Casey cites Iran hand in attacks by Iraqi Shi'ites

The Washington Times ^ | June 23, 2006 | Rowan Scarborough

[edpc]

The top U.S. commander in Iraq said yesterday that covert Iranian troops are training brethren Iraqi Shi'ites on how to attack U.S. and coalition troops.

The disclosure by Army Gen. George Casey is the most pointed Pentagon criticism of Iran's militant regime, which is embroiled in a debate with the United States because Washington demands an end to Tehran's uranium enrichment.

In a press conference at the Pentagon, Gen. Casey said he has made no final decision on U.S. troop withdrawals for this year. He said he first needs to discuss the security situation with Iraq's recently named defense and interior ministers. There are now 127,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down 5,000 from April's level.

[edpc]

Iran's role in Iraqi terrorism is not new, nor is the fact chemical weapons were discovered not long after the invasion. Despite that, I am continally amazed at the calls for diplomcy with Iran. They don't care....why should we?

[The G Man]

Can't we all get along?

[AppyPappy]

The Iranian people care. We are hoping there is a change from the ground up.

I have met some Iranian students and they think they are led by anal-retentive boring old men.

[edpc]

They need to care a little more. Open support of terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons by their government doesn't bore me.

[Red Badger]

They don't care....why should we?

The Strait of Hormuz...........

[Red Badger]

[edpc]

There's no way they can effectively close it. Any weapons and personnel brought forth would be eliminated in short order. Their 'navy' couldn't defeat the local yatch club.

[Element187]

Bushs fault!

[Red Badger]

All it would take is to sink one supertanker there. The threat of another would effectively stop all traffic......

[edpc]

....and effectively end any hopes the Iranian govt/military has to survive.

[xzins]

They threatened the same thing during the tanker war of 1987-89. They weren't able to do it.

We owned them.

We will again.

[Red Badger]

Note the shallowness of the waters. It's not the width of the strait, it's the depth of the water that's the threat. Iran could sink a tanker there before anybody could do anything about it. And even if we retaliate, the damage is done........

[Bean Counter]

Good start! Now, let's take this straight to the UN Security Council, and call Iran out in front of the World as an open State supporter of terrorism.

Today.

Paging John Bolton! Paging John Bolton!

White courtesy telephone, please!

[Red6]

"He said he first needs to discuss the security situation with Iraq's recently named defense and interior ministers. There are now 127,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down 5,000 from April's level." Was written

That picture does not show the full picture.

In 2003 we had 330,000 troops there. In 2004 we had dropped to 200,000+ troops. By 2005 that figure had slipped to bellow 160,000 and by early 2006 it was already at 138,000. Now the figure is at 127,000. Just stating troops declined over the last year is NOT accurate.

This is not something new. Portraying the events as if troop levels dropping is something new creates a false image of the situation.

[edpc]

You may want to relay that info the Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Dean, the MSM and everyone else screaming for troop reductions and withdrawl. Problem is.....they're aware of this, as well. Didn't one or all of them just accuse the Bush administration of playing politics with Iraq? Well...what's this?

[edpc]

I get it. I saw the scale of miles and depth charts in your graphic. I am not sure what the draft is on a tanker, but it seems reasonable that the others can circumvent a wrecked one with the available waters. We reflagged Kuwaiti tankers and escorted them in the 80's in response to Iranian threats. Any potentially threatening areas where they have mine-laying vessels or 'Sunburn' type anti-shipping missiles would see immediate attention if hostilities were imminent.