Why do you assume Iran is aiding Sunnis? I don’t claim to know whether the story in the OP is true or not, but it’s silly to assume that the Shi’a are some monolithic entity inside Iraq. There are many factions vying for power, and Iran surely wants the US out of Iraq. Why would it be so odd that Iran might try and exert its influence in Iraq by arming some of the more militant factions. With the US out, the Shi’a could then just walk all over the Sunnis with impunity.
Well, Cole says it can’t be a quarter of all troops killed, but the military didn’t say it was-- they said “less than a quarter”.
I don’t. I assume it is not.
They’re doing that already.
Publicly, Iran has a good relationship with the nominal Iraqi government and has actually advised against Shia reprisals against Sunnis. Iran will already get everything it wants just by standing pat.
Two claims:
EFP’s “have killed more than 170 coalition troops, and wounded more than 620 others, in the past two years.”
"the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say."
The three month total of deaths was 302, so 25% of that is 75.
Yes, but why are you assuming that Iran would have to be aiding Sunnis in order for this story to be true?
Yeah, and no government has ever said one thing and done another.
No, they want the US out. We show no signs of leaving. Now, I’m not claiming that they are aiding Shi’a militants, but it’s not illogical for them to do so. You seem to want to dismiss the idea out of hand.
There are a couple of problems with what we have been given so far. First the Administration suffers from a general credibility defect after what we went through with the invasion of Iraq - the certainty about unconventional / nuclear weapons, the certainty that Sadam was in cahoots with Osama, the certainty that Sadam was going to give nucs to Osama, General Powell in front of the UN pointing at recon photos of gas generators and mobile bio labs, the certainty that the invading force would encounter no serious difficulties and would be able to pull out in short order with Iraqi oil paying for the whole thing. All of that, as we now know to out profound unhappiness, was bogus and poor old General Powell was put in a position that almost no one would trust him now to give the accurate time of day. All of this has been exacerbated by the continued insistence by some public officials who claim to have dual administrative and legislative capacity (what, not judicial function?) that there was a Sadam-Osama connection and by others that the feared weapons have just been hidden.
Second, what the administration is pointing at now is that there are Iranian serial numbers on reconstructed bomb fragments, that some tail fin on some mortar shell has Pashtun language words on it, and that a recovered shoulder fired anti-aircraft missel was made in Iran. Assuming that all of this is true, given that the Middle East seems to be one big weapons market, that most of the relevant borders are highly porous and given that the Sheit insurgency and the dominant political / religious faction in Iran are the same bunch, it seems perfectly reasonable that some Iranian originated weapons are floating around and have fallen into the hands of people who have used them against the Iraqi government and the US occupation. The mere presence of weapons which originated in Iran, without more, is not very persuasive. The same argument could be made about the Czechs or the Russians or the Chinese based on the ubiquitous AK 47 rifle or RPGs or the soviet designed light machine gun.
Third, a couple of weeks ago we picked up five guys who the US has characterized as Iranian agents and, I think, that one of them is some sort of operations officer for some sort of quasi-official agency. If the interrogation of those people has provided a basis for some of these claims, I for one would want to know something about the circumstances of the interrogations before I put much faith in anything they may have said.
In short, I’m skeptical. It is my hope that the bulk of the nation, of Congress and our supposed allies are likewise skeptical of these claims.
As well, may we wonder who is supporting the Sunni insurgency? Are they self-sufficient, while the Shia are not? Are they sustained financially from outside, or are they spending some vast horde of gold stashed away some three years or more ago? If the Shia must depend on outsiders for weapons, how much more so the Sunni, who are the minority?
If Iranian fingerprints are on the bombs the Shia use, who’s fingerprints are on the money the Sunni spend? Should they be denied their fair portion of our righteous wrath?
Nah, must be all the Iranians. Silly of me, really, to imagine that the smiles of our allies are daggered. Surely they must be grateful, for all we have brought to their lives.
I’m trying to picture Osama bin Ladens reaction if Al-Jazz suddenly broadcast the news of an American-Iranian war. What is the Muslim equivalent of breaking out a magnum of champagne?
Also the Iranians. Or so some of the Freepers speculate.
In case anyone’s forgotten, the “Iranian weapons ‘found in Iraq’” story dates back to at least 2005: US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said weapons from Iran have been found in Iraq.
In other news, Iran has arrested two suspected al-Qaeda agents, but might free them just to spite the U.S.
That’s an excellent point. Tracing particular weapons, after they’ve been used, to a particular government has to be next to impossible. If there are “Iranian weapons” being used by the Shi’a in Iraq, who knows how they got them. I know the administration is trying to tie those weapons to Iranian operatives in Iraq, but I haven’t seen any convincing evidence to connect those two dots, assuming that those Iranians identified are actually government agents.
