Iran's latest attack in our 30 year war

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

We are closing in on 30 years since the Islamic Republic of Iran invaded the United States of America in the opening skirmish of a war that continues today. Matt notes Bill Roggio's excellent reporting and analysis on their recent act of war in Kerbala and I am hard-pressed to find anything to disagree with.

The Embassy invasion and seizing of hostages was a direct act by Iran against us, but mostly they have relied on their many proxies to act against us. This has been changing recently as evidenced by their actions against Israel as their proxy Hizbollah attacked Israel and Iran had some of their Spec Ops troops on the ground in Lebanon. It is highly likely that an Iranian team operated the missile that sunk the Israeli boat and they were operating in many locations with Nasrallah's killers. Much of the planning and most of the equipment Hizbollah employed was Iranian supplied and it showed in the placement of all the military weaponry installed in civilian buildings ensuring that outrage would ensue once Israel joined battle. Predictably the world community was outraged just not at the Iranians or Hizbollah and the UN clamped down on this blatant act of aggression, well no. Actually when UN troops got around to doing anything it was for the French to threaten to shoot at Israeli planes that were overflying as the Iranians resupplied Hizbollah with plenty more rockets to launch at civilians.

The one positive was the reaction of many Gulf States to the Iranian/Syrian proxy war. They seemed to see this as a Shiite push to dominate the region and consequently were somewhat OK with Israel laying some pain on them. Sadly Israel responded with what may be their weakest military effort ever. They did destroy a bunch of rockets and other gear, and they killed a bunch of bad guys. But they captured or killed no leaders of Hizbollah and did not manage to gain any type of military or political victory.

The recent operation in Kerbala had all the trappings of a Spec Ops raid. There were special vehicles doctored to resemble those used by US troops, uniforms, identification, and radios. They acted swiftly and decisively in a well-rehearsed operation and escaped with 4 US prisoners and no casualties themselves. They later executed the prisoners and likely exfilled back to Iran to tell the tale to Ahmadinejad.

There have been no operations anywhere in the same ballpark with this one in our entire time in Iraq. The Sunni insurgents are mostly Baathist party members and most of those with real military skills have already tried them and failed against our forces. Their tactics have not increased in complexity or difficulty, they have increased in ruthlessness since they could do no real damage. The only real upgrade to their tactics is due to better bomb-making gear supplied by the Iranians to both Sunni and Shia.

The Shiite death squads have minimal military ability and are basically pickup loads full of clowns waving AKs. Al Qaeda in Iraq has always been just a facilitator for suicide bombers and has never shown the stones to fight openly.

None of these collections of bloodthirsty savages have shown the ability to do much more than push a detonator button, and it is almost certain none of them did this. The location of the target, the sophistication of the operation, the lack of beheading, all point to a precision raid by highly-trained regular military forces. Iran did this.

We can discuss why tomorrow.

Comments

[IgnoranceIsntBliss]

"We are closing in on 30 years since the Islamic Republic of Iran invaded the United States of America in the opening skirmish of a war that continues today. "

Are you f'n kidding me? When did Iran INVADE U.S.? It's more like they retook their government from US in 1979 after we overthrew their democratically elected leadership in 1953 so we could control the oil. This is admitted. And people wondered why they took hostages (from an embassy - CIA op's center) or why we even cared what was going on in Iran??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Our latest fascination with Iran is just the latest imperial drive to retake our colony. Look at the map of that region today, and basic American Military history.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=american+military+intervention+history

[Uncle Jimbo]

An Embassy is sovereign territory douchebag, and I don't really need moonbat history 101 lessons from a half-wit like you.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[crotchety]

I concur, there is no way this was untrained amatuers. I know a little something about raids in general and "snatches" in particular. This was the work of Iran and, in my opinion, an open act of war against the United States.

[red river]

The ambush of a BW PSD team in April, 2004 was a high-quality op as well.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-14775.html

[Uncle Jimbo]

That is a good point RR.

But I think location points to Sunnis and from what I know it was a fairly standard vehicle ambush. It was likely Iraqi Army Baathists, better than the bulk of what we have seen for sure, but it doesn't have the same flavor.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[OldSoldier54]

Uncle Jimbo:
Concur. Everything that I recall from the few months in Training Group and listening to the SOG vets coupled with the reading on Spec Ops before and since, supports this.
"...well rehearsed prior to execution," said Army Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, spokesman for Multinational Division Baghdad. ..."

Sounds alot like the prep for the Son Tay Raid or perhaps more nearly accurate, the prep for the raid on Tehran, so it's got to be Qods Force.

Anybody know if LTG Petraeus is in theater yet?

Mr. Roggio speculates that the captured Americans were possible bargaining chips for the Iranians we captured. But why did they execute them ... unless the Iranian SF were about to be compromised/intercepted/captured.

[OldSoldier54]

Ignorance:
Irregardless of who did what to whom, as a "first cause", as UJ pointed out, Embassies are owned real estate, US territory, land, whatever tag you care to put on it and as such, it is an act of WAR, ie invasion of US territory as stated by UJ.

[Charles]

Personally I don't think Iran would take such an overt risk as attacking our troops directly. They have had plenty of time to train up Iraqi shia radicals. In any case, the operation only worked because the bad guys had people 'inside.'

Do WE have anyone, um, watching the Iran/Iraq border? Couldn't we just nab a few of the mules, let them have a chat with some of our peshmerga friends, and start building an understanding of the players/relationships? Once we have enough intel, we don't make our case to the UN, we simply annihilate all members of the network on both sides of the border. We could then halo drop Kerry (dressed as Uncle Sam) into downtown Tehran to apologize to the mullahs.

[Geo]

OldSoldier: It is so hard to convince people of that fact. People, such as the aptly named Ignorance, fail to understand the sovergin nature of the embassy.

[Bob]

How much longer will we be waiting until things start spontaneously blowing up on the eastern side of the Iraq-Iran border? At what point will Adm. Fallon's boys notice that oil facilities on the eastern side of the gulf begin to have spontaneous industrial accidents? I really wish I saw an alternative course with Iran now instead of confrontation. I wonder if a few spontaneous problems on their soil might help them to recalculate the cost of continuing to poke us in the eye. I wonder if holding back leads them to seriously miscalculate the consequences of their behavior. I cannot help but think that if we respond appropriately now, we may be saving ourselves an awful lot of trouble later. I just hate dirtbags: Mookie, HockmyDingdongjad, and that whole crowd in southern Lebanon....

[bthun]

"Personally I don't think Iran would take such an overt risk as attacking our troops directly. They have had plenty of time to train up Iraqi shia radicals."

Ok, so agents of Iran. Hair, prepare to be split.

Uncle Jimbo,

As an aside, do you think we might be able to arrange a prisoner swap with Iran?

Say we give em Hanoi Jane(I thought that she recently apologized for being a thoughtless, traitorous, pose for pictures with our enemies wench?), John Kerry(Yes Matt, I hate to admit that I can not contain my dark side, but I too share your hatred), Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and all the deep thinkers from our land of make believe, Hollywood, et al… and oh yeah throw in IIB the context-free history professor and we get some of their detained college students who are arrested for what the above mentioned do, i.e. shoot off their yaps.

Well it’s just a thought.

[Uncle Jimbo]

Done.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Esoterik]

"I thought that she recently apologized for being a thoughtless, traitorous, pose for pictures with our enemies wench?"

She indeed did. And the excuse she offered up? She was young then.

So what is her excuse going to be the next time around?
I was senile?

[OldSoldier54]

Geo:
Yes, it does seem amazing how some folks just are not cognizant, or just plain ignore as germane, any data that would reflect positively on any word or deed of the US or POTUS.

Back on thread:
I don't see how we have any other recourse from taking the fight to Iran and, it seems, to a lesser extent, Syria. It would be sweet if we could somehow "convince" Syria to give up the WMDs that IMO are hidden there. What a vindication of the US/POTUS.
Iran and Syria remind me too much of Cambodia and Laos as sanctuaries for the VC/NVA during the Vietnam war. Hopefully, POTUS will see the folly of that and have the spine to tell State to take a hike when they start weepin' and wailin' about sovereign borders.

In aid of that, IMHO, POTUS needs to come to the American people, directly, with hard data on Iran's involvement and hopefully, enough folks will email/write their Reps/Senators to shut their pie holes and get on board!!

[OldSoldier54]

"Personally I don't think Iran would take such an overt risk as attacking our troops directly."
Possible. But consider also, the possibility that Iran might be getting pretty cocky right now. They've been having it all their way for about thirty years and the US has done jack about it. They probably see us as a paper tiger, in fact, or just so bound up in political handcuffs from Washington that they felt the op was worth it to tweak our nose for capturing their guys.

[El Coqui]

Gentlemen:

I concur, this was a well executed operation.

The why is open to discussion. However, we can rest asure that the new order for open season on Iranian operators in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanen is going to be executed with commendable vigor and likely out of the gaze of our friends in the MSM.

That this could lead to open warfare is potentially certain.

