Stopping the New War Before It Starts
By Larry Johnson on August 29, 2007 at 2:22 AM in Current Affairs
by
Larry C Johnson
America and the world are entering an extremely dangerous and volatile period and it will be up to senior U.S. military officials and members of Congress to stop the rush to a new war with Iran. The evidence is alarming and disturbing and today’s speech by President Bush before the American Legion should not be dismissed as mere political posturing. According to AFP:
US President George W. Bush branded the Islamic Republic “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” citing its backing of Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Shiite fighters killing US troops in Iraq.
“And Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust,” he told the American Legion veterans group.
Bush’s claims are disingenuous and dishonest.
The causus belli for the war in Bushworld consists of terrorism, attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Let me address these in order.
Terrorism
It is true that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. However, while Iran has American blood on its hands, Al Qaeda–a Sunni movement–not Iran has killed more Americans in terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, Iran pioneered the use of terrorism as an extension of its foreign policy towards the United States. Iran, at a minimum, had a direct role in two attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon in the 1980s, the kidnapping and murder of CIA Chief William Buckley, the kidnapping and murder of U.S. Marine Colonel Rich Higgins, the execution on board TWA 847 of U.S. Navy Diver Robert Stethem, and the bombing of the U.S. military housing complex in Dharan, Saudi Arabia in June 1996. And it paid what price? Nothing of any consequence. President Ronald Reagan, President George Bush Senior, and President Bill Clinton failed to mount a credible response to these attacks. One could argue that Iran could assume it can attack the United States without fear of retaliation.
But what is Iran doing in Iraq? Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, Iran has used its contacts with prominent Iraqi shia–including the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Abdul Aziz al Hakim–to build intelligence networks, train and arm militia, and collect intelligence. Iran is not the primary driving force for the terrorism that wracks Iraq. Which raises the question of whether Iran is helping direct attacks against U.S. soldiers?
Attacks on U.S. Soldiers
The Bush Administration and the U.S. military commanders in Iraq need to answer one basic question. Who is responsible for most of the violence directed against U.S. forces? The answer is simple–Sunni extremists. It is not Iran. But hey, when you are whipping up war fever why worry about facts.
That said, Iran is responsible in some fashion for the production and use of what is now known as Explosively Formed Penetrators aka EFPs. EFPs are really nothing more than platter charges. Platter charges were employed first by U.S. Army special forces in World War II. They are simple, deadly, and capable of taking out a bridge (follow this link and search the term, “platter charge”). EFPs have been used against U.S. forces in Iraq. They are employed by Shia extremists and Shia militia. They have killed U.S. troops. But these devices are not responsible for most of the U.S. fatalities and wounds. That is a basic fact.
I do not believe for a minute that President Bush is ignorant of this fact. Neither is his National Security Advisor or his Secretary of Defense. They know the truth. But instead of telling the truth to the American people the President and his minions are busy propagandizing the masses in order to justify an attack on Iran.
The Nuclear Question
So, we have a state keen on supporting terrorism, who is attacking U.S. soldiers, and, for the icing on the cake, is busy trying to build a nuclear weapon. Here the Bush Administration tries to play the same card they did in Iraq. We ostensibly have a zero tolerance for rogue states with nukes. Yet somehow we have been able to accept that North Korea, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, and India have nukes without going to war.
Here is the canard. Even if Iran has twenty nuclear weapons they do not have the wherewithal to attack and destroy the United States. Hell, not even China can pull that off and they have a hell of a lot more nukes than Pakistan, India, and South Africa combined. Just getting a nuke decreases your chances of being invaded. However, producing a nuke does not mean you have the means and capability to effectively deliver those devices.
Nonetheless, don’t be surprised that we will be told repeatedly that Israel’s future will hinge on taking out Iran. At least that’s the message that will be blared unrelentingly for the next few months by this Administration and its media lackeys. Remember, only anti-Semites do not want to protect Israel from Iranian nukes. So, if you try to argue the opposite point, that the threat can be contained without resorting to a preemptive strike, just accept the fact that you are an unrelenting jew hater and one step removed from the Gestapo. (If you don’t understand sarcasm go read something else and exit this blog.)
So What if We Launch a Preemptive Strike?
Once again we are being promised a painless, bloodless conquest of an evil doer. In a paper published today in the United Kingdom, Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament offer this claim:
Under the command of Marine General James Cartwright, US Global Strike planning has the potential to destroy over 10,000 targets in Iran in one mission with “smart” conventional weapons. That number assumes only 100 strategic bombers with 100 bombs each. The actual number of planes/bombs and missiles is far larger. US government documents obtained by Hans Kristensen and analysed by William Arkin has described the development of this Global Strike capability.
