SAS in Iraq monitoring infiltration from Iran-report

Reuters via Al Mendhar ^ | 2005 Sep 25

[Wiz]

LONDON - The two British special forces soldiers dramatically freed in an attack on an Iraqi police station this week were part of a team monitoring militant infiltration from Iran, the Sunday Times said.

Citing an unnamed source, the newspaper said special forces troops had been based near the southern city of Basra for weeks tracking the suppliers of armour-piercing roadside bombs believed to have come over the nearby border with Iran.

"Since the increase in attacks against UK forces two months ago, a 24-strong SAS team has been working out of Basra to provide a safety net to stop the bombers getting into the city from Iran," the source was cited as saying.

"The aim is to identify routes used by insurgents and either capture or kill them."

The two Special Air Service (SAS) troopers were operating undercover when they were approached by Iraqi police, and fired on the police before being arrested.

Under Iraqi law the police are supposed to immediately hand over British troops they arrest to British forces, but the local police commander refused, according to Britain's Ministry of Defence.

British forces surrounded the police station, but negotiations for the men's release stalled and a mob with petrol bombs attacked and set fire to British armoured vehicles.

It later emerged that the two had been handed over to local militia members. As armoured vehicles bulldozed their way into the police station, soldiers freed the two men from a nearby house.

[Wiz]

ping

[ncountylee]

Stand firm Briton. We salute you.

[elhombrelibre]

Iran is stirring the pot using al Sadr to do it.

[adorno]

Iran is stirring the pot using al Sadr to do it.

How come this guy, al Sadr, hasn't met up with an accidental IED yet?

[clee1]

I wonder what the mullahs think they are gaining?

They are already in hot water over their nuke program. Surely they know that pushing us too far would be a grave mistake.

[elhombrelibre]

I'm sure Zarquai would love to kill him. It would play into his desire for a civil war. But this joker probably will manage to get by unscathed unless we arrest him.

[elhombrelibre]

The mistake we make is by not turning the tables on them and on Syria. There are people in those countries more than willing to fight for their freedom. But we'll neither use the big stick of Air Power, apparently, nor the option of turning to arming warriors to go after the Iranian and Syrian police and army. Foolish. And we lose people here everyday because of it.

[clee1]

It is the nature of politicians these days to be ultra cautious, to the point of total indecision.

What has happened to the American spirit? We have turned into a Nation of eunuchs.

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for post. Well the article pretty much explains what the deal was.

"Under Iraqi law the police are supposed to immediately hand over British troops they arrest to British forces, but the local police commander refused, according to Britain's Ministry of Defence."

Sounds like the local police commander is working on both sides. Perhaps he will be found in a ditch in the near future. If anything he should have been aware since they where Brits out of uniform they must have been on special ops duties.

[Iscool]

The U.S. gov't has been supporting the Iranian Shiites in Iraq since the first Gulf War...These Shiites are a majority in the Iraq population...

These same Shiites in Iran love to kill the Kurds that live in Iran which btw, are the same Kurds that live in Iraq...

Being against Iranian Shiites would be like loving the Republicans in Indiana but hating the Republicans in Illinois...

[Marine_Uncle]

I make distinctions between Arab Shi'ite that live in Iraq, and Persian Shi'ite that live in Iran. Look. Your statements are a litte generic in nature. Allowing for many power plays that may not be public domain, and which might truly represent the real conditions as who is or will pull the strings in Iraq I will just say, like his predesseors, the current Iranina Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei continues to support the concept of velayat-e faqih interpreted being supreme religious leader, which in simple terms means a theocratic government. He is the ruling leader amoung the 50 Mullahs in Iran. He calls the shots. Let us bear in mind he is Iranian.

