Iran, boogeyman or real enemy?
(Iraqi Security Forces discovered a cache in a 6-ton truck in a garage in al Qasim, Iraq, April 2. The cache contained more than 1000 EFP components, more than 3000 pounds of explosives, 45 Katusha 107 mm rockets and stands.) (Courtesy photo)
This photo printed in the Stars and Stripes newspaper, which any soldier can get for free anywhere on base, is of the largest Explosively-Formed Penetrator cache found to date. The rockets are believed to have been manufactured in Iran, the caption said.
Iran is on everyone's lips.
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker regularly referred to Iran as the biggest remaining threat to stability in Iraq.
Most U.S. officers I've spoken with in Iraq, mention that Iran provides the insurgents with weapons and advisors.
(Meaning the Shiite militia insurgents. It would seem harder to prove that a Shiite Iran is directly providing weapons to a Sunni Al-Qaida, but if the bombs are entering Iraq, Al-Qaida could surely find a way to get them.)
The GIs who are most likely to get hit by EFP's, currently the most dangerous Improvised Explosive Device, say they come from Iran.
It's hard to know whether this information is coming down as doctrine, or whether there is classified information that some are privy to. Probably both.
Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Holtke, of Columbus, IN, who most recently spent three years at the Bratislava, Slovakia embassy, said he believes that Iran is a key player behind a lot of the recent violence for four main reasons:
1. The amout of information U.S. commanders have on Iran.
2. The media regularly cites Iranian influence, "Usually you only get half the story in the media because half is classified," Holtke said, "but enough is bubbling to the surface."
3. The identification of explosives and weapons made in Iran. "It's kind of like reverse engineering," said Lt. Col. Holtke who is an engineer by profession. "Even though numbers and symbols have been scraped off (the explosive), you find it's manufactured in Iran."
4. The fact that Iranian officers were involved in the recent cease-fire settlement in Basra, as widely reported. Holtke said it's, "perhaps the biggest indicator that you're relying on outside influencers. I relate it similar to the Pakistani influence over Afganistan, or the Chinese and Russian influence over the Vietnamese (during the Vietnam era)."
"Especially for the Iranians, there's a lot of advantages in the U.S. getting bogged down in Iraq," Holtke said. "It makes the U.S. look bad in the Arab world. It allows (Iran) to gather infomation. Iran has always been a capable nation at gathering intelligence."
Link to an April, 8th Op-Ed by David Ignatius on the Iran issue.
A more dated article from USA Today, 2/5/2007, that mostly refutes the Iranian thesis, but lays out the accusations from U.S. command.
5 comments:
Mr. Foley, thanks for bringing some attention to this emerging new outgrowth from the mutation that is the US pre-emptive war on Iraq. What a true mess this is. So many deep issues to untangle & work through....Corporate buisness cocerns channeled through US politicians cannot afford to have us pull out of now before we can truly reap the economic benefits of the country, especially after such a great investment thus far...Iraq as we know it, as a Winston Churchill creation, may only have held together BECAUSE it was run by a dictator...the economic & strategic treasure box that the US hopes to control, is of course also sought after by their neighbors, such as Iran...All I can think is "in too deep"...Too many bad decisions, greed, lack of foreshight, compassion, and historical understanding in a dumbed down political populace have the US in a place where it only ends badly and it's about reducing the size of the ripples.
I agree completely with e. peterson, and what a way to delineate the finer points of the quagmire we own. Peterson's points make sense, and maybe we are in Iraq because we knew that sooner or later, the boogeyman was going to come a calling. Case in point: the media show that Ahmanijad put on the other day with their uranium enriching centers he has sprouting all over Iran. I think we should have gone into Iraq more with the idea of buffering Iran's growth spurts into Iraq. But alas! we were too concerned in making sure that soccer moms can drive their brats to practice in Humvees. The problems are clear, but what about the solutions? How do we put Iran in check while at the same time doing it within the boundaries of int'l law and diplomacy. Obviously, Iran needs the US to be villified because then they can't sell people on hating the US. At the same time, Ahmanijad while not popular with young people in Iran definitely has a good grip on the mullahs and older, provincial Iranians.
However, I disagree with your opinion that we cannot afford to pull out before we can truly reap the benefits of our occupation. I see it as losing a finger or a hand to losing the whole arm. The occupation of Iraq might be that spark that brings such domestic intranquility to the US that it is forced to reassess and restructure the country, i.e. civil unrest. Because I don't know much but I do know that the US can't deal with unrest at home and unrest in Iraq. We are so worried about Sunni/Shiite that we forget about the liminal differences in our country in terms of race, status, and class which I believe are much more dangerous to the future of our country.
Thanks for the great points, E. Peterson.
Spicaro
I used to think better get out than continue to lose more soldiers lives. Now I think if security progress can be made, then political progress can be made. But how much money will this cost? Are we "buying" the Sunnis and paying off the Shia? And how long can this last? Ok so if finacially, Iraq will always be a money pit, I think we have a responsibility to wait until the political situation improves enough so that upon our departure an all out genocide doesn't occur.
Of course the other side says, it's only a matter of time. If Iran and the Saudis are slowly carving up Iraq underneath our noses, what will it matter when we leave, since we'll most likely start the pull out with the next president, unless we get McCain.
In other words, the U.S. populace does not have the tolerance to wait until Iraq is stable, much less profitable. They see too much blood, and don't trust the administration. I do think the media has focused too much on the negative, perhaps a vendetta against the administration for many of its false pretences. But from what I see the military has vastly improved it's tactics and strategy.
Jimmy.....FJ would be proud. td
Post a Comment