Awaiting his orders, George Bush has more than 200 strategic bombers (B52-B1-B2-F117A) and US Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles. One B2 bomber dropped 80, 500lb bombs on separate targets in 22 seconds in a test flight. Using half the total force, 10,000 targets could be attacked almost simultaneously. This strike power alone is sufficient to destroy all major Iranian political, military, economic and transport capabilities.
Scary thought indeed. Now let’s try some reality. The U.S. has tried twice in the last 16 years to use airpower to eliminate threats and enemies on the ground in that region–Gulf War 1990 and the Iraq War 2003. In fact, in the lead up to the war in Iraq several, including the late General Wayne Downing, argued that Iraq could be taken over with a shock and awe air campaign and only 50,000 U.S. special forces. Well, we all know how that turned out. And have you forgotten that the highly touted U.S. airpower failed to destroy a single SCUD missile during the 1991 military action?
Pat Lang and I discussed some of the likely consequences that would occur if the U.S. launches a preemptive strike on Iraq in an article in the 2006 issue of the National Interest. We updated our assessment in the March-April 2007 issue. Both are worth your time.
Beyond the points we made in those articles there are some other critical facts to consider:
Iran is not flat like Iraq. Iran has vast mountainous regions and can easily hide production facilities and weapons inside mountains that we cannot easily attack.Iran has more robust air defense systems than Iraq ever had. We are likely to lose some pilots and aircraft in an attack on Iran. We can hope for the best, but if the worse comes to past–the shootdown of several aircraft and the capture of several pilots–the Iranians will have some additional leverage that will constrain President Bush.
U.S. tankers required to refuel aircraft involved in any attack on Iran will force a reduction of military operations inside both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. Army and Marines are incapable of being employed in any significant numbers to support an operation in Iran. Generals are already warning that they cannot (I REPEAT) cannot sustain the current surge in Iraq beyond the Spring of 2008. Who in their right mind would undertake a new military adventure when we cannot handle what we are currently doing? George Bush? But the question of his state of mind is another story.
The withdrawal of British forces from Basra now leaves Shia militia, who have direct ties to Iran, in complete control of the supply routes used to ferry beans, bullets, water, and toilet paper from Kuwait to U.S. troops in Iraq. An attack against Iran will likely see a cutoff of this supply route. That will require a diversion of air assets and ground forces to southern Iraq to reopen the lines of communication.
What Should be Done?
If the President orders U.S. Generals and Admirals, specifically Admiral Fallon at CENTCOM, to attack Iran then senior officers will face a choice. If they follow the order they will share responsibility of leading the United States into a new military disaster that has the potential to bankrupt this country. Officers confronted with this choice must resign and go public immediately with their opposition. We cannot afford anymore belated mea culpas (General Gregory Newbold comes to mind) of military leaders with doubts about an insane policy.
It is also the obligation of members of Congress to refuse to give the President a blank check for a new war. So far the Democratic controlled Congress has refused to lay down the marker requiring Congressional approval before Bush launches on a new preemptive strike. Senator Harry Reid and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi must speak with a clear, united voice on this.
While Iran offers a potential threat that we must take seriously, this does not lead to the conclusion that we have no other option but to attack Iran. Expanding the war in the Middle East at this time would be an act of madness and strategic suicide. Are the American people willing to push their leaders to stand up to Bush and refuse to go down this dark path? I hope so.
So does an attack on Iran along with arming the Sunni ‘tribesmen’ (aka, Sunni Insurgents) indicate that the USA has decided to ‘pick a side’ in the ongoing Sunni-Shiite Iraq Civil War? Namely the US has decided that the Sunni’s need to be put back in charge in Iraq. Seems to make some sense since the near unwavering support of the Sunnis by the US Government - specifically in Saudi Arabia - goes back to WWII. Of course, what doesn’t make any sense in my ‘argument’ is how bombing Iran will somehow help out the Sunni’s in Iraq. Maybe, by bombing Iran, is the US trying to incite the Shiite majority in Iraq to revolt so that the US can then put down the revolt and then install a new ‘friendly’ Sunni government in Iraq?
Thanks for your post Larry. I’ve been following this thing for a while now, as I’m sure you have, and the only thing that gets me by is when guys like you and Ray McGovern and Robert Baer come out with articles like this.
Do you have any contact with Admiral Fallon? Last time I checked, he reportedly said it’s not going to happen on his watch and that a bunch of others “are trying to put the crazies back in the box.”
have you heard anything about Admiral Mullen? what’s his stance on the matter? I understand Pace and the other joint chiefs are unanimously opposed, but couldn’t Cheney still implement his end run strategy that Steve Clemens wrote about?