Wherein Iraq we find the Shi'ite majority is lead by the Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani roles the roost. And though he is from Iran. His political views are quite different then the ruling leaders in Iran. He for many years has keep out politics, and consistantly has been on the record for the seperation of government and religion. In other words, he is on the record as being opposed to any form of theocracy being formed in Iraq. He has also been shown to want the Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to stay out of the political arena as well as not incite his followers to violence whether against Sunni or US and other coalition troops. Let us remember Sistani was the backbone behind pushing for a democratically elected government in Iraq when Bremer and company where playing stall tactics. And Sistani got his way. He continues to preach patience, tolerance of other Islamic sects, and for keeping religion out of politics. And on the authority of a few Freepers that have shown some indepth knowledge, articles by folks such as the well known Iraninan journalist and free thinker Amir Taheri who has a proven track record for accurate jouralism regarding Iranian and Mid East politics etc., all basically have indicated the Shi'ite leadership in Iraq have little in common with the Iranian Shi'ite Supreme Leadership Council. Sistani's lower and almost equal in status Imans will follow his bidding, and in some estimates shall continue a non theocratic approach for Iraq, should Sistani die any time soon. With this being said. Perhaps you can see why I do not hold to the opinions you wrote. What you right basically falls in line with the common rethoric fashioned by some supposed experts, that makes it's way into the world of L/MSM, and for whatever reasons, becomes the defacto standard. Also, we must understand there is a great mistrust between most Arab nations and Iran. For instance Saudi's are basically sworn enemies of Iran and vice versa. Iranians do things their way, and Arabs do not neccessarily follow suit. All major Islamic sects in Iraq, have no reason to want Iran to run their future country. They distrust the leaders in Tehran period. Likewise Iraqi leaders are on the record as being quite pissed off with the way Syria continues to attempt to side track a democracy from emerging in Iraq. Now do take note I realize there are continued Iranian influences in Iraq. Heck they where present while Saddam was still in power. Make no mistake about it. And yes Iran would love to see a theocracy formed in Iraq. But do not make the mistake of thinking the majority of Shi'ites in Iraq want a theocracy or that they have any love for Iran to take over their country. As for the Kurds. They must go along with things. As long as they can get a decent amount of revenues produced from the large oil fields in their sector, they will go along with the program. They are now an equal partner in the political processes taking place. They have gained much in a short time. They are not going to go out of their way and upset the apple cart. Of course they will posture their political objectives like any other group. So I don't know where you derive your statements from, but perhaps you many want to reconsider where you get your info from.

[humint]

"Let us remember Sistani was the backbone behind pushing for a democratically elected government in Iraq when Bremer and company where playing stall tactics."

The future of things is impossible to determine by looking at the past alone. Many of the things you say about Sistani could be said of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 but that doesn't guarantee Sistani will become Iraq's Khomeini. What you can be sure of however is that the direct elections Sistani was calling for and Bremer was stalling were unlikely to produce a system that even remotely resembles democracy. Recall that Iran's undemocratic constitution was voted into acceptance by a democratic national referendum!

A major difference between Khomeini-Iran-79 and Sistani-Iraq-05 is access. You can ask Sistani about his views on democracy yourself.

[Iscool]

I didn't mean to imply that Iraq will become the suburbs of Iran...No doubt the Iraqi Shiite leadership has it's sights on it's own rule but as they say, 'birds of a feather flock together'...

But once the Shiite majority gain complete control of the police force and military, we will see how compassionate they are with the Sunnis and Kurds (and Americans)...

[Marine_Uncle]

As I made reference to Sistani pushing for elections in 2004, I sort of had a feeling someone might call me on it. That's OK. Perhaps I should have better elaborated on why I made the point. When things where really in flux in mid-late 2004, Sadr for instance flexing his muscles leading to the conflicts we saw perculate to the surface, Sistani stepped in after flying back from London (his heart operation), and put a stop to much of the unrest withing the Shi'ite communities at large. Basially told Sadr to shut up and stop making trouble, and suggested Iraq needed an democractically elected government to be installed to put and end to all the internal unrest. I surely am not going to argue with you as to what form of government he had on his mind because I am not a mind reader, nor do I remember him making concise statements as to what he was willing to add support to. But I have no problem with your saying we cannot only relie on his past performance. As for for him morphing into some new skin, that is always possible as we see with thousands of polititions world wide. So though I will not rebut your view point, I could say, he may have all along had a westernized democratic electoriate process in mind, when he proposed his initial suggestions for hold elections in Iraq in 2004. I do however to hold unto the view that he has stated he does not want a theocracy in Iraq. He is on the record on that point. As for your example of what happened in Iran after the Islamic Revolution to get rid of the Shah, lets face it, they where comprised of radicalized Islamofacits, to a large degree. It took little time to set Iran up as a theocracy, under the guise of appearing like a democratic government with seperation of church and state. The Mullahs have ruled Iran since the revolution. I am sure you would agree with that. The government is just an extended organ of the theocracy, (Supreme Religous Council). A front organization if you please. And Sistani is on record as saying in effect, this would be bad for Iraq. His feelings are the clergy should practice their traditional rule, and let a secularized government run the country. With of course the understanding per the constitution that the Supreme Judiciary Council would guide the higher courts (Federal Courts) on down to local judiciaries, as to what laws are acceptable under Sharia. Obviously something we all cringe at. So humint, obviously we don't have a crystal ball. Things can change. But I at present am not convinced the Iraqi Shi'ite are in favor of allowing Iranian politics to role their future. Yes I did go to your URL hyperlink. Thanks. Did a short read in the various areas. No real revelations. I shall read more in depth the rather abreviate sections such as His methodology and perhaps the section titled his works. But a super cursory view taken makes me cringe a bit. Who wants to wade through tons of Islamic sharia in essense. At any rate, thanks for your feedback. I hope I did not avoid your questions. Just not sure how to write all encompassing answer to express my view in a few words. That's my problem.

