Wordie

Pat Lang, also formerly of the CIA, made the same point as Larry. He said on Blitzer's program on Sunday that Iran has been inolved in Iraq from the very begining. He asked the question, why is Bush using now to highlight Iran's involvement.

What is so strange about Bush is the war he launched in Iraq was one that never could have achieved any ofi ts goals. How does starting another war undermanned without adequate resources and little public support going to make things better?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Pat is an old and dear friend and I steal liberally from him at every chance. We've both been puzzled by the breathless media hype of something that is largely a red herring and four years old.

"... mendacity or stupidity..."

It's both!!

Tom

The last sentence is the real confusing bit. If the Bush administration is concerned about who is supplying the insurgents who are actually killing Americans why don't they look for whoever is supplying the Sunni insurgency?

Can we please, please, please have the media point out the stupidity of these allegations? I'll give them a leg up: suppose there was a civil war going on in New England, and US troops were being consistently shelled by Vermonters. Would the Federal government then declare war on Nova Scotia, because of their work supplying the state of Maine?

Given your scenario of a civil war in New England, Bu$hco would probably declare war on France, just for being French!

Beyond all the valid points in the post and the comments, it's worthwhile remembering that a war should be a last resort. The US/Bush should not go to war just because the Iranian cause us some, limited, casualties. There is a long way to go before you pick up the big hammer; local retaliation, local persuasion, paying money to the right people, hitting Iranians in Iraq as a message, are all possible steps that precede a war.

Larry's not really paying attention to what is going on in Iran. The sanctions are working. Iran's economy is in crisis, and they desperately need foreign investment -- which nobody is going to cough up with the threat of more sanctions looming.

Rafsanjani signalled this week that Iran might be willing to suspend enrichment. This is a huge positive step. We're not even close to war with Iran, right now. Pay attention, folks!

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

Monroe Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He argued and finally won over the Cabinet to an independent policy. In Monroe's Annual Message to Congress on December 2, 1823, he delivered what we have come to call the Monroe Doctrine. Essentially, the United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the Americas were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of the affairs of the New World.

On December 2, 1845, U.S. President James Polk announced to Congress that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced and that the United States should aggressively expand into the West (see Manifest Destiny).

In 1852, some politicians used the principle of the Monroe Doctrine to argue for forcefully removing the Spanish from Cuba. In 1898, the U.S. obtained Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spain after winning the Spanish-American War.

Between 1864 and 1867, Napoleon III invaded Mexico and set up a French puppet regime headed by Emperor Maximilian; Americans proclaimed this as a violation of "The Doctrine" (see Maximilian Affair), but were unable to intervene due to the American Civil War. This was the first time the Monroe Doctrine was widely referred to as a "Doctrine".

In the 1870s, U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant extended the Monroe Doctrine, saying that the U.S. would not tolerate a colony being transferred from one European country to another.

In 1895, U.S. Secretary of State Richard Olney extended the Monroe Doctrine to give the U.S. authority to mediate border disputes in South America. This is known as the Olney interpretation.

In 1904, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which asserted the right of the U.S. to intervene in Latin America. This was the largest extension that has ever been added to the Monroe Doctrine.

Does any other nation on Earth have the right to apply this same doctrine, for the benefit of their people?

It’s one thing for America to enforce our hemisphere, but does it have to rule every other hemisphere?

We have problems at home Mr. President, don't you think our hemisphere needs attention?

If the Bush administration is concerned about who is supplying the insurgents who are actually killing Americans ... is a BIG IF.

IF they actually cared about anyone, Iraqis or US soldiers, they would have at the very very very least planned for a post-invasion. But they just couldnt give a rat's fuzzy rear could they?

These are people who are willing to blatanly lie, to abuse the memory of the deaths of 3000 innocent people on 911 to launch a war which results in the deaths of (at last count) over 500000 Iraqi civlians and ~3200 US soldiers. They don't have a moral bone in their body, plain and simple. If they are willing to do that, they're willing to do anything.

Minor nit: after Army service, Lang was a top-level civilian analyst for DIA, not CIA.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

You cannot think in our ingrained school logical manner with this administration. Take the results and work backwards.
They are competent and it is America acting in ways we cannot accept.
Everything is a result of their desire for it to occur. If you say incompetent, poor planning, did not have right people you stop thinking. I repeat if you do not use alternate scenarios their wall is around you!

They say we know it is Iran because of their serial numbers,
but we can't say if our own weapons are being used against us.

