Article

2006-12-27 Iraq

NYT: U.S. Says Captured Iranians Can Be Linked to Attacks

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2006-12-27 04:05|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The American military said Tuesday that it had credible evidence linking Iranians and their Iraqi associates, detained here in raids last week, to criminal activities, including attacks against American forces.

I really hope this isn't news. I would like to think there is a sting , in the works, but I am losing faith

Posted by Dunno 2006-12-27 04:30|| 2006-12-27 04:30|| Front Page Top

#2 WORLDNEWS.com/Other> Iran claims USA is illegally detaining its DIPLOMATS, files formal complaint.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-12-27 04:35|| 2006-12-27 04:35|| Front Page Top

#3 Iran claims USA is illegally detaining its DIPLOMATS

they would sure know how to do that. As someone else noted the other day, this shit is something you can't walk back from, once it's out in the media, and we're obviously making sure it is. Iranian ops will be increasingly causus belli, no matter what President Biden thinks. The American people are being prepped, as they should've been years ago. War with Iran is coming, either directly from us or open support for a self-defense run by the Israelis

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-12-27 05:50|| 2006-12-27 05:50|| Front Page Top

#4 Iran and the US have no diplomatic relationship. This means Iranians can have no diplomatic immunity from American forces. In addition, it is clear that Iranians do not consider American diplomats to have diplomatic immunity, based on the 1979 embassy hostage incident. By the principle of reciprocity, Iranian diplomats should not enjoy diplomatic immunity from American forces.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-12-27 06:22|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-12-27 06:22|| Front Page Top

#5 One would think the US has quite a collection of Iranians since the thousands of Iranian agents, spies and saboteurs crossed the border with Iraqi refugees since April 2003.

Posted by ed 2006-12-27 07:22|| 2006-12-27 07:22|| Front Page Top

#6 Certainly it sheds a light on how ridiculous it would be to follow the Iraq Study Group/Baker strategy of getting Iran to "help" us.

Posted by Jules 2006-12-27 07:40|| 2006-12-27 07:40|| Front Page Top

#7 Ahem, let us not forget the other player with an even larger role, one however in which the government can engage in plausible denial:

According to a reliable source, the estimated number of dead Saudi terrs ~~fighters~~ is 2,000. And that's the low ball figure.

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-12-27 09:39|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp] 2006-12-27 09:39|| Front Page Top

#8 But that's ok, LOD, because those were the excess idiot sons their fathers are happy not to have to find wives for. I submit as proof that the Saudi government has expressed no interest in knowing what happened to the 2000++ mislaid souls (or their bodies).

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-27 10:00|| 2006-12-27 10:00|| Front Page Top

#9 An official in the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad said its diplomats had tried to see the detainees but were not allowed to, a refusal that violated international rules, the official said.

BS. They're unlawful combatants; either saboteurs or mercenaries; they've also taken a role in attacks on civilian targets, removing them even farther from GC protections.

They should be milked for any information they have, then shot.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-12-27 10:00|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-12-27 10:00|| Front Page Top

#10 The American military said Tuesday that it had credible evidence linking Iranians and their Iraqi associates, detained here in raids last week, to criminal activities, including attacks against American forces

A clear act of war. It took our country 12 years to respond to Iraqi provocations. This time the Iranians have actually killed American forces.

This requires a response.

Posted by badanov 2006-12-27 10:38|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2006-12-27 10:38|| Front Page Top

#11 "#8 But that's ok, LOD, because those were the excess idiot sons their fathers are happy not to have to find wives for. I submit as proof that the Saudi government has expressed no interest in knowing what happened to the 2000++ mislaid souls (or their bodies)." Trailing Wife

I agree with your sentiments. The Kingdom may not care, but the Wahabbis do, constantly taking out obits in the Soddy papers for these martrys of Islam.

Source for Soddy body count:
Al-Jubeir May Replace Turki: What Meaning for Americans?

"According to the Saudi newspaper al-Watan, 2,000 Saudi subjects have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the anti-Saddam intervention in 2003. This is an extraordinary news item, for the following reasons:

· The number of Saudis killed in the Iraq war is two thirds the number of Americans killed there, which now hovers around 3,000. Saudi personnel are clearly the backbone of the Sunni terror force on the ground in Iraq.

· The Saudi newspaper claimed that 40 percent of the dead were suicide terrorists or jihad combatants, and admitted that all were slain in sectarian conflicts.

· With at least 2,000 Saudis dead in Iraq since 2003 (a number that may be understated), the total of Saudi jihadists in Iraq must be much larger. If only 6,000 Saudis have gone north of the border in four years of war, they would certainly constitute, once trained in terror methods, a fearsome armed body for the disruption of Iraq. Many would be veterans of previous such activities."