I read some time back that Iran has superior anti-ship missiles and we have no effective counteremeasures to this technology they bought from Russia. They could sink our battle groups in the area - easy. Think about that for a moment. These aircraft carriers are like cities with many thousands of sailors on board and they could easily sink them. If anyone doubts this, I will find documentary evidence. Iran is no military weakling like Iraq was… and look how far we’ve gotten there.
If they are supplied by the Russians/Chinese, they just might. How good they are and how well they are maintained in this period is a valid question (the Russians are notoriously slack about the latter, look up the northern fleet explosion about 20 years ago). I’ve seen discussions elsewhere that while the Russians (and Chinese) would supply the Iranians for a proxy war vs. the US, neither country would be particularly interested in a stronger Iran. A satellite (or appanage) Iran is more to their liking.
As far as the ASM countermeasures, there will be some already in place [with the caveat that they are untested in live fire on the current missiles, not trivial given the Patriot performance against SCUDs in 1991], and one must remember that it isn’t very likely that the carriers will be in the Gulf proper, but farther offshore. This will give the sailors more time to address the antiship missiles (but not a lot). What I don’t know is whether the Iranians have a submarine capability, in all likelihood a diesel-electric sub group, and those are devilishly hard to find on batteries. The ASW lads had better be in top form.
Another question is whether Iran cuts off the Strait of Hormuz, which I find curiously unaddressed in this piece. From the Iranian view, it is possible that doing so would cut off the nose to spite the face, because of capacity issues to get their oil out in other directions (China, Russia, etc.). However, I could see it as a threat to the West in general because of how much of Europe’s oil goes that way.
This is frightening as hell. We must stop this!
You said”….new military disaster that has the potential to bankrupt this country.” Um, we are already in the midst of one military disaster and we already are bankrupt. We just don’t realize it yet. An attack on Iran will be the straw that breaks the camels back when it comes to our military and economy. Bush will have destroyed what the Soviets couldn’t and what the Chinese would hope to do. Is Bush the Manchurian Candidate?
And by the way, I don’t agree that Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism either. Actually, the United States is. But when we do it it’s not terrorism, right? It’s “freedom fighting” or “defending our national interests.” Nobody actually believes all of the “International Aid” we provide actually goes to raise the standard of living in developing countries, do they? It goes into terrorizing poor societies into submission to allow “our (business) interests” to exploit their natural and human resources for profit. And all this bullshit about “spreading democracy” is just that - bullshit. We only support democracy in other countries when we get to pick the winners for them - at least nowadays.
But that’s a topic for another day I guess.
Larry,
the sad thing is that bush and cheney cannot see past the end of their self-inflated egos. do you think they care about how much damage they cause our nation and military with an unwarranted strike/war on iran? the only way to prevent a war on iran is immediate impeachment, and as a interim stop-gap is for general officers to once again become general officers with backbone and just ’say no’ to bush-cheney’s iran insanity.
Pelosi released a statement today in reply to Bush’s speech. But she doesn’t say anything about his unwarranted threats against Iran. Ditto Senator Reid.
I’m really worried the Democrats will go along with Bush on Iran, just as the media will.
There’s also the question of how Russia and China would respond with their Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Somehow I don’t think they’d be happy campers, since the implicit threat would have been made that they’re next. China could simply cut off our credit line.
And what about Iran’s oil production? Does the U.S. intend to occupy and defend (good luck with that!) them, or simply sit back and let Iran take them offline?
Reminds me of Hitler invading the Soviet Union in 1941, starting another war when he already had a nice one with Great Britain which had bogged down.
The Bushies don’t plan to invade. They’d launch an aerial strike, and use the ships in the Gulf to launch missiles—all aimed at Iran’s military facilities and nuclear sites. Even though we’re not quite sure where those sites and facilities are. I’m guessing the possibility for civilian casualties, therefore, is high.
Oh, and Montag,
The Bushies probably haven’t planned for the aftermath of an Iranian attack either. They probably wishfully think that somehow attacking Iran will force regime change, when the opposite is likely to happen…plus what Pat Lang outlines. Our troops will be sitting ducks and Iraq violence will probably increase. If we think all the killing and millions of Iraq refugees are bad now, just wait.
Yeah, well the Klingons have a saying, “Only a fool fights in a burning house.” Iraq is the burning house and Bush’s plan is to pick a fight with the neighbors!
In an op-ed in spring 2006, Zbigniew Brzezinski called for impeachment proceedings to begin in the event of an air strike on Iran:
“In the absence of an imminent threat (with the Iranians at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without formal Congressional declaration, it would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the President.”