"We have weapons that we know through serial numbers … that trace back to Iran," Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said in an interview with USA TODAY. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-30-iraq-iran_x.htm

"The American military has not properly tracked hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces and ....., a federal report released Sunday has concluded."

The American military did not even take the elementary step of recording the serial numbers of nearly half a million weapons provided to Iraqis, the inspector general found, making it impossible to track or identify any that might be in the wrong hands. http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/10/where_did_the_i.html

Can you believe that? NO.

I'm having a bit of problem understanding why Iranian made weapons do not have Arabic notation, but English. An LA Times photo series shows what I am referring too:

US Evidence - (free-registration may be required to access)

What do you think of Hugo Chavez? In our own Hemisphere.

I think the history books will look back on this period as the biggest blunder. How we lost control in our own backyard, Latin and South America, while we were to busy focused on Europe, Saudi, Israeli interests.

(sarcasm)Maybe they'll find, weapons from Venezuela, along the Mexico border, giving us justification to arrest Hugo Chavez, and bring our form of Democracy to the people of South America, Latin America.

Do you think Russia or China, want a militant Islam on their borders? No! So why is it our problem to protect them.

Larry,

The picture of those Iranian weapons and munitions have been on various Army and Army related websites for years. I have seen them for years. They are part of the Army training material about IEDs.

These are not new pictures and are not new evidence. The pictures are recycled pictures.

Why doesn't someone point this out to the media? Or maybe they have and the media does not care.

Demand the Truth for America

I also wonder if a psychologist just by listening and watching Bush would be able to determine his mental state.

My wife (a clinical psychologist) is unable to watch Mr. Bush on television, due to her perception of his body language. Whenever we watch the president speak, she spends the entire time pointing out the behavioral indications informing her perception. The president is in *way over his head*, sometimes willfully ignorant, sometimes lying.

This psychologist had a 20 year tradition of limiting the size of her practice to allow maximum attention to her patients. That was, until shortly after 9/11 and the wonderful speech given by Mr. Bush about our national resolve, our need to pull together to manage this new scourge of terrorism. After listening to that speech, she accepted new referrals in order to have greater income, so she could contribute greater taxes to the war effort.

We began to be somewhat uncomfortable during the runup to Iraq as mid-2002 grew into early 2003, as she began to see increasingly frequent indications of discomfort in the president's demeanor.

By 2004, however, as the WMD search proved fruitless and the post-invasion rebuilding process was shown to be miserably incompetent, my wife's concerns about the truthfulness of the president's speech were confirmed in the worst way.

I cannot begin to describe her perceptions of the vice president, by the way. I do not possess language to communicate *that* mess. Based on our conversations at home, I'd guess that Mr. Cheney has been building up some very very bad karma.

I don't think you can go through the geopolitical analysis regarding Iraq and Iran without keeping in mind that we are also busy saving face with the House of Saud.

Mine is obviously an amateur's take on what Bush is up to, but really, I can't help but believe that the course of action they have set us on was in large part agreed when Cheney want to Saudi Arabia at the end of last year.

So step one was to undertake to support at any price the Maliki government, just about the only viable government that the Saudis won't object to. Iraq is majority Shiite, people vote along tribal-sectarian lines, so the best outcome currently for the Saudis is a nationalistic Iraqi Shiite government that will resist becoming client state of Iran.

The surge - shorthand for an uptick in use of force against Sunni militia - was mainly intended to validate step one, our support for Maliki. We just have no idea whether it will have much effect in practice.

Step two was to paint Iran as the bad guys in Iraq. That you try to do this while simultaneously hinging a credible counterinsurgency strategy against people that are natural enemies of Iran, is absurd on the face of it. But in America anyway, where we have a media that would readily report that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had a working relationship, you can get away with it.

Step three is to marginalize Al-Sadr, because even through he's as much Iraqi nationalist as Islamist, he's the wrong type of Islamist as far as Saudi are concerned. So even if a Shiite government is an inevitability in Iraq, if you're Saudi, you'd prefer it weren't Shiite fundamentalist because that would work against your pre-eminence in the Islamic world.

I don't know about others, but on this occasion I can only see coherence in the Bush strategy when I look at it through this prism. It's a prism that makes an assumption that Bushco regards the Saudi's as our most important Middle Eastern ally, which has the benefit of not seeming too far-fetched.

There are any number of problems with the strategy - not least that it would appear to be a strategy that needs to be followed in perpetuity - but for me the elephant in the room is Kurdistan. At some point, the Kurds are going to want out of intermittent simmering and boiling of the sectarian violence, especially when it flares up in cities like Kirkuk. And when they do, and the movement for a greater Kurdistan gathers pace, Turkey - a NATO ally of ours - is going to flip out.