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-12-27 11:37|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp] 2006-12-27 11:37|| Front Page Top

#12 *martyrs*

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-12-27 11:38|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp] 2006-12-27 11:38|| Front Page Top

#13 LOD, as I recall when I'd look over the foreign fighters page on the daily briefing, the leading nationalities of captured FFs (I may have them slightly out of order) were Egypt, Sudan, Saudi, Syria, Palestine. There were always an amusing number of one-sies and two-sies from the US, France, etc. as well.

This was for captured. As you know we don't actually kill anyone in combat, so we never announce enemy KIA (you wouldn't believe the discussions I had on this topic with uniforms and civilian DOD around the palace - one of Caldwell's predecessors actually agreed that the gag on enemy KIA was silly, but the elaborate and illogical rationalization that has grown up around the body-count paranoia is something to behold). So actually, while enemy KIA WERE given in the internal briefs, there was no break-out by nationality.

And the heart of the problem is not Saudis, nor Egyptians, nor Iranian or Syrian meddling. The heart of the problem is Sunni Iraqis, and obviously some Shi'a (though in an alternative history in which we actually crushed the Sunni resistance straight-away, I can't imagine the scenario that has the biggest and more violent Shi'a groups developing the public acceptance they have now as defenders against an unrelenting terror war that MNF-I failed to stop).

Like BASF's ads say, foreigners don't create Iraq's conflict, they make it bloodier. Yes, foreigners still constitute 99-100% of the suicide attackers - yet almost none of their operations could ever be launched without active/passive Sunni support and protection (whether via insurgent group, criminal gang, warlord, or a combo).

MNF-I's focus on AQ in Iraq has always been an extreme case of zooming in on symptom, not cause. Iraq's problems lie inside Iraq. No insurgency or meddling would last a month if Iraqis are persuaded or compelled to stop what they do or permit to be done. But we've famously chosen from the outset not to compel much of anything. Instead we've done the incredibly difficult thing - find the Zarqawis or the likes of an Emir of Mosul and hit them (incredible feats) - instead of the more straight-forward thing of making life unbearable for the Iraqis who would shelter or assist these folks.

But don't mistake the foregoing for a lack of desire to hit the Iranians - the minute the first hard evidence showed up of Iran-linked EFPs and triggering mechanisms (what, two years ago now?), we should have hit the Iranian intelligence service, and very hard. No need for public explanations - work accidents happen all the time with outfits that have bomb-making as one of their core competencies.

Posted by Verlaine 2006-12-27 12:22|| 2006-12-27 12:22|| Front Page Top

#14 Verlaine: What set of political, institutional and bureaucratic restrictions has held us back from what, fairly obviously, needs to be done?

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2006-12-27 12:27|| 2006-12-27 12:27|| Front Page Top

#15 Another great post, Verlaine - Thx!

Sorry for the interruption, please continue!

Posted by .com 2006-12-27 12:29|| 2006-12-27 12:29|| Front Page Top

#16 The heart of the problem is Sunni Iraqis, and obviously some Shi'a (though in an alternative history in which we actually crushed the Sunni resistance straight-away, I can't imagine the scenario that has the biggest and more violent Shi'a groups developing the public acceptance they have now as defenders against an unrelenting terror war that MNF-I failed to stop).

It's that damn voice of reason and experience again.

Posted by Shipman 2006-12-27 12:42|| 2006-12-27 12:42|| Front Page Top

#17 Iran's complaints of any mistreatment of diplomatic personnel ring hollow indeed. Iran still has a long overdue Butcher's Bill, dating back to 1979.

Posted by doc 2006-12-27 12:48|| 2006-12-27 12:48|| Front Page Top

#18 The raids threaten to upset the delicate balance of the three-way relationship among the United States, Iran and Iraq.

What balance? Upset it? Hell, smash it!! There is every reason to not support those parts of the Iraqi government which are effectively agents of Iran.

Posted by KBK 2006-12-27 13:02|| 2006-12-27 13:02|| Front Page Top

#19 Classical Liberal, I really don't know the answer to your question. First of all, let me repeat that "this stuff is harder than it looks". Meaning I offer some specific prescriptions, but do not mean to imply that things will be easy or free or magically successful if done differently.

It's a tangled web, and must be approached from the start, as it evolved. Key things like the early return to sovereignty sharply limited our options. But as with many other choices, the early sovereignty strategy was not irrational, and in the circumstances didn't appear crazy. It was just the wrong judgment call. I recall being uneasy when it happened, but not convinced it wouldn't work.

Once we returned sovereignty, and set about letting Iraqis create a new, elected government, our options inexorably diminished. Things like mass preventive detentions and martial law and severe restrictions in known areas of enemy activity became very difficult to implement - even if we'd wanted to.