Jose

[Learn Something]

To anyone who knows the details of Iraq, unlike the person who wrote the post, it is pretty clear it was Sunnis, but it is a good reason for the ignorant masses to bray for war against Iran:

AP is reporting new details on the killing of 5 US troops in an operation that began at Karbala a few days ago. The troops were helping plan security precautions to stop Shiite pilgrims being blown up during the Muharram commemorations of the martyrdom of the Prophet's grandson, al-Husayn. Guerrillas dressed in US uniforms and speaking English showed up, infiltrated the building, killed a GI, and captured 4 others, taking them to Mahawil in Babil province, and then executing them there.

Mahawil, a mixed Sunni-Shiite city, is a Sunni Arab guerrilla arena of action, and it now seems likely to me that this was a Sunni Arab operation aimed at harming security arrangements. Shiite Mahdi Army ghetto militiamen don't know English. If I were in charge of Karbala, I'd put extra extra security around the city for Tuesday's Ashura commemoration of Imam Husayn's martyrdom. The only thing I can't figure out is that it clearly was an inside job, and so how would there have been Sunni Arab guerrilla sympathizers at this police and army meeting at Shiite Karbala. Maybe mixed units were involved?

http://www.juancole.com/

[Ymarsakar]

Mr. Roggio speculates that the captured Americans were possible bargaining chips for the Iranians we captured. But why did they execute them ... unless the Iranian SF were about to be compromised/intercepted/captured.

Posted by: OldSoldier54 | Jan 27, 2007 5:35:36 PM

Given the fact that Americans know what happens to captured Americans. They probably tried to escape or fight their captors. Depending upon if they were in different vehicles, it might explain the fact that they seemed to kill them on different time intervals. If they were coming up to a checkpoint and there sounded like a fight in the back, they may have decided to save their own skins rather than keep the mission objectives.

"Personally I don't think Iran would take such an overt risk as attacking our troops directly."

Iran was probably basing the "snatch" upon the two Israeli soldiers captured. They saw how pocked up that got Israel, so they thought it would be a good idea to do the same to America in return for the raid on their consulate. These shadowy operations have very high plausible deniability. And if you can't convince people that Iran did it (hell, you can't even convince the State Department that Iran is bad and needs to be killed), then the risk isn't that risky for them.

Giving into terroist demands just ensures that more demands will be coming, and more terroists as well. (I'm refering to Israel's prisoner swaps)

It is very hard to capture American soldiers alive, simply because they know what will happen to them, and their families when the families see them on video.

Unless they were knocked flat out unconscious, to me there was a high probability that they would fight. More data concerning specific injuries, number of vehicles, and the location of the captured soldiers, would give a clearer picture of events.

It all depends upon whether anything went bad with their plans. I am also curious to know how they got the four Americans in the first place.

[Patrick (gryph)]

It is highly likely that an Iranian team operated the missile that sunk the Israeli boat and they were operating in many locations with Nasrallah's killers.

Just a point of fact, if you are referring to the attack on July 14th, 1996, the boat was not actually sunk, it was severly damaged and towed back to port.

4 Israeli sailors were killed in the attack.

[bluliner10]

Ahh, I met as many Shi'a in Baghdad who spoke decent or even fluent English as I did Sunni in al Anbar. Your point is? Any direction to Juan Cole as a middle eastern expert is a slide towards a lack of comprehension of what is really going on. Juan Cole is an apologist for those who do what they do under direct order of the qu'ran. Ashu'ra is the second most important period in Shi'a history falling just below the the 9th month or that what is called ramadan. ashu'ra is the celebration of the killing of al-husayn which culminates in the 40th day or arba'een, and is commemorated by the Shi'a conducting an 81 km walk, from Najaf to Karbala while beating themselves with chains and swords. But it all gets back to your point that Juan Cole the esteemed scholar who tries to re-interpret the words of the Iranian president and resident madman. I will say only that the Sunni do not have a monopoly on killing brother muslims. The Shi'a have pulled this off as well, and killing their own is not unusual either. I would suggest that a state sponsored organization assisted in this raid, and would not be afraid to point the finger to the mullah's east of Baghdad.

Semper Fi

[Michael in MI]

Could the reason that the American soldiers were killed be that they tried to fight for their lives? I believe that, after the Israeli soldiers were kidnapped last summer, that there was unofficial (or maybe official?) policy handed down telling soldiers to not allow themselves to be kidnapped alive. That they should not surrender, but fight at all costs. In other words, better to be dead than kidnapped and tortured. Maybe I am mistaken and this was talked about after those soldiers who gave up at the checkpoint were then tortured and their bodies burned and then left in a highly boobytrapped area. Ashamedly, I cannot remember their names at the moment, but I do remember people discussing after that atrocity that the new rules should be for soldiers to NEVER surrender and allow oneself to be kidnapped, but to fight to the death or suffer torture at the hands of the jihadists.

Maybe that is what happened here and the Iranians had no choice but to kill them.

Just ignorant speculation on my part, but I thought I would throw it out there.

[Michael in MI]

Ymarsakar - Sorry I didn't read through all the comments before posting and just realized that you brought up the fact that they might have fought back. I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking along these lines.

[OldSoldier54]

Patrick (gryph):
I believe that is in reference to the last mix up in Southern Lebanon. I seem to recall a ship being sunk by a surface to surface missile.

Y:
Good point. I would do every thing in my power to avoid capture ... or so I would hope. It's easy to sit here at my keyboard and type that, but, I would hope.

Learn Something:
I suggest trying to learn something for real. First, round file Juan Cole, the AP, NYT, WaPo, et al. They are not even slightly interested in reporting the raw data, so you are just peeing into the wind by trying to cite them here.

[Ymarsakar]

What is this? This is like saying "Mustafa here is a Socialist, that means if we see something come from him, it isn't the Communists". Come on.

Mahawil, a mixed Sunni-Shiite city, is a Sunni Arab guerrilla arena of action, and it now seems likely to me that this was a Sunni Arab operation aimed at harming security arrangements.

This is the kind of logic that leads people to the wrong conclusions. You don't want to use this in life or death situations.

To anyone who knows the details of Iraq, unlike the person who wrote the post, it is pretty clear it was Sunnis, but it is a good reason for the ignorant masses to bray for war against Iran:

I don't have to tell the regulars here that I'm going with Jimbo's analysis in a life and death situation. You want a quick and maybe painless death? Go with Learn. Maybe you'll learn something if you survive the encounter.

These are the dense folks who still think that Sunnis won't work with Shias and vice a versa. When you're trying to figure out the actions of an enemy, you can't afford to have these "ideological" identity hangups like Learn'rd.

[Ymarsakar]

Y:
Good point. I would do every thing in my power to avoid capture ... or so I would hope. It's easy to sit here at my keyboard and type that, but, I would hope.

The initial fight might have been so shocking that it prevented organized resistance. If they rolled a few grenades into a room with 5 soldiers, the soldiers might have found themselves on the floor with weapons trained on them, and being handcuffed before they knew it. Afterwards when the shock wore down, then they could organize their thoughts more and realize what was happening, and the consequences of it.

I still am not sure if it was an actual snatch. Granted, it would be a pretty good waste of manpower to do this just to kill Americans by driving off with them, but they might have had other objectives. Obviously they got away one way or another.

More details required. But extrapolating some speculation on what was provided.

Two were found handcuffed together in the back of one of the vehicles. The other two were found nearby on the ground.

I could maybe envision a scenario in which the last two were being moved, which triggered an incident. It seems peculiar that two were in the back of a vehicle but the other two were on the ground.

[wingnutx]

I believe that, after the Israeli soldiers were kidnapped last summer, that there was unofficial (or maybe official?) policy handed down telling soldiers to not allow themselves to be kidnapped alive. That they should not surrender, but fight at all costs.

We don't need a policy handed down to know that we're better off going down in a fight than being tortured to death at our captors' leisure.

[Ymarsakar]

None of these collections of bloodthirsty savages have shown the ability to do much more than push a detonator button, and it is almost certain none of them did this.

I seem to remember that a lot of Foreign Fighters didn't even get to push a detonator button. Their buddies happily did that chore for them.

That stuff is comic. Not the style of Iranians. They seem to like taking hostages through strategically calculated operations with international repercussions. Their style is obviously a far more refined version of psychological warfare than the one practiced by Zarqawi.

[Charles]

"it is pretty clear it was Sunnis,"

I was also reading that Iraqi security forces captured 2 sunnis who were involved. I think its bullshit. It was a coordinated inside job. There was little or no resistance, and the attackers crossed multiple checkpoints. It doesn't mean that everyone at the checkpoints was involved - it just means that someone on the inside helped get them through. They knew exactly where to go.

No doubt if they had been sunni terrorists, they would have dropped a few shia before retiring.

[USMCINIRAQ]

From everything I've seen the analysis you cite is pretty dead-on. Iran has been medling over here for years and although it's a bit late at least someone is acknowledging it.Now will we respond appropriately or continue the hand wringing and severe scoldings?
The Iraqis do not like the Iranians. the Iranians however, particularly using captured personnel from the iran iraq war have carved a niche out of a few key locations in southern Iraq. Some key shia militia enjoy Iranian support, but your average Iraqi shia will support Iraq before Iran and will in fact fight Iran -there isn't some sort of shia loyalty to shia here. The Iranians are the clearest and most pesent danger. Sadr is working for them as is Hakim. Sadr is killing Americans using Iranian supplied weapons systems. We have known this for a long time. Why it took so long for the political generals and GWB to acknowledge this fact is up to the historians to figure out. But now that we have (another) smoking gun...what will GWB do about it?