For me, issues surrounding Turkey are perhaps the least explored dimension of the Iraq War. Turkey's top priority at the moment is entry to the EU, and its human rights record, which is basically all about a systematic oppression of the Kurdish population, is bar none the most delicate aspect of their negotiations with the EU.

If various Kurdish separatist factions (some, like the PKK, designated terrorist organizations) show a resurgence as the Iraqi Kurds shake free from Baghdad, the strategic disaster that is the Iraqi debacle will deliver further regional damage. And when it's a NATO ally involved, which can invoke fellow treaty members to come to its defense, you can only imagine what a messy situation could ensue.

Apparently it is convention that arms made for export are marked in English.

Good piece in Truthout on the issue of EFPs etc. 

I'm not certain that Bush's motivation can be reduced to an either-mendacity-or-stupidity alternative. Bush himself is a psychological quagmire, easily manipulated by the real decision-maker, Cheney, who, like all the neocon ideologues, is more interested in simply BEING at war, rather than waging war against any particular faction, group, or nation.

That is not to say that Cheney is as likely to declare war on Bush's pals in Saudi Arabia (who are supplying Iraqi Sunni insurgents with better surface to air weapons) as he is against Iran. But, in the end, what matters to the neocons is keeping the US in a state of war--the identity of the enemy, like the fictionalized reasons for the wars against Iraq and Iran, is of little consequence to them. Their real enemies are peace and prosperity, which they despise on an emotional level because they don't think average people deserve either, and on a political level, because they would have no chance to maintain power if the population were not whipped up into a frenzy of jingoistic fear and hysteria.

Bush's role in this is to rubber stamp the Cheney cabal's strategy and present it as best he can to the lapdog media. The fact that this is a hideous charade that defies all logic is no surprise. The Cheney-ites don't want to advance the national interest--they want to maintain power, remilitarize the US population (to turn us into a garrison state), and prevent future US governments from doing any good for the people by bankrupting it for generations.

I'm not certain that Bush's motivation can be reduced to an either-mendacity-or-stupidity alternative, as was done by an earlier response. Bush himself is a psychological quagmire, easily manipulated by the real decision-maker, Cheney, who, like all the neocon ideologues, is more interested in simply BEING at war, rather than waging war against any particular faction, group, or nation.

That is not to say that Cheney is as likely to declare war on Bush's pals in Saudi Arabia (who are supplying Iraqi Sunni insurgents with better surface to air weapons) as he is against Iran. But, in the end, what matters to the neocons is keeping the US in a state of war--the identity of the enemy, like the fictionalized reasons for the wars against Iraq and Iran, is of little consequence to them. Their real enemies are peace and prosperity, which they despise on an emotional level because they don't think average people deserve either, and on a political level, because they would have no chance to maintain power if the population were not whipped up into a frenzy of jingoistic fear and hysteria.

Bush's role in this is to rubber stamp the Cheney cabal's strategy and present it as best he can to the lapdog media. The fact that this is a hideous charade that defies all logic is no surprise. The Cheney-ites don't want to advance the national interest--they want to maintain power, remilitarize the US population (to turn us into a garrison state), and prevent future US governments from doing any good for the people by bankrupting us for generations.

Are you suggesting Cheney is related to Bush's Pet Goat?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

No, that's not correct. Iran isn't "fully cooperating" with illegal demands that it abandon enrichment and allow inspections in EXCESS of what it is legally required to allow (what the IAEA refers to as "transparency measures".) Iran has been meeting everything it is SUPPOSED to allow.

Iran has continued to facilitate access under its Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency, and to act as if the Additional Protocol is in force, including by providing in a timely manner the requisite declarations and access to locations.

Iran temporarily suspended enrichment and allowed these sorts of excess inspections for a period of 2 years, and still no weapons were found. All Iran got in return was more demands that it permanently abandon its right to enrichment. So they learned that compromise won't work will only lead to greater demands, and have now decided that they will only cooperate to the extent that they're legally obligated, and no more. ANd who can blame them?

And you shouldn't really believe everything you read about Ahmadinejad. He's not even in charge of Iran's nuclear issue, so its a moot point whether he's blamed for the economy. Iranians support their nuclear program. Its the one thing they all agree upon. So would you if you were in their place, or if you knew much about Iranian history and resentment at foreign powers who tried to strip Iran of her rights, sovereignty and resources. Read about it in The Strangling of Persia by Morgan Shuster.

Larry's not really paying attention to what is going on in Iran. The sanctions are working. Iran's economy is in crisis, and they desperately need foreign investment -- which nobody is going to cough up with the threat of more sanctions looming.
*******************************************

Thank you! Everyone also seems to conventiently forget that Iran has its own ethnic/religious minority problems. Persians are only 60% of the country's population and there is simmering violence and unrest in the Kurdish (7%) and Azeri (25%) populations that rarely gets reported in Western news media. The bombing near the Afghan border that LJ thinks the Iranians will attribute to us is one example.

Howard,

I was rather surprised to see your three rating on hass' post. I don't believe I’ve seen you short on words to describe an objection to a post before, especially one on the technical, wonkdom side of things. It is as if you lack any logical reason to dispute or object to hass' input.

I'm curious why only an "average" rating.

Justice Stewart’s, "I know pornography when I see it", quote comes to mind. Is there something wrong here and you just can't put your finger on it (no pun intended, well...)?

_______________________________________

“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Ein Volk!

Ein Reich!

Ein Decider!

A thought or two, although I largely agree with your post.

First, that Kirkut is even considered as a possibility to be under Kurdish control is a potential flash point in Iraq. Events in Kirkut during elections cause concerns about their fairness too. then there were the assaults upon both Fallujah and Tel Afar, which occurred in near enough proximity to future elections that they disenfranchised large majorities of the cities' populations in different elections. It's difficult to get to the polls, even when you're in the lucky bunch living in distant refugee camps. All of these factors served to increase the Kurdish clout in the Iraq government at a much higher rate than simple population statistics would indicate. This was largely achieved off of the backs of other non-Arab Iraq minorities, who are not treated as full citizens within Northern Iraq.

Second, I think you sell Turkish intents and motivations short. In regards to Kurdistan, a very strong justification for intervention by Turkey could be made under the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense; one much stronger than Israel's recent incursion into Lebanon, yet the Bush Administration has neither done anything to curtail the PKK, nor approved Turkish operations in defense against international terrorism directed against Turkey, and originating within Northern Iraq.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s statement clearly announced to the world that the coordinator mechanism between Turkey, the US and Iraq against the PKK terrorist organization in Northern Iraq did not help out. He did not only criticize this but also he asked the US: “Is this a kind of delay tactic?” Mr. Erdogan says that the PKK terrorists captured by the Turkish security forces have weapons of US origin and also states that “There is no positive progress in fighting against terror. From now on we wait for a concrete result; we cannot just sit and wait anymore”.

It is obvious that from now on the Turkish PM has no more tolerance; he is in his limits. There are about 5.000 armed PKK militants in Northern Iraq and they can freely attack to Turkish targets from Iraqi territories. Obviously, the US, Iraqi Government and the Kurdish local authorities are the responsible bodies for this result.

Sedat Laciner, "United States and the PKK: Why did coordinator not help out?", Journal of Turkish Weekly, 09 January 2007

Michael Rubin, AEI 'Resident Scholar', and former member of both the OSP and CPA spit in Turkey's face last July, and no American news media noticed.

• "Former Pentagon employee Rubin: Barzani selling arms to PKK", Hurriyet, July 21, 2006

Rubin had by this time cut-n-runaway from his government employ, and responsibility for War Upon Iraq. His AEI bio states that he was a visiting lecturer at three Kurdish Universities in 2000, 2001. What the hell was he doing chatting up Government policy with foreign press, and telling them the the American pro Israeli lobby was opposed to Turkey?

Turks tend to be extremely nationalistic, but they are not about to 'flip out', because a rational person would recognise that this would be counter-productive for the interests of Turkey, and there are many rational Turks. Turkey has within its society strong influences that temper a predilection to rash actions, they are passionate, but they are not for the most part, rash. The primary tempering influence is their business class, which has worked independently of the state, and has invested heavily in Northern Iraq. There is also a National identity as former empire, which does not presently dream of empire. A third influence is their geographical position as a multiplicity of geopolitical gateways, which provides them with a unique perspective. A fourth influence is their military, which as a NATO member has trained with many western forces, although there is a rising nationalism within their military that is of concern.

You should reconsider your statement regarding Turkey's human rights record and systematic oppression Kurds, in light of a few facts; 1) their parliament has a significant number of elected officials of Kurdish ethnicity, 2) Turkey has not been implicated in any way with Bush's renditions, 3) Turkey has eliminated the death penalty, and 4) it is doubtful that a majority of Turkey's Kurdish minority is in favor of Southern Turkey's annexation by an independent Kurdistan. They have suffered greatly at the hands of the PKK.

