Posted on 12/27/2006 7:06:03 PM PST by jmc1969
The US military said on Tuesday that it had credible evidence linking Iranians and Iraqi militiamen, detained here in raids last week, to criminal activities, including attacks against US forces. Evidence also emerged that some of the detainees were involved in shipments of weapons to illegal armed groups in Iraq.
Major General William Caldwell, the chief spokesman for the US command, said that the military, in the raid, had "gathered specific intelligence from highly credible sources that linked individuals and locations with criminal activities against Iraqi civilians, security forces and coalition force personnel."
Caldwell made his remarks by e-mail in response to a query about the raids, first reported on Monday in the New York Times.
"Some of that specific intelligence dealt explicitly with force-protection issues, including attacks on MNF-I [Multinational Force-Iraq] forces," he said via e-mail.
US officials have long said that the Iranian government interferes in Iraq, but the arrests, in the compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq's most powerful Shiite political leaders, were the first in which officials were offering evidence of the link.
The raids threaten to upset the delicate balance of the three-way relationship between the US, Iran and Iraq. The Iraqi government has made extensive efforts to engage Iran in security matters in recent months and the arrests of the Iranians could scuttle those efforts.
The Iraqi government has kept silent on the arrests, but on Tuesday night officials spoke of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations by Iraq's government and its fractured political elite over how to handle the situation.
(Excerpt) Read more at taipeitimes.com ...
I'm hoping the Administration actually has a strategy towards Iran other than passing meaningless gesture resolutions in the League of Nations, oops, "United Nations."
The NYT probably interprets this to mean that Iran is really good after all.
He might get the same sort of Party, necktie that is, that Saddam will be getting sooner, rather than later. Either that or he'll wake up some morning with a 1,000 pound Laser Guided Bomb in his ear.
Assuming he was in any condition, like breathing, to be denouncing anything.
Just trying to stir the pot to build up pressure against us taking out the Shiite militia leaders and their Iranian puppet masters.
I think it might backfire on 'em.
Actually it's not. But it is a legitimate Casus Belli, even in our times.
He is the head of a faction that has long had contacts with Iran. My policy would be to tell Iran to keep their distance, or else. The else being the destruction of any attempt to establish a Shiite state associated with Iran, even if it means turning to the Sunni Arabs and giving them a share of power in the government guarantted by an American imperium.
What that means is that the President should call the current Congress back into emergency session and ask for an honest to goodness declaration of war against the Iranian government.
If nothing else, it would be fun to watch the Liberal Media, and the "leaders" of the incoming Congress gnash their teeth, wail, scream and pull their hair out.
Yeah, Geez, it's not like the Surrender Monkeys are about to take over Congress, endangering the funding to prosecute any war, against Iran, against the Iraqi "insurgents", (Guerrillas, acting on behalf of third parties, would be a better term), or most anyone else.
Times a wasting Dude.
That includes me. It's not funny at all. It's deadly serious and has real consequences that we make these grand announcements and accusations but then do nothing about it.
Nor is the Administration jumping to conclusions faster than hot jumping beans.
"jumping to conclusions"? So you need more proof that Iran has been at war with us for 25 years? Again, the issue I have is with us talking about it but not doing anything. Either (1) do something or (2) don't talk about it. Talking about it but not doing anything is the worst thing we could do, because it telegraphs that we won't even fight back against an enemy we acknowledge to be at war with us.
Fortunately formulating strategy is also not in the hands of the armchair generals.
It might as well be if we're going to make these announcements but not do anything.
Would this be linked to the article from last week about US Forces capturing several Iranian military types INSIDE Iraq???
Probably coming from Iran, which no doubt purchased them from the Russians...
If GW meant what he said, we should take the offensive to Iran. Doesn't look that way, but it could be that Bush and his insiders are not going to tip their hand this time and give the enemy 6 months to prepare. Also, there are bigger fish in the frying pan than this, and we don't have to labor that point. Certainly the US and Israel have closely coordinated their contingency plans by this late date. (My God, I sure hope so!)
"Somehow this is Bush's fault."
No, it isn't Bush's fault. It is the courage of the new Democrat majority that has brought forth this treasure trove of information. For without John Kerry, we would never have been this open to see the true enemy.
OK, it is Bush's fault.
This is somewhat analogous to Chinese involvement in the Korean war. Everyone knew the Chinese were there, allegedly as the "People's Volunteer Army", not as official PLA soldiers. It was a fig leaf distinction we used to fight each other without having to go to an escalated, full scale war.
Here we are, 50 years later, and the game is almost the same. Iran sends their "volunteers" across the border, and sits back safely. Due to "political considerations", we leave Iran as a safe haven. Some advocate calling a spade a spade and going after the sanctuary nation. Those in power decide against it. For fear of the geopolitical repercussions and domestic backlash from a war weary public, we'll do no more to Iran than we did to China.
Iran is playing a very clever hand, here. They sponsor just enough violence to make Iraq look chaotic, and just enough tension with the Sunnis to break the image of Sunni hegemony. Iraqi society has been dominated by Arab Sunnis so long, that this recent struggle has given new confidence to the demographically dominant but long oppressed Shia.
How does Iran benefit? Simple. They're slowly pushing the idea of secular, peaceful coexistence into the ground, they're nudging us to leave, and they've laid the groundwork to control the ruins of the Iraqi state. They're not trying to win the war against us, they're trying to win the peace. And they will, easily, at this rate. Iraq is 5 years at the most from becoming a full fledged satellite state of Iran. It's checkmate in 10 moves, unless the Iraqi Army or some other coup movement overturns the chessboard.
We were outplayed by the Iranians, and skillfully so.
Things will darken, but then West will take it back - a third and decisive crusade.
Let's see, when Iraq attacked the United States by bombing the WTC in 1993, the US did nothing but treat the bombing as a criminal attack and let Iraq off.
When eight Iraqi "false defectors" killed hundreds (177 people?) in Oklahoma City the attack was passed off ENITIRELY by Clinton as a truck bomb attack in the parking lot done by two right wing extremists. As well documented by many, the bomb was too SMALL to have done the damage to the Federal Building that it did. It was also documented that numerous witnesses saw McVeigh and Nichols with these eight Iraqi false defectors.
When HUNDREDS of witnesses saw a missile hit an airliner in 1996, the government said that it was a center fuel tank explosion. That bit of "brilliant" analysis came from none other than Richard Clark out of the White House. You may remember him blaming Bush in the 9/11 hearings.
All of that above is just a theory of course, but it explains WHY
1. Clinton's national security director was stuffing TOP SECRET SPECIAL CATAGORY DOCUMENTS into his underwear while preparing for the 9/11 hearings.
2. WHY ABLE DANGER revelations were slam dunked by the Pentagon.
3. WHY Jamie Gorelick SIMPLY HAD TO BE on the 9/11 Commission. WE can't let the sheeple figure it out even with all these clues, nobody believes it :-)
Even the BUSH administration realizes that the handling of 1990's terrorism in the US by Clinton's lying and coverup is too hot to handle.
I think the probability of Bush responding to attacks on our troops sponsored by Iran is much higher than the coverups that Clinton did to keep the American public from figuring out that Iraq was killing United States Citizens on U. S. soil, but don't bet on Bush doing anything...... Clinton's lies has made the U.S. a paper tiger in Iran's eyes.
Until we get a Reagan type response to Iran, they will keep up the attacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.