[Marine_Uncle]

"I didn't mean to imply that Iraq will become the suburbs of Iran...No doubt the Iraqi Shiite leadership has it's sights on it's own rule but as they say, 'birds of a feather flock together'..."

Heh heh heh. Pretty good. But briefly, we must remember the Iraqi's are are calling for a seperateion between church and state. So. We cannot compare what happens in Iran with what will happen in Iraq. Iran's lasted election sham just proves that they rigged the votes to allow their (Mullahs) man to become the president. Remember the first vote did not hold because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would not have won. Not that his main opponent, Hashemi-Rafsanjani, is any better, after all he is part of the establishment, would have allowed for real positive change. But the key point is in Iran, the goverenment is ran as a theocracy in essence, and under the present president is making that fact quite clear. They want to remove any headway made in human rights gains and go back to a pure theocratic state, where Sharia and the Qur'an are held as the absolute.
I cam convinced that is not what most of the Iraqi leadership and background power players want to happen in Iraq. They see it will only lead to ruin. But perhaps I will be found to be full of it in due time.


"But once the Shiite majority gain complete control of the police force and military, we will see how compassionate they are with the Sunnis and Kurds (and Americans)..."

Let us remember the Americans and the coalition of the willing have liberated the Shi'ite from the Butcher of Baghdad. We are have been showing millions of them a good deal of sheer kindness. We are rebuilding their infrastructure and giving many a poor Shi'ite clean water, electricity to homes that never had such luxuaries. Building them new schools, medical centers. The country supposedly is know yanking some 2.5 million barrels of oil out of the S/N fields per day. They are making a nice profit on their oil, etc., blah blah. Why would they want to turn on the US military after all we have done for them?

[RightWhale]

You know, there are many reports and it is impossible to know which are being straight and which are part of some faction's PR effort. I would doubt any report, especially from the major news media, on activities that are for the most part under cover.

[strategofr]

"I make distinctions between Arab Shi'ite that live in Iraq, and Persian Shi'ite that live in Iran."

I basically agree with your views here. However, I'm afraid that if we get into a situation where things drag on without being resolved and the Democrats end up pulling out abruptly and withdrawing all military support altogether, that the Iraqi government might find itself in a situation where they could not effectively maintain order in the country. It is under these circumstances that I envision the Iraqi government voluntarily forming an association with the Iranians. As long as they maintain true freedom of action I do not believe that will happen.

[Marine_Uncle]

"I basically agree with your views here. However, I'm afraid that if we get into a situation where things drag on without being resolved and the Democrats end up pulling out abruptly and withdrawing all military support altogether, that the Iraqi government might find itself in a situation where they could not effectively maintain order in the country."

I am sure we all have the same concerns you state. As for a future Iraqi government, lets remember they must first ratify a constitution then have full federal and state elections to create a new government, wanting to get in bed with the Iranians. Why would they if they got so far as deciding on who they want to govern them, and through a majority elective process form a new government. They would have no need for outside influences. Right. And they have little option but to proceed with the December date for electing a new government. I see the constitution as being the main thorn in their side right now. But yes hold the same concerns as to how much American support will remain as time flies by.

[strategofr]

"Why would they if they got so far as deciding on who they want to govern them, and through a majority elective process form a new government. They would have no need for outside influences."

My concern (and I suppose yours too) is that they will be coerced into a cooperation with Iran and/or Syria if the US simply withdraws, not that they would want such s situation.