So I agree — the key question of the moment is - what will Congress do? In that 70% of the American people are against the war, and handed Congress to the Democrats in Nov 2006 –and yet, we are still at war — I sometimes wonder what difference it makes, even when we push our leaders - it doesn’t seem to matter.
So it looks like we are going to have to be strategic — push Blue Dog Democrats, push swing state Dems and Repubs –( all those likely to squirm due to their at risk Congressional seats) - if we can convince them to stop the new war before it starts– we might have a chance that a majority of Congress will act to stop it.
Launching a war of aggression against a nation that hasn’t attacked you, has no intention of attacking you and doesn’t even pose a threat against you goes against every principle and law that this nation stands for. Just as in the case of Iraq, an attack against Iran would be a grotesque war crime.
French President Sarkozy is a Bushie. Today he said that a nuclear Iran would be the “world’s most dangerous problem” and he seconded Bush in raising the possibility of bombing Iran.
Bush’s war mongering is the BIG news of the day, so why are so many of the blogs still talking about Senator Craig’s perversions?
I want to scream!!! &*(*@#!!!!
I’m kinda glad that Bush isn’t able to dominate the headlines with his fear-mongering. For once, the more trivial distraction stories are actually getting in the way of the propaganda and he can’t control the message of the day anymore. That may turn out to be a good thing because it’s hard to build support for your evil schemes if no one hears about your “urgent threats to our way of life.”
And about Sarkozy, I wonder if he’s not just trying to rebuild support from the Bushies so he can get his country’s oil industry involved in Iraq once again. That was France’s biggest loss for not supporting the war from the beginning. But now Bush is desperate for any support he can find. Talk about irony that he would find a little from the French. He’s gonna owe them big time.
Larry, great analysis. I warned that they would bring out the new EFP propaganda line, and sure enough, here is the EFP talking points. What apparently no one noticed is that Bush has declared war - read the text of his speech closely.
He declared war on Iran with his Axis of Evil speech. It’s only the people who haven’t been paying attention who are surprised.
Leslie, it is one thing to call a nation “evil.” It is another thing to formally announce that “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”
Perhaps, but it still isn’t a good idea to reward someone’s good behavior by putting them on your S*** List. The Iranians regarded it as a slap in the face, which it was intended to be. If Bush had no intention of following up his hard words with actions then he was a vainglorious fool. If he did intend military action sometime down the line then he was a fool for telegraphing the punch.
The Russians have a saying, whether Winter Fool (concealed) or Summer Fool (obvious), you are stuck with a fool either way.
Winter Fool is not a Russian’s, but Jewish joke (more precisly, a Russian Jewish one)
Larisa,
Just in case you misunderstood, my criticism wasn’t aimed at you.
Not to be nitpicky, but Congress has to declare war. Of course, we know how that turned out in Iraq, where the AUMF is still being trotted out as the “declaration”, which it is not.
On the other hand, as Larry laid out, the Iranians haven’t been choir boys either over the years. One thing he left out is that they still are in possession of our sovereign territory (the embassy) which is still an act of war. And, since we still haven’t returned the five diplomats from Irbil who were there at the invitiation of the Kurds (and added seven more electrical workers a couple of days ago) we also are committing acts of war.
Pelosi and Reid need to do a couple of things:
1. Reassert the limitations of the Constitution and War Powers Act. Bush today is asking for 50 B$ in a supplemental based on the “good progress” that will be reported. This is the lever that should be used, since why ask for a supplemental on a bill that hasn’t been passed yet in either house?
2. Constrain any DOD funding to prevent use against Iran. Vietnam provides the model, and the GOP did this for Somalia as well. If the Iranians actually do something stupid, it needs to be extremely clear that they are the aggressor, WH spin simply will not do it. The French in WW1 pulled back from the frontiers for the sole reason of painting Germany as the aggressor.
Even if Congress did all those things, which is doubtful, it probably still wouldn’t be enough to stop Bush’s war machine, which has been planning this for years and are in positions of power. By the way, the Bushies want regime change in Syria too.
True enough, but in the military we were allowed to refuse illegal orders. The line has to be drawn to permit that action in a clear conscience. That’s where Congress can help in this situation.
You know if Bush thought he’d face stiff opposition from Congress by asking for another $50 billion for war, he probably wouldn’t bother to ask.
apart from the absurd posturing that iran is a direct threat to anyone but israel and the saudi, why would any sane person, representing a sane nation, want to strike some country that didn’t do anything any different than this country did to them.
korea, vietnam, grenada, cuba, iraq, iran. how many other little nations did we corrupt and destroy, prop up a puppet. no successes, many rich providers of war toys.
how many transport vessels does iran have to be able to come over here? More than iraq and the taliban? still waiting for that original attack that the dim bulbs have told us on a thousand occasions was coming?
none of this is rational. you can’t make the connections fit the conclusions. but as we know, they will continue to show us how we are wrong about that.
