers defending the country, after all, they probably didn't study hard and ended up in the military because of it.
The irony is that if the anti-war college kids were so committed to ending the Iraq war that they were willing to put their as*es where their mouths are (funny image, actually), they'd all be clamoring for the draft (with no college deferments), because the draft would probably turn the public even more against the war and politicians would run like he*l from it. But that strategy would require them to risk putting down their bookbags and protest signs and risk getting shot at.
was a great idea. Draft 'em, don't bother with boot or AIT, ship 'em to Iraq and use 'em for IED finders. Other than that, he had no use for draftees.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Maybe the Maliki government is *happy* to see the Kurds take a pounding. They sure don't seem to mind having Iranian agents in Iraq: whenever our forces detain one, it's Maliki and co who scream the loudest about having them released.
My impression is that far from seeing Iran as an enemy, the sovereign government of Iraq sees them as a friend -- someone to pursue economic and diplomatic ties with. There are deep connections between the Iraqi Shia parties and the Iranian government, going back to the days when they were both fighting the Baathists and SCIRI was based in Teheran.
Anyway, thanks for the onsite reporting.
thought you would chime in on this one. The defender of the noble nation of Iran. As for enough troops, do we need to invade to take them down or can we do it from the perimeter?
So tell us Jeff Emmanuel, are you for or against an independant Kurdish nation, and how much are you willing to piss of the Turks?
"All lies in jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...
Let's try a bunker buster...where else?
"All lies in jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...
What better target is there?
All lies in jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...
forgive me, but that demon rum...I'll do better next time
"Go the extra mile...
Are the ROE's for engaging cross border incursions different? Are their specific limitations on how those occurences are treated?
It seems this is a complex situation, especially if PJAK is involved. That presents tough choices between defending a DFTO and flaming anything that comes across the border. Add to this the Turk's willingness to undertake similar cross-border actions and we appear to have a limited range of above board choices. I certainly have no love for the IRG but this needs to be intellectual, not emotional. Frankly, if Iran ever came across in force large enough to create a threat we have the assets to respond. So, no worries.
Since we appear to be picking up many of the Iranian's that decide to stay in-country, my guess is our intel is farily good. That (dealing with it in country)is the smart move since it limits engagements to a more controlled, known environment. Plus it helps us uncover related support elements. That strategy seems to hurt the IRG more by not letting them organize, plus it uncovers their support network. Conclusively, I doubt SpecOps is wringing their hands and wondering what they can do.
In analysis, it is doubtful all the Kurd's under attack are PJAK so they are worthy of some protection. However, as you know there is a general distrust between the Kurd's and other Iraqi ethnic groups which add's additional complexity. Protecting the country's sovereign border sounds like a job for the IAF, but with limited numbers I doubt they will rush into this situation.
While overall we should take it to the IRG every chance we get, on a situational basis the current tactics appear to suffice. Am I wrong here?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
In February I issued a challenge
Which '08 hopeful will acknowledge war with Iran?
March thru today
Iran can always end the crisis by just killing the hostages
How long before Dems blame America for Iran's acts of war?
The US should seize control of Iranian ports now
Has Iran paid off everyone on Earth except Ann Coulter?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson