THE WHITE HOUSE is planning "surgical" strikes in Iran to cripple agents the United States says support Iraqi insurgents fighting American soldiers, a new report says.
The plan coincides with a change in the administration's rhetoric against Iran - redefining the source of tension from nuclear weapon development to Tehran's support of America's enemies, Seymour Hersh writes in this week's New Yorker magazine.
"Now the emphasis is on 'surgical' strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities and elsewhere, which, the administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq," he writes. "What had been presented primarily as a counterproliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism."
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have been working on plans to hit Iran with "a broad bombing attack" on suspected nuclear and military facilities, Hersh says.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/01/2007-10-01_bush_eye...
...and that we don't have the resources to accomplish a "counterproliferation mission", and can only now do "counterterrorism".
I am somewhat familiar with the work of Mr.Hirsh. He spoke of this change of strategy in an article in the March 5,2007 issue of th New Yorker. He made the point back then that the Adninistration wanted to contain Iran and blame it for our problems in Iraq but its new strategy may be helping our enemies in the war on terroism.
It has become quite clear to me that this Administration and the ultraconservative think tank, the American Enterprize Institute, which has a major influence on Administration poicy has an antiquated concept of making war and lacks the intellectual capacity to understand the complexities of the sociopolitical environment in the Middle East.
Throughout military circles I know the contemplation of a war or even bombing or Iran has been thought of as a joke.
And Chico we're not "blaming Iran" for problems in Iraq. There has been consistent proof of Iranian involvement in Iraq. Most specifically the blast that killed several Marine Corps Reservists from Cleveland and Columbus over a year and a half ago. That blast was done through the use of a shape charge. Shape charges are created with blasting equipment available to most any military but yet harder to duplicate from civilian equipment.
Also I have personally spoke with Marines who can't officially say that they caught Iranian guard in Iraq but did say they found military members not from Iraq working operations in Iraq from a neighboring country.
Now that comes from men I trust. So if you ask me who I believe Mr. Hirsh or Marines I know. I trust the Marines I know.
MikeyA
"Also I have personally spoke with Marines who can't officially say that they caught Iranian guard in Iraq but did say they found military members not from Iraq working operations in Iraq from a neighboring country." So they don't really know?
"Now that comes from men I trust. So if you ask me who I believe Mr. Hirsh or Marines I know. I trust the Marines I know."-- I think that that is part of the problem of looking at this occupation of iraq, trusting that one of your buddies sees people who are (not iraqi) is not even in the same picture as what Chico is talking about. This is a plan, a plan to occupy the middle east, not a war on terror.
I have no doubt that your friend has encountered people who are not iraqi while in iraq, there are terrorists who want to kill them and that is what our troops should be doing rather than building a middle east embassy.
Here is a fitting quote from a TIME magazine reader:
"President George W. Bush rightfully invoked the fiasco that ensued after the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam. If we leave within next year, there will be a civil war. If we leave in four years there will be a civil war. The difference will be in the number of U.S. troops who will die delaying the inevitable. Staying in Iraq will not achieve an outcome that is worth American lives. We need to face reality and extricate ourselves from Iraq. Most important, we need to turn our attention to al-quaeda and fight terrorism, our true enemy" Joseph Rihn
Everyone talks about Iran supporting Shia insurgents, but not many talk about Saudi support for Sunni insurgents.
jdmsbyrd...you see my point. Plans has been in the works long before any reported incidents of Iranian support and even before Mr. Hirsh article.
Chris...good point. The middle East is such a complex web of interconnected loyalties that supporting one faction means you could be indirectly supporting an opposing faction.
I don't agree with the assumption that we are "delaying the inevitable".
A major reason that Iraq was chosen as next in line in the GWOT was because it is a modernized country. It is much more difficult for a rebel faction to wage a civil war in a modern country because people have a vested interest in their jobs and consumer goods. In a poor country this is not the case because the citizenry has nothing and hence nothing to lose.
During the cold war we wondered how people could live under the iron curtain. The reason was because they had a vested interest. Look at the economic turmoil that has occurred in Russia since '91. That takes it's toll on the populace.
I don't doubt that Iraq will eventually find stability. Unfortunately it took us 3 years to finally organize the right strategy and it's currently in place. This month is the holy month of Ramadan and each death on US military members carries with it religious significance yet we are seeing dropping levels of violence. I predicted in December that this would have happened even without a surge because by putting our servicemen in the streets where they could be effective would produce more results then leaving them isolated in "safe areas".
It's textbook counterinsurgency. The only mistake was not employing it sooner.
MikeyA