[Miss Ladybug]

And people seem to forget that the Iranians aren't Arabs, but the Iraqis are. The Iranians are Persian, for the most part. And if I recall what I've heard correctly, Arabs and Persians REALLY don't like each other...

[OldSoldier54]

USMCINIRAQ:
Thank you for your service.
I think POTUS has the grit to make politically difficult decisions. But he is at the top of a very large pyramid of people. And many of them have agendas. I suspect that corrupted data has been getting to him; ie, slanted by whomever. I'm guessing, but that's my read on him.
However, equally important, IMO, PM al Maliki has GOT to be on board for Petraeus to have a real chance of getting the job done right.

[Michael in MI]

"We don't need a policy handed down to know that we're better off going down in a fight than being tortured to death at our captors' leisure."

wingnutx - I would hope not, but I do remember the story of two US soldiers who were taken from their vehicle at a checkpoint and were kidnapped. They were found later to have been tortured and then left in a highly boobytrapped area from which it took US soldiers hours to recover them. Maybe someone else can remember the soldiers' names involved in this? I know it was covered extensively on MilBlog sites. For the life of me though, I cannot remember the names. Dammit! I know Michelle Malkin had the story too. If I could remember the damn names, I could find the damn story.

[Miss Ladybug]

Tucker and Menchaca. One was from Texas.

[Michael in MI]

Finally found the damn thing: PFC Thomas Tucker and PFC Kristian Menchaca

[douglas]

As far as sectarian (Shia-Sunni) and ethnic (Arab-Persian) loyalties go in that region- it's all fungible. Remember- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's also certainly not beyond belief that the Iranians would want to cripple security efforts at the Ashu'ra pilgrimage so attacks DO occur, inciting even more Shia-Sunni violence, and helping Iran get more Shia to turn to them for support and supply. Remember- the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

We also might be doing a great deal to hurt Iran. Has anyone noticed how oil prices are dropping, and the Saudis are cancelling OPEC meetings and saying things like "prices are headed in the right direction"? Think this helps Iran, 2nd biggest member of OPEC, 99% oil based economy, importer of more Gasoline than anyone but the United States...
Getting the picture yet. Remember, President Bush, and especially Dick Cheney know the oil business... perhaps they're putting it to good use. If so, the question is, will it start to foment insurrection in Iran before the weak-kneed politicians, and the traitorous anti-war machine create too much damage on the home front?

[Ymarsakar]

And many of them have agendas. I suspect that corrupted data has been getting to him; ie, slanted by whomever.

I concur, OldS. Most likely candidate is State, trying to downplay Iranian interference for the "bipartisan half Baked commission".

But they aren't the ones that decide what intel the Pres gets, that would be the CIA. The always leaking, slamdunk, CIA that is.

Bush's initial posture towards Iran was rather conciliatory and diplomatic. That smells of the entire 2002 UN debacle, another thing he went on on the urgings of State and Blair in that case.

The speed at which Iranian locations were targeted after military intel grabbed definitive proof that couldn't be hidden, was a little bit too coincidental unless the President was being kept in the dark over the extent of Iranian interference, which even common citizens knew about seemingly in greater detail than the President.

[Ymarsakar]

Mike, I actually saw the grainy video shot by the ones who killed them, on JihadWatch I believe. Not something for the weak of stomach to view.

If CNN had broadcasted that, it would have become much harder for the Left to undermine certain efforts underway concerning the enemy. Either GitMo or otherwise.

But they understand as I understand, that you don't want to engender anger amongst Americas if your goal is anti-American, the objective of the Left is to engender apathy amongst common Americans by wearing you down with protests and propaganda operations.

True anger will revitalize the war effort, so they try to show video showing the futility of it all, the sheer magnitude of the work ahead, in order to demoralize but also to prevent your morale from hitting rock bottom.

They want America to hate herself, instead of hating her enemies. I do not believe they have had much success with me personally. Though they have had large amounts of success elsewhere.

[saddad]

ignoranceisntbliss = Abu Sinan\Abu Sayyaf?

[tom]

Is this part of the dis-information campaign like the WMD? You can't even get it right in one country and now let's get all fired up to attack another. Too funny.

Iran isn't that far from an internal regime change.. Bombing them will only end that, and any hope for something remotely called democracy in the ME.

good luck

p.s. Oldsoldier, that corrupted data you're talking about, you must mean yellow cake, missile tubes, and WMD? there sure was alot of that bad data being sold in DC for some time.

[Lt. J. Fishman]

The Israeli ship that was hit was the INS Hanit. It was NOT sunk as Jim stated, just lost four men and was damaged in the aft section..

[Subsunk]

The Israeli ship, INS Hanit, was hit, but was not lost as LT Fishman pointed out.. But a merchant ship was hit by the Hezbollala missiles and was sunk. The merchant's name was not reported in the news articles I found.

Therein lies the confusion, folks.

Subsunk

[Caleb]

Y - You are undoubtedly correct regarding your analysis of the Left's goals and tactics in their anti-American psywar(MSM news reports, etc.). My problem, however, is with the almost complete lack of a counter effort by GWB. He must have flunked Communication 101 and Persuasion 101. Pres. Reagan would have found an effective way to go over the heads of the media to the American people in a NY minute.

GWB has made two HUGE mistakes. One was on 9/12/2001 in NY when he told the public to go on about their routine business and that he would handle everything. So the public did just that.

Large numbers of the public simply did not invest in the war, and further large numbers quickly tired of the war, all because they did not connect the dots and understand what was at stake. Further, Dubya did not help them to understand by his constant refusal to realistically identify the enemy and the magnitude of the problem. Remember the "Islam is a religion of peace" mantra?

The American people were never asked to sacrifice a single thing to prevail in this effort. On top of that the MSM reports no good news from the war, we see almost no stories of the many acts of heroism of our troops, there is no sense given of how many of the enemy we have wasted or where (by country) they came from.

On top of all that, Bush acts extremely pissed whenever he is questioned about the war and it's progress. It is as if he is saying, "I told you I would handle it. Now go sit down and shut up."

Then you have that whole stupid photo op/speech on the aircraft carrier about "Mission Accomplished". Hey the war is over, right? Except for those of us that haunt the milblogs, the public has not been brought along and kept up to date with the true facts of the war effort.

GWB's PC war fighting edicts are the other mistake, but I won't get into that here.

Now Iran has learned their lesson. We will speak loudly and present them with a wet noodle. We need to shut the Hell up and show some resolve.

But first the American public MUST wake up to what is truly going on in the world between Islamic and Western civilization. One side or the other is going to win this war. It isn't going to be a negotiated settlement that allows both sides to win something. Oh, there may be a truce or two for rest and rearming, but one or the other side is going to win.

I am very much afraid that Europe has stayed asleep too long and they are in dire straits to save themselves. I am NOT sanguine that the American public will wake up in time, and I damn sure don't think that GWB will sound the alarm and call for the sacrifices necessary. He is so reviled by such a portion of the public, that he might not be believed anyway. Plus, it is simply against his nature, it seems, to tell it with the "bark on."

This very real cultural war calls for another Reagan or FDR that knew how to get the public psychologically invested in our victory. It may take a small nuke going off somewhere in an American city for the general public to wake up. In the meantime, guys like Matt, and Jimbo, and Mike Yon, and Bill Roggio, and the other milbloggers, and readers, and commenters, need to keep sounding the clarion call and hope that Americans in general will wake up. At my age, I don't expect to see the end of this mess, but I wish you younger folks and my country good luck and good hunting.

In the meantime, debate over the raid details aside, Iran needs to pay a significant price for this act of war. It can be done quietly, if that is best, but it MUST be done.

God Bless America

[Subsunk]

Comment below written by: tom Is this part of the dis-information campaign like the WMD? You can't even get it right in one country and now let's get all fired up to attack another. Too funny.

Iran isn't that far from an internal regime change.. Bombing them will only end that, and any hope for something remotely called democracy in the ME.

good luck

p.s. Oldsoldier, that corrupted data you're talking about, you must mean yellow cake, missile tubes, and WMD? there sure was alot of that bad data being sold in DC for some time.

Posted by: tom | Jan 28, 2007 9:10:51 AM

Is your supposition that internal regime change is just around the corner part of your disinfomration campaign, tom? Where is your evidence? Is it any better than the same newspaper reports which we use to identify the words of Imanutjob saying Israel must be wiped of the face of the map, and the US must cease to exist, and that uranium enrichment in Iran only has "peaceful" purposes and is their right under a treaty they signed, which denies them that right? Or is your disinformation campaign just as evil and underhanded as the one you cite as Lies recklessly leading us to war in Iraq?