I can vouch for the fact that Europeans are not scurrying into their bomb shelters due to fear of Iran. In fact, a new Persian carpet shop seems to be cropping up every month.
The more important question is what would it take to rationalize such an action? Who will be judging these actions? Israel? American evangelicals? Halliburton? This would certainly be rational to somebody who stood to make a buck or three from the shakeup.
[...] More from Larisa, Michael, and Larry Johnson. [...]
Mr. Johnson,
In my opinion, there is no stopping the strike on Iran.
Some in the blogosphere have put forth the thought that Rove and Gonzales’ resignations were due to a Democratic congress. I disagree.
The closest anyone got to Rove was in the Libby trial, and even then, they didn’t get close. Why would anyone think that Rove would flinch at a mere subpoena when the White House has been sneering at those?
And Gonzales? He had already fallen on his sword when he couldn’t remember a thing 70+ times in ONE hearing. Why would a subpoena, again, that the White House was sneering at, worry him NOW?
The better answer was that something was going to break that neither wanted to deal with. Rove, Gonzales. Political, Legal. How about… legal reasons to invade/attack Iran (which would be seen as political, ie, Iraq).
I am firmly convinced after the latest Bush speech that we ARE going to hit Iran, one way or another, before Bush leaves office. There is no stopping it short of impeachment (which is off the table, btw).
The better use of time is “how will an attack on Iran screw up the Middle East even more?”
First, the Shi`ite’s in Iran and Iraq will band together and our troops in Iraq are screwed worse than before. Al-Sadr can put 100,000 people in the streets with but a word. Does anyone doubt he doesn’t have the power to call for all-out war against our troops?
Second, the Arab community as a whole will be shaking in their boots, not from our firepower, but the fallout. Syria will know they are next and step up. Jordan will rethink alliances. Lebanon will firmly go under Hezbollah control. Saudi Arabia will be put in the bind of “us or them”. Israel will be left on the island they’ve always been on and react as they normally do; bombing everything and every one. In summary; an Iran attack will screw up the Middle East for generations.
But, that isn’t all.
Russia WILL step in. Russia and China have ALREADY seen the writing on the wall; America is trying to shut them both out of the oil of the Middle East.
The UN MIGHT sit idly by… we blackmailed them once (Iraq invasion), we MIGHT be able to do again… or… we stifle action as we did during Israel’s bombing of Lebanon.
And our troops that are already pushed beyond belief, beyond our reserves? They are totally screwed.
Michael …
whereas i agree with some minor points of your analysis, i think you have prematurely conceded defeat to the bush adminstration. it is not too late to stop this madness!
finally, i have to point out that your claim that gonzo resigned because he didn’t want to defend a potential invasion is very questionable. gonzo would never consider “not defending” bush for any behavior/policy … that is what got him into his dilemma initially. you might want to rethink that part of your analysis.
bama_barrron,
That is the entire point of my analysis; Gonzales defended Bush on EVERYTHING. Illegal wiretapping. Torture. Indefinite detention. Loss of habeas corpus. The list goes on. Yet, Gonzales remained.
For him to leave NOW, there must be something in the pipe that has yet to occur or to come to light that makes those pale by comparison for him to “cut and run” now.
Apparently it’s the OIG investigation. Go on over to Next Hurrah, they have the details.
Bush Bangs The Iran War Drum Loudly…
Just when you thought we had had enough lies and terrifying predictions of the terror in the world from BushCo, think again… The Iran drum is beating loudly…
In a speech to the American Legion veterans group on Tuesday, Bush demanded R…
Smoking Guns & Mushroom Clouds, Take Two…
by matttbastard
Here we go again:
US President George W. Bush branded the Islamic Republic “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” citing its backing of Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Shiite fighters killin…
Lost somewhere in translation, no doubt, is the salient fact that Iran and Al Qaeda HATE each other, and ole Osama would just LOVE it if the U.S. struck Iran because they’re Persians and Shiite apostates. But hey, why do something that would actually make sense?
[...] just stand there, do something is not the current Washington way. Do something stupid [...]
Thank you, Larry. The moral clarity and explicit recommendations of the closing paragraphs (What Should be Done?) describe a citizen’s minimal responsibilities and are especially appreciated. Iran’s challenge will test whether our nation meets this elementary threshhold.