And lets say that the Iranian government is supplying weapons. So what? We sell weapons all over the place to our allies. If Bush thinks that would somehow get Congress to authorize attacks on Iran, or that Americans are itching for a fight with Iran, he’s out of his mind.
Why, the US government knows:
They just won’t say how they know:
(from WaPo, and NYTimes I linked to earlier)
Perhaps we have a mole working in Tehran?
I can’t tell you how delighted I am at your news.
As a side issue, according to the Los Angeles Times the administration’s bellicose actions are propping up and unpopulare Iranian President.
My guess is that the Saudis have thier fingers in this pie in some way…either officially (and quietly) sanctioned by the government or possibly by wealthy Saudis who would not like to see Iraq’s oil reserves essentially controlled by Iran.
My concern from the beginning is that Iraq will turn into a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran…with the winner holding most of the cards in the oil game.
And of course it’s in Irans national interest to keep the chaos brewing in Iraq. A large number of Americans have already demonstrated that they do not grasp the consequences that would ensue if the United States picks up and leaves…and a few more roadside bombs will continue to tempt americans to disregard long-term geopolitical reality in favor of what they perceive to be the easy way out.
And at the risk of enflaming a chorus of indignant howls and the intellectual equivilant of putting fingers in ears and yelling “la la la” to drown out the noise, I reinterate the following point:
Every time one of our national politicians calls for an immediate withdrawal, it encourages and emboldens the insurgents to try and outlast us. It shows countries like Iran that our national will can be worn down with just a few military deaths. Iran, North Korea, Russia and China among others will all feel emboldened to try and push back at us in various negative ways if we fold under these circumstances.
But to many these ideas are either incomprehensible or they don’t matter. It’s so much easier to break it down to “BUSHLIEDGETOUTNOW”!
The Sunnis don’t need any inspiration from us to keep fighting. We’re almost incidental to them at this point. They see their primary enemy as the Shia, not us.
3000+ is more than a “few,” and there’s difference between military will and recognizing a stupid mistake.
Russia and China are too invested in American capitalism at this point. They’re our allies at this point, not our enemies.
As for Iran and NK…who gives a fuck what they think? Let them try us. Are you scared that North Korea is going to take over America? Relax. You’re going to be fine.
Eh. The alternative is that those who do want us out muzzle themselves, which is an absurd request. We’re on open society and we have to allow debate on the issue. I’m not, myself, in favor of immediate withdrawal, but this isn’t a math problem where there is only one solution-- there are legitimate arguments to be made for that proposal, and I want to be able air those arguments. The war is unpopular, and we can’t hide that from anyone.
You’ve known me on here long enough to know where I’m coming from, Dio. Trying to undercut my point by attempting to portray me as living in fear of NK troops goosestepping down Pennsylvania Avenue is intellectually dishonest.
That said, your point above strikes me as simplistic. Of course we don’t need to fear either country “taking over America”. But do you think they could possibly be in a geographic and strategic position to wreak havoc on our economy by affecting oil supplies?
Do you think a radicalized and religiously polarized middle east flush with petrodollars is in our best interest?
How we got into Iraq is now fodder for historians and partisan bickering. We are there and we have to try to resolve the situation as best we can to make sure that our short and long term interests are taken care of in the best way possible.
Giving the insurgents a date to circle on the calendar is not the way to do that.
Nope, it looks more like the Vietnam argument of remaining there.
As I see that once again, redeployment and aerial superiority are ignored, (and this is really the “la la la” position) the way I see it is that once either Saudi Arabia or Iran control defined areas that will mean that in the near future they will have something to lose, IOW right now the factions don’t control anything of value, but once they build something on their own and settle down they will notice that like a sword of Damocles we are still over them.
But more likely Iraq will remain in one piece and for all practical purposes divided into 3 zones, to me the window is still open for us to redeploy and still be a strong influence on what will take place, remain longer in Iraq and even the majority of conservatives will demand that we forget about the whole ME, that IMO is the danger, that after the lies are noticed even by the conservatives even a redeployment and aerial might will be considered useless so even that will be removed from the area.
All true. But we don’t operate in a vaccum. A fact that the people that are calling for immediate withdrawal have to face is the very real possibility that their words are being used to encourage the very people that are killing Americans.
“See brother! It is working! Their will weakens by the day.”
Anybody with a grain of common sense knows that immediate withdrawal would be a disaster. I would also like to believe that everyone who has been beating the drum that the war is a disaster from the start was doing so out of sincere analysis and conviction and not a desire to score cheap political points. Those that have been working to undermine the public perception of the war simply in the name of politics have just as much blood on their hands as Bush does.