After all, the WMD stories in Iraq are just as credible and supported by quite a bit of evidence in the Duelfer report today as they were in 2002. Your contention that Iran is getting ready to explode in a rainbow of good feelings and liberal niceties is belied by state reports that crowds continue to gather, chant "Death to America, Death to Israel", roll vehicles over a 9 yr old boy's arm as punishment (state sanctioned) for thievery, and stone to death 15 and 16 yr old girls for being raped, and they bear every bit as much weight as your claims that the mullahs or internal dissent from students is about to change the regime and overthrow Imanutjob's rhetoric and nuclear weapons program. After all, in totalitarian regimes, revolutions and coups are frequently unsuccessful in getting rid of bad dictatorships, and Iran's tyrannous regime looks to be going nowhere without some outside help, which you so helpfully noted, is the reason they are pissed off at us in the first place. Would you now agree that covert action to overthrow an evil regime should be supported?

As for bad data, Iraq's possession of yellowcake, WMD programs, and prohibited equipment, followed by their resistance to inspections, lying in their declarations of weapons and determination to acquire WMD as soon as possible once their sanctions were removed only makes clear that Iraq was a threat supplying terrorists of all sorts with weapons and training. Why is Iran's claim any different?

Your belief in the essential beneficence and goodwill of Saddam Hussein towards anything American is pretty much a pipe dream. Your expectation that anyone who hates us will leave us alone and do us no harm if we do them no harm is repudiated by the US Embassy seizure in 1979, Beirut barracks bombing in 1982, Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah's continuous record of the highest and post frequent American casualties from terrorism until 2001 when al Qaeda overtook them in one attack. Follow the money indeed. A large portion of the training and funding of terror attacks on US targets comes from Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards force.

And just because you don't think it is true doesn't mean you are correct, well informed or otherwise credible. Using law enforcement rules of evidence, the FBI and CIA still believe that Iran has biological weapons, chemical weapons, and is vigorously pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Any contention otherwise after Russia offered to give them the enriched uranium for their reactors at a price less than their nuclear program would be able to make it, just shows those who believe the Iranians have no ill intent wouldn't recognize a threat if it hit them in the ass with a bass fiddle.

And right now, your ass is showing a pretty big target, tom.

Don't let the bass fiddle knock your brains on the floor.

Subsunk

[jordan]

The morning news shows are filled with lists of casualties, body counts and injuries, with no context or information about the war at all. They are salivating at the prospect of military defeat, a la Vietnam, while our troops go about the business of winning in the field.

I don't know if the US public will wake up in time. It's already to late. Europe is a goner, kiss her good bye. We will eventually sell out Israel, with this ascendance of anti-neocon Dems.

We can't get together and fight ANY war, let alone this one. It's pathetic. The real men are in the war zones, and we are left with very few, including the mentally infirm, the wobbly, and the traitorous. The aging hippie leftists and their spineless rubber stampers on the Hill can smell blood in the water, and think they are winning.

Prove them wrong. Crush the insurgency. Ignore the handwringers. Dismiss the media agitprop. Kill them, bury them, dig them back up and kill them again. Let there be no doubt who won.

And a thank you to the unstoppable Joshua Sparling, showing the world the difference between a sheepdog and a sheep. One of America's truest sons...hats off to you.

[USMCINIRAQ]

Caleb -when you're right you're right. Spot on. We have been forced to fight a limited war and there is no way we can win such a paradox. I hope GWB shows the resolve you advocate. Iran was definitely behind this attack and actively supports the virulently anti-American "mehdi army" (whose ass we KICKED several years ago and could easily do so again -if we were allowed). Incidently a USMC sniper team had Sadr in their sights back then but were prohibited from pulling the trigger...political Generals and politicians saved his ass.

[Michele San Pietro]

An embassy is integral part of the territory of a State, so what Iranian extremists committed in 1979 was definitely an invasion of the U.S., and it is high time they pay for it. As dearly as possible.

[OldSoldier54]

I have a suggestion, folks. Why cannot we, ie all the Milbloggers, commentators, our families and friends, plan and execute a mass demonstration on the Mall (geez, nightmare flashback of Fonda ...), in support of POTUS, our magnificent troops and their families? We can do this! Why is it almost always the Left that exercises their Right of Public Assembly? Money's pretty tight right now, but I would put it on plastic to do this and would spring for someone who didn't have the bank to go. If we could have representation of every state, all walks of life, with public declarations of Kerry's Treason by private citizens, would not this help President Bush deal with Pelosi, Kennedy, et al?
And this would need to happen ASAP!!!!

[Uncle Jimbo]

Thanks for stickin' up for me Sub,

But I actually did think the patrol boat was sunk, so I appreciate the fact-checking folks. Research staff here at UJ HQ is overtasked as is.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Uncle Jefe]

Off topic, but FoxNews is reporting an ongoing battle around Najaf, with US tanks and air support, with supposedly over 250 enemy dead...

[Peg C.]

Y, the media and government are working hard to keep us passive and forgetful. That's why I keep a 9/11 screensaver going that reminds me what this war is about.

Maybe America will wake up after the next attack.

USMCINIRAQ, thank you for your service!

[tom]

>>An Embassy is sovereign territory douchebag<<

Sort of like a country, as in Iraq. Btw, did you ever see the video of W trying to define what sovereign means? didn't have a clue....

Subsunk.. Iran has a woeful economy. Heavy subsidies, an extremely young population sick and tired of mullahs, tired of state control regarding freedoms, lack of gasoline, declining oil revenues, not to mention declining oil industry and output. It's only a matter of time till the revolution starts within. It sure as hell isn't going to start with the use of smartweapons. I am all for the covert action and support of internal groups. it has been going on and continues to this day. The power in Iran lies with it's youth. Damn near 2/3rds of the population. People don't like being attacked by foreigners. We should know that first hand.

I never denied Iran has WMD or intentions of WMD. but their possession or desire for doesn't come close to justifying an attack. all the ramblings about Israel being wiped off a map is just that, ramblings.

[Ymarsakar]

My problem, however, is with the almost complete lack of a counter effort by GWB.

I have noticed that as well, Caleb, and gone to some lengths to analyze the whys of the matter.

Pres. Reagan would have found an effective way to go over the heads of the media to the American people in a NY minute.

What I notice is that Reagan was an actor just like Arnold. So they know how to communicate across the camera. Bush surely knows retail politics, after all you cannot be incompetent at shaking hands and meeting new people and still get to the Presidency. Kerry's narcissism is a rather good example of that kind of failure.

Bush seems to be home down, meaning, he doesn't like the spotlight or the attention, he doesn't go to extra lengths to perfect his appearance. Perhaps he doesn't like glitz and glamour, owing to his history and family tradition. Or maybe he simply never learned and therefore doesn't know anyone with such talents he could use (like Dick Morris).

There's a post at Neo-Neocon refering to Churchill's actions concerning perfecting his speeches. You might want to take a look here.

But it was Churchill who was the very best of all. His voice may not have been the deepest, but it resonated with power and hard-won wisdom mixed with more than a touch of the weariness of one who has seen horror and yet refuses to give in. Despite his slightly lispy "s's," his moral clarity came through in the clipped tones of his clearly enunciated words, simple enough for a child to understand and yet complex in their resonance and implications.

Churchill was a writer, after all, before he was a politician, and a very successful one at that. He had the writer's appreciation for the turn of phrase, but the actor's knowledge of how to deliver it. If you've ever read William Manchester's riveting two-volume biography of Churchill, The Last Lion, you probably know that Churchill planned and rehearsed the pauses in his speeches--even, if I recall correctly from the book, adding notes to himself such as "slight stammer and hesitation" for dramatic effect.

Churchill knew exactly what he was doing when he gave speeches; he was the perfect combination of intellect, will, vision, writer, and orator. His rule "Short words are best and the old words when short are best of all" was one he followed; he preferred the basic Anglo-Saxon phrases (and I don't mean curses) to the Latinate whenever possible. As he said:

Link

This very real cultural war calls for another Reagan or FDR that knew how to get the public psychologically invested in our victory.

Unlike FDR, Bush is a nice guy. FDR wasn't a nice guy, neither personally nor politically. So what does this mean, I think it means that Bush is soft on his enemies, both foreign and domestic. Not soft in the John Kerry or H Clinton manner. Soft as in "kind hearted", "compassionate", and "amicable".

Instead, we want hardcore, ruthlessness, a guy who can punish his enemies poetically and reward his allies magnificently.

The Valerie Plame incident is a good example of not punishing your enemies, therefore inviting your enemies to attack, degrade, and hamstring your efforts simply because they do not fear you. It sort of follows that rule. Either you use your power, or you'll lose it. Use it or lose it. Fire on the enemy, or have them destroy your weapon hardpoints. Go on offense, so you don't have to defend.

Did a review of the phrase here.

In connection with Plame

Your belief in the essential beneficence and goodwill of Saddam Hussein towards anything American is pretty much a pipe dream.

Is that any diff from a bong dream, Sub? Just wondering...

Research staff here at UJ HQ is overtasked as is.

At least you got rid of the subversives, something has to be said for that at least, Jim.

Comment below written by: Peg C.

Y, the media and government are working hard to keep us passive and forgetful. That's why I keep a 9/11 screensaver going that reminds me what this war is about.

I have a quote in mind that I wanted to post when I saw your comment.

Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.- Confucius

Good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern. The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery. The most important element of government, therefore, is the method of choosing leaders.