Turkey's biggest hurdles to EU membership are an agreement being reached about their past deeds in Armenia, and Cyprus. I am not well versed enough in Armenian/Turkish history to state with authority regarding it, but based upon some well rationed dissents from Turkish sources, it seems that there is a probable middle ground of truth which neither Armenians or Turks are willing to venture out onto. There is at least a good case for their argument that France's possible legislative demand that Turkey officially recognise their Armenian genocidal past almost one hundred years ago is a politicised ploy to block Turkey's EU membership, and very hypocritical, since France refuses to recognise their own genocidal acts in Algeria 60 years past.

Although it was portrayed as possible government machinations, no one in Turkey celebrated the murder of Hrant Dink.

Turkey has also worked hard at cleaning up its justice system in the last two decades. The Midnight Express was a long time ago.

As to the EU admission being a priority in Turkey. that is not so clear amongst the total population anymore, and is a thought that tends to be predominate within its business class. A recent survey by taken by the Ankara based International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO) found that 50% favored, 45% opposed, and 5% had no opinion.

• November, 2006 Poll - Turkish Perception of the EU and Turkey's potential EU Membership

Finally, when I first started looking for English publications of Turkish origin a couple of years ago, my perceptions of Turkey were much different, much more negative, and this opinion has been changed, because of my reading, so here are a few links to articles from the Journal of Turkish Weekly, the online publication of the ISRO:

• Baris Sanli, "Turks and Americans: America-phobia on the Rise in Turkish Capital", Journal of Turkish Weekly, 25 December 2004
• Sedat Laciner, "The World is Being Governed without Muslims", Journal of Turkish Weekly, 17 July 2006
• View by Dr. Sedat Laciner, "Turkey Should Join the European Union?", 12 October 2006
• Baris Sanli, "Who killed the Turkish editor Hrant Dink?", Journal of Turkish Weekly, 20 January 2007
• Ihsan Bal, "Assassination of Hrant Dink", Journal of Turkish Weekly, 21 January 2007
• Sedat Laciner, "Turk and Armenian: Hrant Dink and Talat Pasha Murders", Journal of Turkish Weekly, 22 January 2007

While I'm concerned about GWB attacking Iran, this, in itself, doesn't suggest that much. Wikipedia suggests this is a long-planned rotation:

On November 17, 2006, the Army announced that the Third Infantry Division is scheduled to return to Iraq in 2007 and thus become the first Army division to serve three tours in Iraq.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Kind of makes you go "Hmm?"

Regarding the date formats, I honestly don't know what is used. As an aside, I've always been annoyed by the US approach to designating things such as M1 being variously a tank, a rifle, etc. The fUSSR had a very neat convention of slightly varying calibers, so if you ordered 120mm, you'd get mortar shells, not 122mm rockets.

I agree that computer-controlled machining is a well-funded hobbyist capability, admittedly one who can cope with the culture, or lack thereof, at Fry's. Nevertheless, the true self-forging projectile is going to need quite a deep understanding of fluid dynamics, explosive wave propagation, and other things often evaluated using high-speed X-ray cameras, which are decidedly not basement items.

Self-forging, indeed, gets into the kind of computation involved in evaluating the explosive compression systems of nuclear weapons -- still a black art and one of the hardest problems in miniaturizing them.

I don't underestimate Iranian engineers; they have some very talented people. Nevertheless, there's an even more basic problem: munitions of the Skeet type are very advanced anti-armor weapons, usually for top attack. Is anyone launching significant attacks on US armored vehicles in Iraq? AFAIK, all explosively forged projectiles are in artillery, missiles, or aircraft bombs.

I can easily believe second generation, as something like a Claymore against people, or a platter charge against trucks, makes perfectly good tactical sense. This sort of device can plausibly be part of a roadside IED. I'm just not sure how you could use a third-generation technique in that sort of IED.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Try reading "Bush on the Couch" or access excerpt on the Internet

I have used ISO8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) in personal files a very long time for one main reason; it is a naturally sortable formatting that provides usable results (year.month.day) without any need to write extra functions. To me this is the most rational of date formats to use, always. The Euro day-month-year format is ass backwards, but not the sequentially convoluted month-day-year that is common in the US. BTW, I consider the US format easier to get sorted, because it only requires a function which takes the third data(year), and moves it to the first position, whereas the Euro format requires a two-step change.

I know how to make them, and, as detailed in an earlier post, you are describing second-generation EFPs, one informal name being the platter charge. What you describe is not a self-forging projectile, generally used for top attack on tanks and soft vehicles.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

If you can't argue the facts don't blame me.