My main point was that external forces contribute to the problem, but that they do so mainly through Iraqi actors, the most important of whom have been Sunni. Sadr and his merry band have always been and always would have been trouble, ditto though with different characteristics for some of the older Shi'a militia outfits. But it's hard to see how they wouldn't have been much easier to deal with if the relentless Sunni terror onslaught had been dealt with decisively.

Instead, an attempt was made to split and defeat the insurgency politically, by carving off the non-Ba'athist Sunni political elites. This had some success, but to the looks of it failed to take account of the balance of power - of terror - in the Sunni community. Thus the elected Sunnis could not deliver the goods, in terms of a national reconciliation. While of course it would have been exceedingly tricky to pull off, a better approach might have combined the political pincer of Sunni engagement with a power pincer of harsh military action to make life miserable for non-compliant Sunni elements. But something was clearly needed to give meaning to the first part of the sound formula "no worse enemy, no better friend".

My impression was, and has been reinforced by recent Rumsfeld interviews, that the flawed light-footprint-heavy-political-element strategy was CENTCOM's and MNF-I's baby, endorsed by DOD and the WH. Everyone was on the same dubious page. Direct experience and lots of input from mid-level officers also suggests that risk-aversion and perverse career dynamics, especially in the Army, are exacerbating the damage done by the flawed COIN strategy.

Of course strong action against both internal and external adversaries would have been best. While the primary objective was achieved brilliantly (regime removed), the subsequent failure to stay serious has squandered much if not all of the Big Mo and intimidation factor gained thereby.

Of course refusing to engage the US populace, or to counter systematic media distortion, have helped undermine the domestic political base for aggressive action. That failure actually dwarfs the strategy missteps in Iraq itself - and it's a topic of daily discussion and garment-rending in the palace, or at least it was when I was there.

Then there's our pathetic political class. Though the administration badly dropped the ball on domestic political maintenance, even more disheartening is the absence of any compensating support by others. The part of the political class that supported the war has for the most part abandoned the ramparts in a panic, and if you look back, you'll see they did so almost the instant the public lost its enthusiasm.

The US can and will survive almost any mistakes, thanks to its overall power and success, but a warfare-averse Army and a spineless political class are a fairly alarming combination at this point in our history ......

Posted by Verlaine 2006-12-27 14:28|| 2006-12-27 14:28|| Front Page Top

#20 "...a warfare-averse Army and a spineless political class are a fairly alarming combination at this point in our history ......"

Vietnam ... the legacy!

Posted by doc 2006-12-27 14:40|| 2006-12-27 14:40|| Front Page Top

#21 I'd consider a book ifn I was you Verlaine.

Posted by Shipman 2006-12-27 15:51|| 2006-12-27 15:51|| Front Page Top

#22 Iran claims USA is illegally detaining its DIPLOMATS

The fact that they are emboldened enough to even try this $hit says a lot, and none of it is good.

Posted by gorb 2006-12-27 16:05|| 2006-12-27 16:05|| Front Page Top

#23 the arrests, in the compound of one of Iraqs most powerful Shiite political leaders

And who would that be?

the site was the compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraqs most powerful Shiite political leaders

So, are measures being taken to get this guy out of the loop? If not, why? If this is our hand-groomed new leadership, we really need to rethink our drink.

The Bush administration has rejected pressure to open talks with Iran on Iraq.

Good move. Dont let the neighborhood bully dictate terms.

Iraqs government and its fractured political elite

Ummm doesnt this sort of tell the whole story, right there? These chumps are only interested in power and could give a fig about establishing Iraq as a vital and self-sustaining nation of free people. Until this perfectly labeled political elite is cashed out and replaced with people who have Iraqs best interests in mind, not much is going to change. Their willingness to deal with an enemy like Iran should be proof positive of just how treacherous these bastards are.

My main point was that external forces contribute to the problem, but that they do so mainly through Iraqi actors, the most important of whom have been Sunni. Sadr and his merry band have always been and always would have been trouble, ditto though with different characteristics for some of the older Shi'a militia outfits. But it's hard to see how they wouldn't have been much easier to deal with if the relentless Sunni terror onslaught had been dealt with decisively.

Very interesting reading, Verlaine. It seems our original priority of hoping that the Sunnis would voluntarily embrace political integration resulted in a hands-off mentality that gave them too much latitude for terror ops. Crushing them at the outset certainly could have reduced chances of insurgent activity but would also have alienated them from any possible political alliance. By the time the Sunnis saw the train leaving the station and finally got on board, too much other subversive activity was in place and full-scale civil war was being waged.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-27 16:13|| 2006-12-27 16:13|| Front Page Top

#24 Iran claims USA is illegally detaining its DIPLOMATS

Now that is funny. I forget...what happened in 1979?? Help me!?!