What you of the CHOAM directorate seem unable to understand is that you seldom find real loyalties in commerce. When did you last hear of a clerk giving his life for the company? Perhaps your deficiency rests in the false assumption that you can order men to think and cooperate. This has been a failure of everything from religions to general staffs throughout history. General staffs have a long record of destroying their own nations. As to religions, I recommend a rereading of Thomas Aquinas. As to you of CHOAM, what nonsense you believe! Men must want to do things out of their own innermost drives. People, not commercial organizations or chains of command, are what make great civilizations work. Every civilization depends upon the quality of the individuals it produces. If you over-organize humans, over-legalize them, suppress their urge to greatness -- they cannot work and their civilization collapses.
-A letter to CHOAM, Attributed to The Preacher

Okay, quotes.

[Joatmoaf]

I've said at the beginning of this current war that we should have contined on to Tehrahn instead of stopping at the border.
I knew that wasn't going to happen so my next armchair General suggestion was locking down the border and putting the boot to everyones neck until things could be sorted out.

Iran has had more to do with terrorist activity in Iraq than the Iraqis and as I've said before they will have to be dealt with eventually.
Diplomats and politicians should never be involved in a war until there is a winner, but they are involved and now we see the results.

Here's something else I say that's based on nothing more than observation: Iran is STILL at war with Iraq. They STILL want to expand their religion to the region and despite what they say in public, they have a score to settle with Iraq.

Iran is an iceberg in the sea of trouble in the middle east. What we see on the surface is a tiny part of the whole.

[arrowhead]

Caleb, you are absolutely correct! I keep waiting for the President to wake up and realize that it is HIS job to lead the country in this war. As Ymarsakar pointed out so well, FDR understood this - Churchill did as well. Good intentions and PC behavior are fine and dandy at a Church social, but they will get you dead in a war. I truly like GWB and believe that he is committed to defeating international terrorism, but in this one crucial area of rallying the American public behind the war effort, I am afraid that he is found sadly wanting.

OldSoldier54 -
Why cannot we, ie all the Milbloggers, commentators, our families and friends, plan and execute a mass demonstration on the Mall (geez, nightmare flashback of Fonda ...), in support of POTUS, our magnificent troops and their families? We can do this! Why is it almost always the Left that exercises their Right of Public Assembly?

You are right, of course, and I'd love to see this. If Hugh Hewitt can organize a petition with thousands of signatures, why can't the blogosphere organize a public demonstration to support the war effort and our soldiers? Something similar was done once before when people (especially families and mothers of soldiers) caravanned down to Texas to oppose Cindy Sheehan. If we don't respond, then we'd have to conclude that the left's hatred of this country is greater than our love for it and it will be deja vu all over again.

[Michael in MI]

arrowhead - I support you and OldSoldier in wanting to organize a rally in support of the military and the war effort, as I even echoed a call for that on a previous thread. The problem lies in the fact that the left is not really organizing these rallies on their own. They have a LOT of financial backing from organized groups. And I would also guess that most of the people who attend are people who are retired or do not have jobs or are young college kids deciding to take a cheap daytrip to Washington on mommy and daddy's college allowance dime.

If we working-class, family-oriented people want to organize a rally, it has to be something for which we can save for and put in our already tight budgets. I have no doubt we can pull it off and get people such as Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to promote it, and get groups such as Stuck Mojo (Open Season) and actors such as Gary Sinise to attend and speak. Not to mention MilBloggers from across the country and soldiers such as Joshua Sparling to tell their stories. The event would be massive and might even have to be a two-day event.

But the problem is simply cost. Very few of us have the money in our budgets to make a weekend trip to DC. I know I don't and I don't even have a family to worry about. I also would have to take off time from work. Yeah, work. Something most of these leftist protestors probably don't have to worry too much about. But I know that if I had a date to save for, I could save the necessary money and put the rest on credit.

It is not a matter of the left hating this country more than we love it. We who love this country are working behind the scenes to do what matters to support the troops. We write blogs to get out the good news, we write letters of support to them on a regular basis and we send care packages to them on a regular basis.

But I do agree that it seems it has come to a point where we need to do more. We need to show the soldiers serving, the people in our government, the people across America and the world that the majority of Americans support this war effort and our soldiers 100 percent.

I think it comes down to whether or not we can get it organized in time to make a difference.

[Learn Something]

It is like dealing with Dumb and Dumber here. Who do you think filled the majority of the Iraqi fighting troops during their war with Iran?

It was the Shi'a. Just because these types are Shi'a doesnt mean that they will work together.

Hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians in the war against Iraq, and most of them were killed by Shi'a Iraqi troops.

Like another poster mentioned, there is no love lost between the Arabs and the Iranians. But to people who think that everyone in the Middle East can be read exactly the same way, that wouldnt mean too much would it?

It was an inside attack, done by Sunnis with help from people inside the project.

With all of your conspiracy theories, you guys sound like the Muslim nutters or those who blame everything on the "Joooos".

Dont you guys have some far right wing militia to join and run around the woods looking for secret codes on street signs for the impending UN attack to impose the New World Order?

What.......is that a black helicopter I hear?

You guys are carbon copies of the Nazis, only it is the Muslims that are the enemy and out to rule the world, not the Jooos.

Thank God the collective IQ here is about 100, so nothing to worry about.

[Subsunk]

Comment below written by: tom >>An Embassy is sovereign territory douchebag<<

Sort of like a country, as in Iraq. Btw, did you ever see the video of W trying to define what sovereign means? didn't have a clue....

Subsunk.. Iran has a woeful economy. Heavy subsidies, an extremely young population sick and tired of mullahs, tired of state control regarding freedoms, lack of gasoline, declining oil revenues, not to mention declining oil industry and output. It's only a matter of time till the revolution starts within. It sure as hell isn't going to start with the use of smartweapons. I am all for the covert action and support of internal groups. it has been going on and continues to this day. The power in Iran lies with it's youth. Damn near 2/3rds of the population. People don't like being attacked by foreigners. We should know that first hand.

I never denied Iran has WMD or intentions of WMD. but their possession or desire for doesn't come close to justifying an attack. all the ramblings about Israel being wiped off a map is just that, ramblings.

Posted by: tom | Jan 28, 2007 2:05:38 PM

Well, tom. If the possession of WMD is satisfactory despite Iran being signatories to treaties which prohibit their use, possession and existence, just what is justification for prevention of their acquisition of nuclear weapons, then? Must we wait until NYC is eliminated by an Iranian nuclear weapon sold to al Qaeda, or should we wait until 10 or 12 Iranian missiles bearing nuclear warheads eliminate the Jewish people in Israel? Should we wait until Jaish al Islamiya in Indonesia sets off a nuclear device they bought from Iran in Australia or Pakistan, or even al Qaeda setting off one in Afghanistan which eliminates a US base there?

Just what level of terrorist intentions, capabilities, and methods are you willing to accept as a reasonable day to day risk of extermination? Because we've already seen what accepting thousands dead in Kenya and Tanzania, dozens in Aden, and Beirut, and Saudi Arabia, and thousands in the US leads to.

Enquiring minds would love to hear that.

As for the Iranian economy being on its last legs and the regime's demise being imminent, perhaps you haven't been following the Iranian history lesson, but we have heard that story since, guess when, 1982. Sanctions were in place in 1981, and the press has consistently and oh, so helpfully, reported since 1982 that these sanctions would eventually bring Iran to its knees and cause the populace to rise up and overthrow their leaders once an enlightened leadership could be found. I have heard the youth of Iran will overthrow their government since the early 1990s. They just never seem to get there because they get imprisoned or killed before they ever get organized.

What you fail to understand is that throughout history, totalitarian regimes are only rarely overthrown by their own people. Secret state police forces are quite effective at eliminating any opposition leadership, and keep the citizens of most totalitarian countries completely under control through intimidation, murder, informants, disintegration of families, indoctrination and brainwashing of the public and complete control of the press. Name one of those things which isn't present in Iran and I'll eat my hat.

Pardon me if I believe your supposition that Iran is about to undergo a transformation in the next 50 yrs as only a good bit less informed than finding the WMDs in Iraq intelligence was.

As for ramblings of the leadership of a country, I suppose Hitler and Mussolini's ramblings were not serious either. Their press consistently printed their speeches as did the newsreels of the day. No one who was about to be engulfed in WWII cared or took them seriously, as you don't take Iran seriously today. Lenin's, and later, Stalin's ideas and words were printed in the news organs of the Soviet Union, and their thoughts were largely apologized for and ignored by the Western press, leading to over 45 yrs of bloodshed, oppression, false imprisonment, genocide, and famine in that nation. Mao's writings are well known and quite effective at advancing Communist ideology and oppressing Communist China's people. We ignored the Death to America chants, and hateful speech out of Saudi Arabian mosques for dozens of years now. How did that make us safer?

Your optimism that bad people don't truly threaten us is misplaced. If that was true, why should we have ever cared about Osama bin Ladin, who never had more than a host of barefoot idiots who hated America as his primary assets? And we see how ignoring him for 7 years worked out, don't we?

