Rat Lines Into Iraq
 

A pretty good article discussing the the issue of Iranian complicity in the Iraqi insurgency:

"The Long War Journal has spoken to several mid-level and senior US military and intelligence officers, all of whom have declined to go on the record due to the sensitive nature of the Iranian issue. Based on these conversations as well as other information, The Long War Journal has learned the nature of the Qods Force operations in Iraq and how they move resources into the country."

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...azan_corps.php

Thats a great article - thanks for sharing.

Who is the source? So it is a propaganda machine for the poltiical agenda that sees enemies hiding everywhere.

That article includes some 'glossed over' facts. Of course. And the Iranian government has repeatedly offered to coordinate their efforts with the US against these smugglers. The US has refused for political reasons. Something about not talking to our enemies - which even Reagan said is bogus.

Qods Force is no different than American suppliers to the IRA. That also proves Americans wanted to kill British soldiers? But if we admit this publication has the same political agenda as Urbane Guerrilla, then it must be credible? The majority of officers suggest the problem is not the Iranian government. The problem is Iraqi insurgents who have smuggling supply lines into Iran, Turkey, and elsewhere. The article forgets how many other countries are also sources for insurgent weapons - including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the US. How many thousands of US weapons were distributed to 'unknowns' from even bases next door to US military facilities?

George Jr warned that Iran is building nuclear weapons to start WWIII knowing full well that the nuclear program was terminated in 2003. This article is for those who believe George Jr's mythical 'global war of terror' and also believed Saddam had WMDs. Review its quoted purpose is. There is no 'global terrorism network' except where the bogeyman also hides under everyone's bed. Weapons smugglers exist. So what? Americans also did that to British troops in Northern Ireland.

Ted, you must have missed the quotes by the commanders. Nothing has been glossed over. It is all there with reference. But of course you want us to believe your drivel vs that of people who are actually there on the ground with years of prior service, something you do not have.

But three US commanders directly in the fight against the Special Groups in three of the most active theaters for the Ramazan Corps -- Baghdad, central provinces, and along the Iranian border -- disagree.

1)Colonel Don Farris, the commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division based in the heart of Sadr City in Baghdad, stated the Special Groups still pose a major threat. "While the violence is down, I remain very concerned in our sector about these special groups," Farris said. "They're very lethal, they're organized, they're sophisticated and I have not seen that their operations have declined or diminished in any way, shape or form here in the last several months. We have not seen any slowing down or any indicators that these special groups are going to curtail their activities or quit receiving this support that's coming from outside the country."

2)Major General Rick Lynch, the Commander of Multinational Division Central, whose area of operations includes Wasit, Karbala, Babil, and southern Baghdad provinces, is not certain Iran has reduced the flow of aid to the Shia terror groups. "I don't know what this Iranian pledge is, but the number of munitions has increased," Lynch said on November 11.

3)Colonel Mark Mueller, the commander of the border transition team in Wasit province, stated on November 20 that weapons are still moving across the border. "We do know that explosively formed penetrators are getting across the border, we do know that ... rockets are coming across the border, so of course it's a concern," Mueller said.

George Jr.... George Jr.... George Jr..... Ted, it has very little to do with him at this point.

Missing are the other source of weapons including provided by US military. Supplied because, well, deja vue Nam where the US was also a major supplier to the VC.

Smugglers exist in every war from multiple directions including what are suppose to be American allies - Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Oh. Your article forgot to mention those sources? Wonder why? Oh. The purpose of that publication is to promote some mythical world wide war on terror. How convenient that it forgets to include some other facts.

Your article has only one purpose - to promote war with Iran to those who are not 'officer material'. That same mindset created "Mission Accomplished", advocated torture for the greater glory of a political agenda, international kidnapping of innocent people all over the world, attempted to make war on North Korea, and could not even go after bin Laden. Even a war supposed to cost $2billion is now costing far beyond even my more accurate estimates of $400 billion. But then these are only facts that don't excite 'big dic' mindsets who love your article.

Does this sound angry. If so, facts strike a little too close to home. There is no anger. Just facts that expose the political agenda of wacko extremists. Remember, "Mission Accomplished" only exists because wacko extremists lied - repeatedly.

Meanwhile, a smarter perspective is posted following this one. It will be too long for Urbane Guerrilla to comprehend. But then it is not intended for wacko extremists. It is intended for others who will appreciate the contrast between your war monging article verse one that views a larger and relevant perspective.

Instead moderates read boring essays from Richard Armitage, George Jr's former Under Secretary of State, published Sunday, 9 Dec 2007 in the Washington Post Page B03: How boring. No blood. No guts. No problems solved by big guns or 'big dic' diplomacy. No evil enemy to blame. It's more exciting to ignore intelligent solutions from the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group. Instead others believe propaganda in a article intended to promote war with Iran. Funny how the former general, instead, views a world using an officer's perspective. Solutions not based in big guns and violence. But then being a moderate requires, instead, using the head located on one's shoulders.