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2006-12-27 17:27|| 2006-12-27 17:27|| Front Page Top

#25 Verlaine: Thank you sir for the remarkable synopsis. I got what I was looking for--and I've not seen it anywhere else. The die was cast with an early return to sovereignty that limited our options for a strong response to Sunni intransigeance. That was further compromised by media distortion, feckless political leadership and a risk averse Head Shed. Foreign meddling and martyrdom seeking jihadi tourists exacerbate but don't drive the central problems.

I've still got a few questions:

-Given the shifting balance of powers, are we likely to see any diminution of Sunni attacks against our soldiers, or do their hard boys still like their chances in direct conflict with the Shia un-mediated by the US? Perhaps the question implies a level of logic and awareness of cause and effect that doesn't really exist...

-Suicide bombing: Is this strictly a Sunni tactic or are the Shia in on it as well? If so, are there indications of Iranians offing themselves for the cause? Iran has potential for a big martyr indoc pipeline and openly boasts of its supply of splodey-dopes. I'm curious as to whether this is merely rhetoric and posturing as it may have a bearing on how Iran responds to open conflict with the US.

-Who are the Iranians supplying these more deadly IEDs to? To what extent are the Shia militia targeting our troops with IEDs?

-Is the seeming pussyfooting around with the Iranians part of a broader strategy that will lead to concerted action at the right time, or is it just pussyfooting around?

Ditto on the book suggestion.

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2006-12-27 17:54|| 2006-12-27 17:54|| Front Page Top

#26 Yikes, CL!!

Excellent questions.

For which I have no answers.

As far as I know - which in this case is not very far:

* not aware that Shi'a (Iraqi or Iranian) are part of any "martyrdom" (suicide) ops; I think that's still strictly a Sunni, and non-Iraqi, specialty - however I do recall that Iran has been publicizing its "baseeji" corps - perhaps someone more informed could expand on that

* I've no idea what tactical or strategic premises - if any - the Sunni hardboyz operate under. Your implications about lack of logic are quite well founded, I'd guess. It seems to vary by location, tribe, ethnic mix, and AQ presence - one reason that my frequent jeremiads against our multi-faceted COIN/reconstruction strategy is really focused on the worst Sunni areas .... in much of the country security is not that bad, and to the extent it is it CAN be improved through economic stimulus, outreach, etc. - just not in Anbar, lots of Diyala, much of B'dad, or the mixed areas just south of B'dad

* don't know who's most lashed up with the Iranians in terms of IED/EFP ops.

* also don't know what's up with our Iran strategy, to the extent there is one. The admin's approach to the principal adversaries (Iran and Syria) has seemed hard to grasp for some time. Earlier on there was some jawboning of Damascus, predictably to little apparent effect. The way you frame it is the way I think of it (i.e., not too wonderful on the surface, but might look better as part of a larger or longer-term approach that remains hidden from view). However, given Dubya's track record of NOT really having a good hidden reason for not doing/doing something in particular, of late, I'm skeptical and pessimistic. Oddly enough, Dubya's two press appearances in one week just before the mid-terms (I was overseas but was aware of that fact), to me, was rather devastating. It confirmed that, in fact, these guys did NOT have a handle on their main business, and were making the sloppiest of last-ditch efforts to help their cause.

BTW, love your synopsis of my synopsis - outstanding!

As for a book - I honestly don't think I've got nearly enough real insights or limited-dist. info to form the basis for more than an essay - but we'll see .....

Posted by Verlaine 2006-12-27 21:30|| 2006-12-27 21:30|| Front Page Top

#27 shit, Verlaine! I just wish you were on Fox to provide reality. Your thoughts are SO welcome, thx
:-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-12-27 21:55|| 2006-12-27 21:55|| Front Page Top

#28 double dittos Verlaine,

given the disaray of the major players within Iraq as well as the bad actors with bad intentions next door, I still like our chances for pulling the mission off eventually, ie. a mostly stable have-way friendly ally called Iraq.

Posted by RD 2006-12-27 22:49|| 2006-12-27 22:49|| Front Page Top

#29 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Bill the Pig Farmer 2006-12-27 16:44|| 2006-12-27 16:44|| Front Page Top

16:50 Bill the Pig Farmer
16:44 Bill the Pig Farmer
16:41 Bill the Pig Farmer
09:00 angela
23:53 trailing wife
23:53 JosephMendiola
23:51 JosephMendiola
23:47 Grunter
23:36 Brett
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:29 Brett
23:26 RD
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:53 Zenster
22:49 RD
22:47 Barbara Skolaut
22:45 Zenster
22:43 FOTSGreg
22:41 .com
22:38 crosspatch
22:23 JosephMendiola