So what is your excuse for ignoring the evidence of nuclear programs and intent to use them on Israel, America, and anyone else who stands in Iran's way? That China and the Russian nation will keep them in check? We see how well that worked in Lebanon, didn't we? How well Russian sponsorship was able to keep Slobodan Milosevic in check in Bosnia and Kosovo. Why does the fact that a tyrannous regime's state run newspapers bear less weight in their public utterances than the weight of DOD and CIA intelligence operations, and the translations of MEMRI and anti-Jihad pundits who continually warn us about the evil intentions of Iran, radical Islam, and bad actors the world over? What makes you so sure there is no evil intent or bad possibilities to be suffered? And why must we wait for millions to die, before we act??? Why, tom? Why?

Subsunk

[OldSoldier54]

Ok. How about July 4th? Or if that is too soon, how about September 11th?

I know it would be hard for some, maybe many, but we CAN do this if we want it hard enough. What do you say, BlackFive? Uncle Jimbo? Froggy? SubSunk? LW? Grim? heck, I would forgo myself to pay for someone else who really mattered!

[Ymarsakar]

I want to add to something Michael said. It is easier to destroy, as the Left destroys, than to protect and preserve, as American patriots preserve and protect. Even without the money issue, the Left still has an advantage if only because it is easier to destroy and harder to rebuild that which is destroyed.

With the money advantage... well.

Why, tom? Why?

Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk | Jan 28, 2007 5:08:08 PM

Why? Why, perhaps because tom will burn the world just to spite the rest of us. Pure nihilism is easier than protection and preservation.

[Ymarsakar]

Caleb, you are absolutely correct! I keep waiting for the President to wake up and realize that it is HIS job to lead the country in this war. As Ymarsakar pointed out so well, FDR understood this - Churchill did as well.-arrow

I am so furious right now...

My problem, however, is with the almost complete lack of a counter effort by GWB. He must have flunked Communication 101 and Persuasion 101. Pres. Reagan would have found an effective way to go over the heads of the media to the American people in a NY minute.

GWB has made two HUGE mistakes. One was on 9/12/2001 in NY when he told the public to go on about their routine business and that he would handle everything. So the public did just that. -Caleb

I DEMAND that we, caleb, arrow and I, get attacked for criticizing Bush! Where the hell is it, people?...

Dan told me... he told me that we wooll... I would feel the righteousness of the Peace if I spoke truueth to pawer. *sniffle*

*****

In case some of the numb nuts reading this post haven't realized, I am making fun of all you nutters out there who keep talking about how people who "criticize" the President get attacked on blogs like this one and otherwhere. You people are so full of crack. Pass the dam bong and do it right this time. If you smoke it right, you won't need to save up for the crack.

There has got to be better ways to get high than smoking the crap you folks lay out. Oh we attack you, that is cause you guys are numb nuts in case you hadn't realized by now. The Left is so annoying when they start to spout their belief in their own propaganda about how "those who criticize Bush gets automatically attacked". Complete fraggolicia.

People like Caleb and Arrow are helping the patient, you "Bush sadists" just carve up the patient and stick the pipe up their arse and have a party afterwards with the Bong. Ya damn right we'll attack you piss ants.

I don't care what you call yourselves, this applies to all the Leftist crackheads. When will you poison masters finish smoking your crap? Huh? I want to know, because that would probably be about the time Jane Fonday says she likes getting together with US Marines in intimate circumstances.

Give me the damn Bong, now. Ya'll don't deserve smoking Bush's crap. It is a dam insult to the Bong.

****

That is more or less what I wanted to say to the volks who keep repeating the tripe about the right not allowing criticism of the Fuehrer. That's it, I'm done.

For now. *throws Bong away*

[Charles]

"What makes you so sure there is no evil intent or bad possibilities to be suffered?"

He has probably never met B A D people. Never had any contact with K I L L E R S. You know - the intelligent, ambitious, sadistic, and ruthless kind who for all of their practiced manners cannot hide the fact that you are a succulent roasted drumstick in their eyes.

He has probably studied some history - but he has never personally experienced the dark side of human nature so its difficult for him to imagine that horrific atrocities are anything more than fairy tales.

@ Learnsomething -

What are you talking about? You seem well practiced at insulting people but I don't think you have offered much besides. What is your point?

[Ymarsakar]

"What makes you so sure there is no evil intent or bad possibilities to be suffered?"

I think it is like when people prevaricate over doing something that they know they don't want to do, you know. Like, buying presents, or shopping. Dieting. Working out. If you really don't want to do these things, then it becomes easy to make up excuses and reasons why you can hold it off, do it later, make up for it, "cheat", and etc.

"I'm going to party tonight because I can just cram for the exam the night before"

"We can talk to the terrorists because we'll beat them down if it really comes to an invasion, so it means we are safe, let's prevaricate some more"

They'll make any and all excuses, just to get out of doing something they don't want to do. It is very easy to fall into that vice. Even when you know what the results will be, some people still do it because it has gotten to be a habit. They know what is going to happen, but it is like what they know to be true and their behavior is two different things.

A person can know that messing up his diet will break his plan, but he might do it anyways just because.

The more you don't want to "do" something, the more excuses you will come up with. Some people even come up with idealized fantasies and lies, to tell themselves and others.

People get into a lot of this kind of trouble concerning the truth. You know, when you know you should tell the truth but you are embarassed or worried over the reaction, so you wait, and delay, and wait some more. It is a very common plot device to get folks into trouble, because it is so common.

When this happens in normal life, it is more or less an annoyance, sometimes critical most of the times not.

But if you try to play the waiting game with terrorists and the enemy... that will have far greater consequences than

Of course, we could sum it all up with one word.

Insh'Allah.

[alexa kim]

OldSoldier54, I would go! I'm in the same boat as Michael in MI, and I'd probably have to put it on plastic too. This would be worth it.

"Maybe America will wake up after the next attack.
Posted by: Peg C. | Jan 28, 2007 1:48:02 PM"

I fear you are more right than you should be Peg C.

USMCINIRAQ, I too thank you for your service to our country. I will continue to do what I can to support you and the mission.

"Follow the money indeed. A large portion of the training and funding of terror attacks on US targets comes from Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards force"

And let's not forget our own contribution to the terrorist and Taliban coffers with every purchase of cocaine.

And BTW, where is all the US currency packed in bales into an 18 wheeler that Saddam took with him when he ran?

"Unlike FDR, Bush is a nice guy. FDR wasn't a nice guy, neither personally nor politically. So what does this mean, I think it means that Bush is soft on his enemies, both foreign and domestic. Not soft in the John Kerry or H Clinton manner. Soft as in "kind hearted", "compassionate", and "amicable".
Instead, we want hardcore, ruthlessness, a guy who can punish his enemies poetically and reward his allies magnificently."

I, too, have noticed this about GWB. It's almost as if someone has just a hair too much influence over him.

Subsunk and Ymar, I learn so much from you two.

The non-binding whining Congress-shrews need to be tamed. Their antics in front of our enemies are embarrassing and demoralizing. And disloyal to WE THE PEOPLE, nevermind the President.

See Jawn and Jane.
See Jawn and Jane run.
See Jawn and Jane run out of town on a rail, their citizenship stripped and their names relegated to the dictionary as new synonyms for "traitor."

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

"Personally I don't think Iran would take such an overt risk as attacking our troops directly."
-Charles

Well this is pre-supposing the Iranian gov doesn't want a war with the US (they do, thinking it will bolster internal and external support for the regime).
Take the case of a warehouse near Basra found with hundreds of munitions of all types, Iranian made AK's , brand new off the factory show room floor, w/ the Iranian logo and serial numbers on them.
Times have changed, the invasion of Iraq has exposed their long proxi activities, and now they arn't hiding their intent.

Folks, I would make one point clear to all, the Iranian people are not the government of Iran, a vast majority do not think like the gov, nor do they support it.

More than a few would like to see our Abrams on the streets of Tehran, to help them rid themselves of their collective nightmare.

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

Comment below written by: Uncle Jimbo
An Embassy is sovereign territory douchebag, and I don't really need moonbat history 101 lessons from a half-wit like you.

Cordially,

Uncle J

----------

(chuckle)...Ain't it amazing Jimbo, that there are still folks who remain ignorant, yet are more than willing to give voice to it, and prove themselves idiots in the process...

But, being the compassionate soul that I am, I believe even idiots need an education too...and while some may think America is what is wrong with the world, they convieniantly forget the other half of the cold war.
In this case, a soviet puppet (not democraticly elected as some claim) was convinced by the Soviets to nationalize the oil fields of Iran, to drive the Brits out, for the purposes of gaining access to a warm-water port.
While just a few years prior, we'd forced the Soviets to comply with WW2 agreements and withdraw from northern Iran/Azerbajian, thus protecting Iranian territorial integrity.

History is a great teacher, and historical perspective is part of political landscape, as are those who take historical fact and twist them for political end.

The regime recently stated, "The Iranian people have been weaving carpets for thosands of years." That speaks volumes about the regime's public diplomacy efforts, and disinformation campaign.

Speaking as one who has done much "red-team" thinking regarding regime intent, researched the history and the issues, I am compelled by logic to ask the following:

If the regime cannot move forward against the will of the international community and survive, and has dug itself such a deep political hole that it cannot retract its statements and actions, and survive;

What better way do they have but to start a war and make it look like the US started it to bolster political support, internally and externally?

Can anyone in reasonable confidence make assurance the regime has not already aquired a nuclear weapon or two, by hook or by crook, over the last 18 years or so?