Soft power is what Thomas Barnett also discussed. Urbane Guerrilla never understood it even in the few chapters he actually read. Amazing how UG found an idol in Barnett's book and yet never understood the content. But again, it requires officer's material. Barnett was also boring as is the above logic (without 'big dic' excitement of war and death) from Richard Armitage.

Smart power? Like mimes mocking a White Power demonstration. There are no smarts in 'big dic' thinking promote by that article. A "Long War Journal" article of selected facts intended only to promote war with Iran. An article that fails to see the real threat as defined by Armitage and Nye.

No the purpose of the article is to provide a report about the infiltration of Iranian arms, equipment, and training into Iraq that is directly responsible for the death of US and other countries soldiers. Information provided by people who are there who have no agenda other than to give us facts from people who know what is going on. Beats the spattering of the lunitic fringe from here who know nothing more than what they want to believe from antiwar.com. Your wacko extremist views cannot trump the facts on the ground. No one I know is egar to get into another shooting war, esp with Iran.

People in-country discuss all facts. They report the US military was also arming insurgents. Due to too few troops, massive munition dumps are left unguarded and unexploded. Other supply sources are from Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. Oh. Not found in that article? Why are so many facts forgotten? Only Iran is complicit? It is called wacko extremist propaganda. The publication exists to promote more war on some "international world wide terrorism conspiracy" - the bogeyman. Who promotes terror all over the world? Iran? Wacko extremisms also called myths.

Iranians were even working with the Iraqi government on cooperation. Iranians offered to coordinate anti-smuggling activities with the US. Why are these facts 'accidentally' forgotten in an article intended to promote 'war on international world-wide evil empire terror promoters'? Why does Iran end up on that 'enemies list' at the same time that George Jr is also promoting fear of WW III? Where is this mythical world wide international conspiracy? It does not exist. The real enemy is clearly defined by logic in that Armitage piece. But it requires one to be officer material - to see the bigger picture.

George Jr is making same mythical claims with WWIII myths added for extra measure. George lied while knowing 6 months previously that Iran had no nuclear bomb program. If George Jr continues his propaganda, well, the same lies worked to create "Mission Accomplished". Why stop now? Plenty of Urbane Guerrillas are out there. A liar will say anything to hype up the naïve. As Armitage notes, That "Long War Journal" article is written for those who understand a gun is dangerous only "because it make a big noise". There are consequences to such stupidity - as Armitage notes. But it requires a grasp found only in officer material.

America refuses to talk to Iran even when Iran offers to coordinate anti-smuggling activities. So Reagan is correct? America is doing as necessary to create war.

The Iraq Study Group long ago defined a solution to this problem. But logical solutions get lost when the political agenda promotes only 'big dic' thinking. Important points made by Armitage are completely missing in that "Long War Journal" article for good reason. That article is a simplistic propaganda tool - chock full of half-truths - to promote the Iran war that Pres Cheney wants.

It was called "Wag the Dog". President's popularity was too low. So they created a mythical war and mythical enemies to boost his ratings. Fool me twice ... and still some people don't get it. Deja vue - as long as someone does not rewrite history.

His name is Urbane Guerrilla.
Another is the son of George H W Bush.
Third is Cheney.
You do know these people?

I don't care what those people think. I don't care what you think either, but I think you know that.

Al Qaeda seen planning attack on U.S.

I have a question: why didn't you expect Iran get involved in the Iraq war? Supplying insurgents serve to prevent the US and the coalition from engaging a few forays into Iran a la Cambodia during the Vietnam war. Fights in one nation nowadays tend to affect other nations immediately surrounding it.

I don't know if you are asking me, but if you were, I certainly never said that I didn't expect Iran to get involved. If I had my way we would have done a better job of closing up the border and rat lines and hammer those who were caught inside Iraq before they moved more than 25 meters.

Then why concentrate on closing the border with Iran instead of the 800 mile border with Saudi Arabia, the home of 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11, the spiritual origin of al-Qaeda, where most of the support for al-Qaeda comes from? You know that Iraqis have enmity towards Arabs. Are Iranians Arabs?

I don't have those answers. Strategic decisions are way above my pay grade. I would guess that more people are coming across the Syria/Saudi border, more arms across the Iranian border.

No, Iraians are NOT Arabs. Study your history.

Er, Merc, you kind of proved my point.

Don't worry, he'll figure it out eventually.

The US has a problem in defining 'government involvement'. It can be difficult to prove when governments are involved.

Cases in point.

The US did not support IRA terrorists. Terrorists did receive funding from private US citizens. If any of those citizens were wealthy or influential enough, they may have had ties to the government.

The US has supplied weapons and financial aid to insurgent groups, notably in Afghanistan in the 1980's

Of course, if we apply the reasoning behind our branding the Iranian Guard 'terrorists' to our actions in Afghanistan, where does that leave us with the CIA in Afghanistan?