The Bushies arrested 7 Iranian officials in Iraq, two with diplomatic papers, and then released them. But we’re still holding 5 Iranian officials we detained in January this year.
An excuse looking for a war.
Great post Larry,
I am curious however why you suggest that “Iran is responsible in some fashion for the production and use of what is now known as Explosively Formed Penetrators aka EFPs”? If indeed these weapons and the design thereof have been around since WWII, why shod the Iraqi insurgents not be capable of designing and manufacturing them? Reuters reported that a factory was discovered inside Iraq, where EFP’s were being made. And surely th Iranians are not assisting the Sunni insurgents?
Isn’t it more likely that Saudi Arabia could be involved here?
The signature on the EFP’s that have been captured and the analysis conducted in post-blast shows very clearly that they are coming from the same source. I got this from a friend who is one of the world’s foremost explosive experts and has been consulted by the US military on the matter. It is bad stuff, no doubt.
Larry,
Only one problem…
“Soldiers from Company A, 1st Battalion, 325th Air Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, found one cache site which had a completely assembled EFP, a Dragonov rifle with scope and a Kevlar helmet. While investigating the site, a tip from an Iraqi citizen led the Coalition Forces to a second cache site.”
“At the second site, Soldiers discovered nine copper plates with tubes, a key component of the EFP, with rolls of wire, cells phones and other miscellaneous improvised explosive device-making materials.”
If the EFP’s can only come from Iran (which is the claim being made by administration officials), why are the insurgents in Iraq being caught with COMPONENTS to manufacture EFP’s?
Answer: Iran is not the only place to obtain EFP’s, which, can also be put together locally.
Debunking one false premise at a time:
During his speech, Bush said, “Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which could be used to attack American and NATO troops.”
Shiite Iran has long been an enemy of the Pakistani-backed Sunni Taliban. Relations between Iran and Pakistan improved after the Taliban were removed. So why would Iran arm them?
My biggest concern with the prescribed actions for the Military Brass is that if they resign, they vacate a spot of power and provide an opportunity for someone with less brains/ethics to fill it and carry out the order.
I’d rather see a vast majority of the JCS and support staff stand firm and refuse - and then arrest the President and Vice-President.
I know that would amount to a military coup, but I’m not sure anyone else has the guts or the clout to remove this band of criminally insane thugs from power fast enough to avoid complete disaster.
CAPS ON PURPOSE.
LARRY/SUSANUNPC THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. LARRY, EITHER YOU MEANT TO REFER TO AMERICAN LEGION SPEECH, NOT THE VFW SPEECH, OR, IT SHOULD REFER TO LAST WEEK’S SPEECH, NOT YESTERDAY.
larry wrote:
America and the world are entering an extremely dangerous and volatile period and it will be up to senior U.S. military officials and members of Congress to stop the rush to a new war with Iran. The evidence is alarming and disturbing and today’s speech by President Bush before the Veteran’s of Foreign War should not be dismissed as mere political posturing. According to AFP:
I BELIEVE YOU MEANT TO SAY THE AMERICAN LEGION.
the amer. legion was yesterday, 8/28, tues. in reno. the vfw speech was a week earlier in kansas city.
if you’re referring to the vfw speech, your text should read, The evidence is alarming and disturbing and last week’s speech by President Bush before the Veteran’s of Foreign War
~~~~
haven’t read the whole text of the post, or the comments…wanted to call that to y’all’s attention.
Thanks. Fixed.
Al-Sadr suspends militia activity in Iraq
By DAVID RISING, Associated Press Writer 20 minutes
ago
BAGHDAD - Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered a
six-month suspension of activities by his Mahdi Army
militia in order to reorganize the force, and it will
no longer attack U.S. and coalition troops, aides said
Wednesday.
The aide, Sheik Hazim al-Araji, said on Iraqi state
television that the goal was to “rehabilitate” the
organization, which has reportedly broken into
factions, some of which the U.S. maintains are trained
and supplied by Iran.
“We declare the freezing of the Mahdi Army without
exception in order to rehabilitate it in a way that
will safeguard its ideological image within a maximum
period of six months starting from the day this
statement is issued,” al-Araji said, reading from a
statement by al-Sadr.
In Najaf, al-Sadr’s spokesman said the order also
means the Mahdi Army will no longer launch attacks
against U.S. and other coalition forces.
“It also includes suspending the taking up of arms
against occupiers as well as others,” Ahmed
al-Shaibani told reporters.
Asked if Mahdi militiamen would defend themselves
against provocations, he replied: “We will deal with
it when it happens.”
************************************************************************
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for
further information.
It’s all about obfuscation and blurring of terminology.