And given the regime's statements and policies, can anyone avoid considering whether the regime would be willing to use one (making it look like we launched a suprise attack) on its own people to discredit the US and or its allies in the war on terrorism?

Well Uncle J, shall we assess the probabilities???

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

"GWB has made two HUGE mistakes. One was on 9/12/2001 in NY when he told the public to go on about their routine business and that he would handle everything. So the public did just that.

Large numbers of the public simply did not invest in the war, and further large numbers quickly tired of the war, all because they did not connect the dots and understand what was at stake. Further, Dubya did not help them to understand by his constant refusal to realistically identify the enemy and the magnitude of the problem. Remember the "Islam is a religion of peace" mantra?"

-Caleb

Dear Caleb,

Bush wasn't asking folks to go on with their lives as if nothing had happened, but in spite of what happened...because to win a very long war, you gots to have a strong economy.

Secondly, regarding his comments on Islam...do you think the vast majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims of the world would have ignored UBL's call for global jihad if Mr. Bush had stated "Islam is a religion of war."????

Logic man! Please use some.

Regards,

EJ

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

"How much longer will we be waiting until things start spontaneously blowing up on the eastern side of the Iraq-Iran border? At what point will Adm. Fallon's boys notice that oil facilities on the eastern side of the gulf begin to have spontaneous industrial accidents?"
-Bob

Funny you should ask....Iranians in opposition to the mullah's regime have been making things go boom in the night for some time now...IRI's been blaming it on the Brits and the US....but it's indiginous, and if you do a fair bit of research, you'll note a great deal of protest going on over the years...and crushed with an iron boot by the regime.

Something went boom over the weekend in NE Iran, 3.5 tremmors registered. According to some, it was in an area that is known for missile production....sounds to me very similar to the So-Cal factory fire & explosion of stored rocket fuel ingrediants some time ago, that produced very similar results.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8511010575

But of course IRI official news attributes it to something slightly different.

Rumors abound, but this has a nifty map I'm sure B5 might appreciate, along with comments by those with family in the area.

http://kamangir.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/blast-in-mashhad

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

"Bush's initial posture towards Iran was rather conciliatory and diplomatic. That smells of the entire 2002 UN debacle, another thing he went on on the urgings of State and Blair in that case."

Y, Bein' from the wild, wild west as I am (remember, we New Mexicans kicked Texas arse in the "gettysburg of the west", and ol' GWBush is constantly appologizin' for that Texan invasion every time he comes to the "land of entrapment" (sic)

So I just thought I'd clue you into a little Cowboy diplomacy, as far as tactical philosophy is concerned...(chuckle)....givem' jus enough rope to hang themselves with, and they'll ask for more....

Call it a subtle form of reverse psycology....

[Michele San Pietro]

I am under the impression that, even if the fundamentalist regime falls, Iran won't immediately become a normal country.

[Ymarsakar]

What better way do they have but to start a war and make it look like the US started it to bolster political support, internally and externally?

I've considered it as well. My conclusions were that, if Iran wants to go broke, that they would nuke one of their own cities and use it as a justification to acquire international support in destroying Israel. Iran can't do the dirty deed themselves, not against the firepower of the United States or even Israel alone. But they can do it, they can win dividends, if they get the support of the world. And what better way to get support than to nuke their own people and say it was the Jews who are the aggressors? It already plays well to the European ear, they will get plenty of weapons and funds afterwards.

Secondly, regarding his comments on Islam...do you think the vast majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims of the world would have ignored UBL's call for global jihad if Mr. Bush had stated "Islam is a religion of war."????

Logic man! Please use some.

Eric, I think you well know that logic is to be used before a fight. During a fight to the death, all you are required to need is the will and desire to annihilate your enemies, to crush their life from their throats, and watch as the fleeting light of hope and desperation bleeds from their eyes as your death's grin drips with blood.

All the fear, the rage, the anger, the frustration, all must be subordinated to the will to live, to win, to Crush your Enemies.

Our economy with the tax cuts were going to be magnificent, regardless of what the Pres said (proof being the media has convinced Americans economy is bad, yet it still goes up). What the President is there to do is to harness the anger, the hate, and the fury of America into the war effort, to channel it, to slice clean as damascene steel into the flesh of our enemies.

Hate and Love may not be the fuels of war, but it is the high octane additives that provide that fuel Power everlasting.

So I just thought I'd clue you into a little Cowboy diplomacy, as far as tactical philosophy is concerned...(chuckle)....givem' jus enough rope to hang themselves with, and they'll ask for more....

I wouldn't be complaining if Bush had hung our enemies. But it looks like what had happened was, it happened the other way around. While he was playing with the enemy, the enemy got away and came back and blew up the town. In the form of shipping WMDs away, crafting an anti-invasion plan, setting up plans to destroy government infrastructure to prevent Americans from setting up a successful occupation that provides services, as well as providing Syria and Iran with much time to setup their game pieces.

[Miss Ladybug]

In the modern media environment, I think it is impossible to do anything in secret. We didn't have an invasion force already in place in order to invade Iraq. Even if Powell hadn't done the dog and ponyshow for the UN, Saddam would still have known we were coming. He would have seen the military build-up, and heard about it in the media (you just can't keep that kind of troop movement secret in today's media). I believe (as does my dad, who is retired Army and former MI) that Saddam had plenty of time to hide his WMD - whether they were shipped off to Syria or the Bekka Valley via Syria, or they were buried out in the desert somewhere. Remember - Iraq is the size of California. Just think of how long it can take authorities there to find missing people when they have no leads as to where to look - sometimes, they never do, until some hiker stumbles across some skeletal remains somewhere.

The media has evolved to the point that you have more to try to keep a lid on than newspapers and radio. We didn't even have TV during WWII. Now, we have broadcast and cable TV, as well as the internet. And we can't forget the evolution of journalism, either. Back in the day, we had loyal Americans rooting for us to win. That is no longer the case, and hasn't been for the last 40 years.

[Ymarsakar]

Even if Powell hadn't done the dog and ponyshow for the UN, Saddam would still have known we were coming.

One of the things mentioned by a commenter at Neo-neocon's site is that for strategic surprise, what matters is the length of time you have to prepare. There are certain things which MUST require sufficient time to setup. People to move, people to inform, the paper work, and so forth. That takes time. So even if you knew an attack was coming, the amount of time you have to prepare and fortify is very important. So I guess my direct response, is that yes Saddam would have known, but he might not have had enough time to adequately prepare if the attack was launched sooner, much sooner.

The reason being that tactical surprise is different from strategic surprise in that tactics occur in a much shorter time interval, while strategy progresses over months if not years.

Using a conventional model as an explanation. I could say, if a base knew that they were being attacked, how much time would be required to ship new weapons platforms and reinforcements? How much time would be required to train soldiers in new defensive formations and tactics? How much time would be spent fortifying the base, with tripwires, mines, and various other defensive measures?

They require time, to dig in. The more time, the better prepared they become, and the harder it will be to dig them out.

I accept that keeping secrets in the 21st century will be much harder than the 20th. I recognize as well that if we cannot count on surprise as a force multiplier, then we should discard surprise and use other methods to multiply our forces. I support the Special Forces techniques used in Afghanistan, to magnify SF firepower beyond the few numbers that they actually had could wield.

Meaning, I would have supported going in with less troops for Iraq, on the condition that the soldiers would hold the south and use guerrila insurgency against the Sunni government, until reinforcements would arrive from the US. This would have a couple of benefits. First, it would allow local Shia support to coalesce for us and to form themselves into governments and leaders. Like Karzai.

Second, it would allow the US to learn guerrila insurgency from the "other side" so to speak. This is of course invariably a version of what Eric refered to as "giving the enemy enough rope to hang themselves". And of course it is a version which I think would have hung the enemy, not so much in annihilating the enemy but in getting rid of our side's vulnerabilities by giving us enough time to adapt and learn from the enemy before we declared any kind of victory or end..

If we recognize that our problems lie in the media and the lack of surprise amongst military affairs, then we should rely upon our ability to adapt faster than the enemy. To this end, we should then extend our length of warfare. Instead of pushing right to Baghdad to end the war faster, as is military doctrine and military expediency recommends, we should prolong the war. 6, even 12 months from the beginning of 2003.

I never could get anywhere with why Bush's strategy was wrong until I figured out what would have been a better strategy, a better plan of attack.

That is of course a war gone past. The solutions for the one we have now, is different. But the principles are the same. What we do should depend upon the enemy. If the enemy is trying to run away, we should shoot them in the back. If the enemy attacks, we should counter-attack. If the enemy dodges and feints, we should not take their bait. Where the enemy is strong, avoid them. Where they are weak, press them.

The media is a problem. But it is not an insurmountable problem with the right actions by the military and by the President. It wasn't in 2003, and it isn't an insurmountable problem now.

Miss Lady, there are ways to make a strength out of your weakness. It is perhaps one of the highest level war craft available. There are ways to manipulate the power of the media and use such an apparently weak link, for the benefit of our side. But it requires Presidential power

[alexa kim]

Miss Ladybug, ageed; this condition of our media has become toxic to their country. They aren't improving, they are metastasizing.