And let's not forget our covert support to the Contras. The point is that every accusation we throw at Iran can be tied to our past actions. If we've cleaned up our act, then fine, but if we do anything like it again in the future, our criticism will bite us in the ass.

We've lost a lot of the moral high ground in the past few years, and we are entering a very competitive future in international politics and finance. Cold War thinking can draw us into the same traps that bankrupted the Soviets and are bleeding us in Afghanistan and Iraq. If there is no turnaround, we may find ourselves like the Soviets, a very large second-world country. At least the Soviets have large oil reserves left.

In the 80's the Soviets were sucked into the 'Afghan trap', which gave them 9 years of war and a huge loss of money and prestige.

We're fighting a two-front war that may end up costing trillions of dollars, with no defined purpose or even a concrete definition of 'victory'. We are committing resources at a time of internal financial upheaval and depending on countries that at best are our rivals to prop up our economy.

My biggest worry is that in 10 years our only strategic leverage will be our nuclear arsenal. At that point UG and Merc may get to live out their Dr. Strangelove fantasies.

It could be more problematic when it is proven that elements in Saudi Arabia, especially those having enmity towards the House of Saud, are proven to support al-Qaeda.

I would not be entirely surprised by that.

It would be your fantasy that something like that would actually happen. I would not support it. But maybe if they dropped one on your family or someone close to you, you might look at things a little differently.

I never said that we have not done similar things in supporting insurgencies. All I said was that you need to choose a side to support. I see you may have already done so.

In a world of black vs white; left vs right; good vs evil; 'conservative vs liberal'; ‘them vs us’ - everything is simplified into sides. That works where extremists forget reality while disparaging the intelligencia and bourgeois. If the world exists in ‘black and white’, then what really exists are only ‘moderates vs extremists’. A real world is chock full of perspectives. richlevy asks about those perspectives. One who cannot appreciate the scope in his questions would only be thinking in ‘them vs us’.

An earlier post asked a damning question. Answer is rather telling: More ‘black vs white' thinking. Ask important strategic questions. Did you ask, “What are Iranians thinking?” Answer to those question and the explanation for Iranian actions is based in Iranian security. A country surrounded for generations by potential enemies on every border. Iranians, for example, loved that America was attacking the Taliban - to eliminate a threat. Iranians even offered military, reconstruction, military information, and supply assistance to all Taliban opposition. That offer included the US. However, an American government of extremists (black vs white thinkers) could only see every offer as an enemy seeking advantage.

Having ignored Iran's perspective; having seen everything in 'black vs white', then one would also see Iran conspiring in Iraq. Also as foolish is an idea that Americans could have closed the border. Close the border using military action? Completely mythical. Just another example of 'good vs evil' simplistic thinking. Those who learn of a world chock full of perspectives knew that border could not be closed militarily. The Iraq Study Group answered that question – had no problem identifying and answering strategically. An answer ignored by George Jr wacko extremists who only saw everything in terms of ‘good vs evil’. So why are you replying? richlevy and deadbeater are discussing strategic concepts. Deadbeater's question requires one to grasp a world of perspectives such as "but what do they see?", "what are they being told?", "what are their objectives and interests?", “what are their needs?”, and “what are their fears?”.

“Need to choose a side” ignores what those sides really are: wacko extremists or informed moderates. “Mission Accomplished” is a trophy of wacko extremism – in a world where everyone is expected to choose sides. “If you don’t agree with me, then you must be a commie sympathizer” was also called blacklisting in a world explained only in “spy v. spy”.

What did you say? I must have missed something.

Yeah. It is called reality which cannot be comprehended in a 'black vs white' or 'conservative vs liberal' world of extremism. Deadbeater and richlevy did not post using sound bytes. Soundbytes cannot explain the real world. ... which is wacko extremist rhetoric. Extremists see enemies hiding everywhere. More 'them vs us' rhetoric to rally extremists. Moderates instead chose ... 'to learn the many perspectives'.

TheMercenary only saw what he could grasp. It required thinking strategically. No insult. Just another statement about those who need to see everything in terms of 'spy v spy' and 'good vs evil'. Who need to be told by Rush Limbaugh, et al what to think. 'Good vs evil' does not exist when a human is not an extremist; when the human grasps the real world. All apparently to too complex from The Mercenary only hears 'bla bla bla' and then insists everyone must choose sides.

Fortunately, no wacko extremist candidate exists for president. No wonder Rush Limbaugh orders extremists to hate McCain. Frustration apparent in TheMercenary's latest posts where he confesses he cannot think strategically; its above his pay grade. No insult. What TheMercenary posted is how he thinks. Everything is either 'good or evil'; we must all choose sides. Next we must blame the aborigines for their plight. More 'them vs us' rhetoric.

Us moderates are getting squeezed from both sides. I believe it is now time for strong, radical moderation.

No, because then I would be dead.
I also think the "you're with us or against us" argument has been pretty much completely discredited. Feel free to choose up sides as much as you want, we still don't have to play your game.

No problem. I don't consider it a game.