“Just to feed the paranoia about the possibility of a war with Iran…
An Air Force veteran and friend told me to be alert to the movement of the AF logistic group I mentioned on the previous thread. If they go to Diego Garcia, then they’re on their way to Kuwait and it’s gonna happen, he said.
Ten days ago the group (out of Nevada) flew to Diego Garcia and I haven’t heard anything sense. In regards to the anti-aircraft bunch heading to D.C., my understanding is that they are rotating in to replace another National Guard unit that’s been deployed there for the past 18 months.
But remember, it’s not really paranoia when the bad guys are actually doing this crap.”
–Glenn
As usual Larry is a week to half week ahead of the learning curve, provided this gets reported at all.
The Mississippi Rive ‘New Bridge’ in Memphis TN had a support column sink 6 inches after adding concrete to its road surface.
Fourteen people in town died of heat exposure as well.
Those are terrorist events, ones the government of Fred Thompson’s state let be imposed. TVA can afford cheaper power there but caps it at artificially high totals. Infrastructure continues to crumble while Sen. Corker spends money elsewhere(his town was the linkup for the RNC emails that were “lost” under subpoena).
Larry,
Thank you for saying what the generals need to do.
I woke up this morning and my first thought of the day was that the generals needed to drag Bush, Cheney and the rest out by rope before they can do any more damage!!!
Reverse the 2000 coup any way they can and NOW!!
Cee, i could not agree with your more! And if our military is unable to take this step and the legislative branch fails, i suggest one million americans descend upon washington and arrest bush and his supporters to stop this insanity. enough is enough …
Yes, bama and Cee… throw all the bums out… There is a big event planned to protest war and other crimes coming up in DC in September, can’t remember the date, but a million person march on 1600 Penn Ave, would be a great addition. I bet the guards wouldn’t be able to hold all the people at bay. We must stop them if Congress won’t.
Hi, Larry:
I am as horrified at the idea of another war as you clearly are — but I have a matter of detail I would like you to clear up if you’d be so kind. You write:
In “Contemplating the Ifs”, however, you wrote with Col. Lang:
Could you say a little more about Iran-AlQ links, and the degree to which Iran might therefore be considered to be conrtibuting to Sunni attacks on US forces?
With thanks, Charles
The reference to Al Qaeda should not have been in the article. That was an oversight. I missed it I guess in the editing phase.
Thanks. I appreciate the clarification.
I’m skeptical about Iran helping AQ. Not only are they mortal enemies, but we’re busy doing our best to create an Iranian proxy state in Iraq. Why would they interfere with us doing their work for them? Intelligence is usually uncertain, and often wrong. This is a case where I’d require a whole lot of corroborating evidence before I believed it.
In addition, I’ve heard from oil people that EFPs are very similar to devices used in oil exploration. Before the war, Iraqis were held up to be evil geniuses with all sorts of sophisticated WMDs. But now they’re too stupid to convert oil exploration equipment for use in the insurgency.
As for the broader picture, China and Russia are perfectly content for us to exhaust ourselves in Iraq. They will bide their time until the Iraqis kick us out, and then sign long-term oil contracts with whatever Iraqi factions control the oil. And this will all happen while we bankrupt ourselves. They must be laughing hysterically at our stupidity.
Iran is a different story. The Chinese & Russians already have some long-term contracts with Iran. Overthrowing the Mullahs would jeopardize those contracts. An attack on Iran would cut oil production (Iran is the #2 exporter in OPEC) and oil prices would rise sharply. That would really hurt China in particular.
So, while the Chinese & Russians would be perfectly happy to watch us dig an even deeper hole for ourselves, there are limits to what they’ll put up with.
China can end the US empire any time it wants. It is sitting on around 1 trillion US dollars (and Russia has maybe 400 billion more). All it has to do is dump those, and the USD goes down the toilet. We won’t be able to buy squat, especially not the 16 barrels of oil per day per soldier the US Army in Iraq consumes. That’s a lot of money for the Chinese to lose, but a trillion dollars is a cheap price to knock off a rival.
Actually, the Chinese probably won’t have to go that far. They’ll just need to flex their FOREX muscles and Bush’s handlers will make him grovel all the way to Beijing. Maybe the Chinese can get Taiwan out of the deal (sooner or later the Chinese will demand it, and we won’t have much choice but to hand it over).
Oops…Larry posted while I was writing mine, and I see he addressed Iran & AQ.
Nevermind
[...] I am fairly confident that the report Larisa A. referenced was the following, which is from from Larry Johnson’s NoQuarter: In a paper published today in the United Kingdom, Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for [...]
How many times will the People let the Bushies get away with crying wolf?
Larry et al.