They rationalize their heartless undermining by throwing up "the public has a right to know." Yeah, we have the right to know -- just not YET. They need to tell us all about it when the operations have been completed. And maybe not even then, for if the operation was successful, that method must be protected so it can be used again. Then, and only then, does the public need to know. We can wait, we must learn to wait. That is not a surrender of a right. Rather, it is the maturation of our ability to responsibly exercise the right.

It is not insignificant that most of the reporters and producers are very young, fresh out of the increasingly suicidally-liberal college influences. The media must take responsbility to help protect the country that has been very, very good to them.

Someone among them must lead the way by choosing to act in the interests of the country by filing judicious, discrete reports. I personally would like them to be more discreet as well.

If we reward and encourage them by patronizing them exclusively, the rest will notice. It is happening, somewhat, now. I refer to Fox News (who I watch with the same degree of discernment as I do the rest, don't worry). Except the MSM is pitching a tantrum rather than understanding the reasons why. They don't want to face the fact that the American public is suspicious of them now. We are looking for more of them to show restraint and respect.

[Ymarsakar]

Something the MSM would hate a lot would be if the President cut off the press privileges, and only gave it out to a couple of popular bloggers (including Kos in a way), and only Fox News gets exclusives and inside data tracks.

It might not seem major in a way to some of us, but to the media, it is major. Because it is sources and "privileges" that decides who gets the scoop on the stories. And who gets the stories, are the ones that get promoted.

I've noticed it a few times because the media would get really really shrill and objectionable. Like when Dick got that hunting accident, the media cried us a river about how Cheney boy gave the story to some two bit "local" reporter. Which scooped out the story on the major networks. Big cry session there.

Then there was the time just recently where the media sent Bush a letter screaming about how he had only let Fox get a "pool" of pics so to speak at the Union speech, so it meant that the other networks had to use Fox's pool of feeds.

It really pisses them off. Which means it is a weakness we should exploit further.

[JarheadDad]

That was a Cambodian-flagged merchant vessel that was sunk by that C-802 Subsunk. But damned if I can remember her name. It's that senility thing again! ;-)

Scout Snipers with 11th MEU, right USMCINIRAQ? And on the other side in Anbar you had the pullback in Fallujah when the guys had Z-Man hung out to dry (one of my bouncing baby boys was in that fight). Those two things alone would've prevented the insurgency you see today. Or at least hamstrung it severely.

Personally I think Iran is trying to bait us. Pull the Addendums and hit them hard inside the borders of Iraq and they will go away. Chase them across the border and they will make a major media event. Stomp Sadr into a grease spot and be done with it.

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

Eric, I think you well know that logic is to be used before a fight. -Ymarsakar
====================

(chuckle)....

>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 03:41:03 -0600
>To: secretary@state.gov
>From: Eric Jette
>Subject: "Powell doctrine"-Exit options
>
> Dear Mr. Secretary,
It seems logical to me when looking at the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after WW2, why we haven't been targets of terrorism by these
former enemies, it may also be logical to view the rise of Hitler as a direct result of the sanctions imposed opon Germany at the end of WW1.
I agree that the war that has been declared opon us will take time, and cost much to win. I hope you will forgive my being so bold as to propose
the following;
Based opon the fact that the people of Afghanistan have no self-determination of their fate, and are at the mercy of the Taliban(or who-ever controls them), and given the fact so many are abandoning the country in fear, it seems to me that this mission must be a liberation, not a reprisal, I mean by this that we perform surgery-heal the patient(Afghanistan).
In order to retain support, especially throughout the Arab world, for a sustained presence in the region, it will be necessary to address the humanitarian needs of the refugees immediately to;
A.Show compassion in the midst of our wrath.
B.To prevent further human suffering due to terrorist acts opon us.
I will base the following on the assumption that the military surgery undertaken will remove the cancer in a similar fashion as in WW2-unconditional surrender.(*)
Given the resulting void in government structure, and to avoid setting up what might be viewed as a "puppet" government, I propose this as an alternative:
Restore the government prior to the Soviet invasion, most of that ruling family is in exile.(although a monarchy,it held democratic ideals despite the influence of the Soviets and had no clue about the Soviet agenda until too late) . I have only my gut instinct to go on,but the "northern alliance" might agree to this as it would bring the country full circle, bringing hope again and the ability to function as a distinct political entity in the U.N.
In addition I believe that the whole premise by which we may safely exit the situation with the goals in hand is this;
If the average Afghan citizen can say they're better off than they were before the Taliban took over, and having the world's help rebuilding, not only will the world respect us, but we'll give them nothing to hate us for in the future.
The massive response with food, shelter, clothing to the refugees prior to any action against the Taliban or bin Laden will immediately let the
world know without a doubt that we consider them victims of terrorist aggression, and that our mission is to rid them of this and restore sanity.
If we do this right, the long term prognosis will be a full recovery from a terminal illness. Afghanistan may need a decade of peace to achieve this.
The stability necessary for this can only come from the people's desire to be at peace, and a hope for the future.
(*) Unconditional surrender in this case does not require use of nuclear weapons to achieve objective, if used, all support will evaporate, and the objective(long term)is lost. I believe it's logical given the terrain, that this may have been considered, hopefully only for a fraction of a second.
------end excerpt-----

Y,

Some serve in foxholes, I serve on the cutting edge in the war of ideas.

Best,

Eric

[OldSoldier54]

"...Where the enemy is strong, avoid them. Where they are weak, press them..." Been reading Sun-tsu again Y? :)
Good ideas on the MSM stuff too.

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

Old soldier54,

Sometimes it helps to get back to some basics.

Considering the topic started, I thought this little update might offer a bigger picture.

Best,
EJ

Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC

------(excerpts)
January 30, 2007

QUESTION: The fact that you said that it's the Administration's intention to
provide the evidence of Iran's meddling in Iraq, is it still your intention to
provide that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I would expect on our own timetable we will make clear what it
is that we know about Iran's meddling in Iraq. I don't think that there's any
particular rush in this regard, not because there isn't a mountain of
convincing evidence from a variety of different aspects, whether that's
physical materials or other kinds of linkages. But we're going to go through
this carefully. We're going to I'm sure talk about this topic in the weeks and
months ahead. I don't think at this point there's any indication that it's
going away, that Iran is changing its behavior. I wish that it were otherwise.

So in our own time, when we are able to go through all the information that we
have, and when we are able to assure ourselves that in presenting that
information in public, that we are not giving away sources and methods that
might compromise our ability to collect more of that information, we'll do so.

QUESTION: Do you have any insight into that timeline?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I don't have any particular timeline for you.

-------break----

QUESTION: On the issue of the evidence against Iran, what role is the State
Department playing in putting that together? You know, so far, we've heard that
this is information seized by the U.S. military and that's what -- you know,
that's what's going to be part of the evidence. So what role is State playing
in putting that together and -- well, in possibly presenting it to the American
public?

MR. MCCORMACK: On -- in terms of the sources of information, I would expect, as
with any intelligence-based activity, that there are multiple sources of
intelligence, and in order to arrive at a conclusion you have to triangulate
those, have faith in your analysis, faith in the sources.

So those -- I can't tell you exactly all the various sources from which people
are collecting things. I don't -- I can't tell you whether or not State
Department intelligence bureau has any role in that or not. I just don't know.

Certainly, we'll take a look at whatever it is -- the presentation is, add our
comments. Whether or not we play a role in rolling this out, laying it out for
folks, I think that that is a decision that has yet to be taken.

-------end excerpts----

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/ for all daily press briefings
************************************************************

[Ymarsakar]

Got to bring out something to go along with all the Buddhist stuff I'm hearing around here, OldS.

Interesting timestamp there Eric. If I recall correctly, that was shortly after I had read Sun Tzu for the first time, and had only understand a small portion of what he was talking about.

The Special Forces did a very good job in Afghanistan, both politically and militaristically. Taliban bases in Pakistan's 150 million population base, would always be a nagging problem unless eliminated. That was just to be expected.

Iraq was different. And also there is the problem with while you are acquiring allies in the Middle East, your enemies are trying to prevent that from occuring by eliminating your agents and allies, and subverting their own cliques and cells. So there has to be push back amongst certain locuses of terrorist activity in the MidEast. Activities should not be constrained simply to the area of operations.

This global war has global fronts. Far in excess of two or even three. It is almost like a game of capture. Afghanistan and Iraq can capture Iran by the expedience of surrounding and isolating. But at the same time, Iran and Pakistan can capture Afghanistan, because they encircle Afghanistan. Then to the west we have Israel surrounding Lebanon/Syria with Iraq.

Each little pocket battle has their own problems, strengths and weaknesses to exploit. *Lebanon's Syrian assassination problems, i.e.* Even for a simple matter as the US southern border, we see a lack of push back on Mexico and various other factions at play there. Clearly the logistical constraints and distance of threat in the Middle East, makes dealing with them much harder than dealing with the border. ANd yet if the border hasn't been dealt with adequately... then obviously that does not bode well for higher level challenges.

Y,

I agree with that assesment, one size does not fit all, and each theater in the global war on terrorism presents its own unique set of challenges and opportunities for success. Just as US relations with nations does not come from a cookie mould, each relationship being unique.

As for the time stamp, it is accurate...off an old Eudora email program I had at the time, you'