I wonder if preparations are under way for a rapid withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Sadr has called for an end of attacks on US troops and, in an interview with McClatchy, Maliki strongly indicated that he knew of Sadr’s decision. Maliki also posited a broader-based alliance with the US i.e. Bush’s solution re: Iraq has been entirely military whereas Maliki called for economic and diplomatic ties. Maliki also pointed to efforts re; national reconciliation - efforts that belong to the Iraqi people.
Larry,
We have a few layman posts up about this threat up and would appreciate your expert feedback. All the posts are actually linked to in this single post
http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2007/08/they-will-kill-us-with-electrical-grid-stuff
This is a great concern to me as well as my co-writers but sadly, we have no idea how to head it off. Anyway, your feedback would be very welcome.
The Army is starting to push back:
“WASHINGTON - The Army will examine as many as 18,000 contracts awarded over the past four years to support U.S. forces in Iraq to determine how many are tainted by waste, fraud and abuse, service officials said Wednesday.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070830/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_probe_8;_ylt=AhX5pDrs8dwImJG03om715eWwvIE
In other words, we didn’t like the memo, in fact didn’t even get the memo.
“Overall, the contracts are worth close to $3 billion and represent every transaction made between 2003 and 2007 by a contracting office in Kuwait, which the Army has identified as a significant trouble spot.
In a separate probe, a high-level team led by Pentagon Inspector General Claude Kicklighter will travel to Iraq next week to investigate how U.S. weapons intended for Iraqi security forces ended up being used for murders and other violent crimes in Turkey.
Among the contracts to be reviewed by the Army are awards to former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, which has received billions of dollars since 2001 to be a major provider of food and shelter services to U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Push back. A call to the FBI may be in order. These companies will be most of the logistics for any action w/Iran.
preacher lady, all,
there is a march in washington on saturday, 15 sept.
ivaw, iraq veterans against the war is one of the big organizations behind it. (another is answer, which causes some people some “heartburn,” to which i say, tango foxtrot bravo. too f*cking bad. if answer did not exist i would still be impalacably opposed to this war, aka, “operation clusterf*ck.”)
adam kokesh, on the board of directors of ivaw, and whom i met at the vfp (veterans for peace) convention in st. louis a couple of weeks ago — squared away young man — has this email out. (below.)
essentially, what they are doing is not just coming for a march, but many are staying into the following week and visiting congress, etc, etc.
i also have read that petraeus may testify on 9/11. not that the bushies would manipulate that day, or anything.
from adam’s email to vfp:
answer’s website re: 15 sept. (there are buses coming from across the country, esp. anything east of the mississippi river. y’all should be very proud as citizens of this. as they say in a call and answer response on the streets: “tell me what democracy looks like! this is what democracy looks like.” do the same with “sounds like.” it is very, very cool to hear an entire city block full of people saying this.)
http://www.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=S15_homepage
Global warming is the least of our worries right now with Bush and Cheney still in the White House.
Although I’m concerned about global warming and its short-term and long-term effects, I’m scared shitless about what Bush and Cheney might do next.
They’ve probably given just as much thought to the aftermath of any air assault on Iran as they gave to the aftermath of invading Iraq…zilch.
But since the rumor is that there will not be any appreciable number of our ground forces involved in any air-assault on Iran, then at least Bush and Cheney won’t make the claim that Iran’s oil revenues will help defray the cost of the attack.
Oh, right, I wonder what impact an attack on Iran will have on world and national oil prices?
If Bush and Cheney do decide to go after Iran’s oil resources in Khuzestan Province, which produces almost 90 percent of Iran’s oil revenues, will we see a scenario unfold similar to the one next door in Iraq…sabotage of oil pipelines to disrupt anyone trying to sell any Iranian oil other than Iranians?
Will Iranian oil exports plummet, like Iraqi oil exports did? What effect would this have on the price of a barrel of oil as well as the price of gasoline at the pump in the United States, to say nothing about gasoline prices around the world?
Of course, even if the barrel price goes beyond $100 per barrel and gasoline at the pump doubles or even triples in price, the oil companies will still make their profit.
Oh, right, in Bush/Cheney bizarro world, what’s good for the oil companies is good for them, and good for Republican campaign contributions. Unfortunately for the rest of us, though, high barrel and gasoline prices will be devestating.
And as a world-wide recession sets in due to increasingly high energy and food prices, countries scrambling to make up for oil shortfalls following an attack on Iran might just be the trigger that could set off world war three.
Impeach Bush and Cheney now.
Thanks for the information. I’ll be going to DC and staying to visit the people who are supposed to be representing me.
Ive had enough!!
Iran does not support Al Qaeda, however. Why enl