Join 3,442 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Three feet high and rising...
February 4, 2007 9:25 AM   Subscribe

... "All the Shiites have to do is tell everyone to lay low, wait for the Americans to leave, then when they leave you have a target list and within a day they'll kill every Sunni leader in the country. It'll be called the `Day of Death' or something like that," said 1st Lt. Alain Etienne, 34, of Brooklyn, N.Y. "They say, `Wait, and we will be victorious.' That's what they preach. And it will be their victory." Quinn agreed. "Honestly, within six months of us leaving, the way Iranian clerics run the country behind the scenes, it'll be the same way here with Sadr," said Quinn, 25, of Cleveland. "He already runs our side of the river."
Mahdi Army gains strength through unwitting aid of U.S.
Iraqi Interior Ministry estimates 1000 killed in one week
Northern Iraq seen as next front in war
posted by y2karl (74 comments total)

 
Couldn't they just sort of set up an auto thread for this? You could just automatically increase the terrible results each week. Probably wouldn't have to shut it down for some time.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:27 AM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.
posted by homunculus at 9:52 AM on February 4, 2007


If this is their idea of laying low...
posted by JWright at 9:52 AM on February 4, 2007


Mission Accomplished.


There is a special corner of Hell reserved from the Bush II Administration.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:55 AM on February 4, 2007


Thanks homunculus and y2karl. Depressing but necessary news.
posted by bhouston at 10:00 AM on February 4, 2007


The authority of 25 year olds from Cleveland on simple matters such as Muslims and the Middle-East is unquestionable.
posted by Vindaloo at 10:05 AM on February 4, 2007


Which is more than could be said of the authority of the President on such matters.
posted by Flunkie at 10:12 AM on February 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


Vindaloo... Just watch the freaking Saddam execution tape with the translation. It's a bunch of Shiite thugs yelling Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!... as in Muqtada al-Sadr.

Sadr is going to take over and be just as bad / if not worse as Saddam.
posted by banished at 10:14 AM on February 4, 2007


The authority of 25 year olds from Cleveland on simple matters such as Muslims and the Middle-East is unquestionable.

I'd trust the analysis of a 25 year-old from Cleveland, a platoon leader in the Army's 1st Infantry Division, over... well, who, exactly? You don't even mention who we should be listening to. You?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:17 AM on February 4, 2007 [3 favorites]


Our mercenaries in Iraq: The president relies on thousands of private soldiers with little oversight, a disturbing example of the military-industrial complex.
posted by homunculus at 10:19 AM on February 4, 2007


There is a special corner of Hell reserved from the Bush II Administration.

Wishful thinking. Hell is on earth and they're causing it, not living in it.
posted by dreamsign at 10:21 AM on February 4, 2007


Did anyone notice the bit in the president's state of the Union speech about building up a civilian reserve corps? Why? My guess to replace regular service men with professional mercenaries. That way we wouldn't have "our boys" over there, being redeployed without any choice.
posted by delmoi at 10:28 AM on February 4, 2007


Can we just fast-forward to the only possible endgame our president has set in motion: A ravaged Iraq, depopulated to 45 people by years of Civil War, badly policed by the three soldiers that are left in our National Guard, while the entire Eastern Seaboard of the US is ruined by hurricanes and abandoned, while the entire West Coast is underwater from global warming, and the very rich in the country live in underground shelters, occasionally sending the only slightly rich outside to hunt poor people for meat.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:30 AM on February 4, 2007 [3 favorites]


I prefer baby meat.
posted by stbalbach at 10:34 AM on February 4, 2007


I prefer baby meat

Well, then, Washington's got you covered!
posted by spacewrench at 10:39 AM on February 4, 2007


Sigh.

It is a shame that there will never be justice visited upon the Administration.

Thanks, America.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:40 AM on February 4, 2007


Why must so many comments be wiseass, snarky, snide, insulting? There is an animosity between Sunni and Shia that is growing and, for example, be seen in the Palestinian struggle between the secular Fatah and Sunni Hamas, which, getting help from Iran, is now insulted by being called Shia as an insult from Fatah supporters. So, too, in America this division is growing, both in Detroit area and at some college campuses.

There had been a recent call to put aside differences bweteen these two groups and view themselves as all Muslims, but this seems not to have made much of an impact.

Shia represent some 15% of world-wde Muslims, yet Iran is increasingly an important leader of the Shia, and there seems no end in sight for this struggle for power. And that means the US is in the middle of a war that is not so much a civil war but rather a sectarian struggle. We can not pick sides and we can not end this struggle with military might
posted by Postroad at 10:45 AM on February 4, 2007


> occasionally sending the only slightly rich outside to hunt poor people for meat.

This is my .410 side-by-side, for quail. On the wall, that's my 20 gauge over/under, for grouse. And the 12 gauge is for peasant.
posted by jfuller at 11:07 AM on February 4, 2007


> Why must so many comments be wiseass, snarky, snide, insulting?

'Cause that's all we've got left given the position we've been put in by a arrogant, cynical, and hypocritical administration. Our ability to have a positive impact on the events in Iraq, or most anywhere else in the world, has been radically altered, if not rendered altogether impotent by the actions of an administration bent on profiteering from war and chaos.

We'll only ever be able to bring about positive change in the world when we have brought about positive change in the White House, and elsewhere on Capital Hill.
posted by deCadmus at 11:16 AM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


"There is a special corner of Hell reserved from the Bush II Administration."
And the mouth breathers and pigs that voted for them and continue to support this travesty. Remember who these people are, never listen to them again, and if you were to shove one down the stairs every now and then it couldn't hurt.
posted by 2sheets at 11:17 AM on February 4, 2007


if you were to shove one down the stairs every now and then it couldn't hurt.

Absolutely uncalled, unneeded and unwise. America is a democracy. All it takes is not voting for them or voting them out. The desire for violence against those who think different from you puts you in the same class as those you want to hurt.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:26 AM on February 4, 2007


It's all a farce anyways. Enjoy cancer.
posted by rhizome23 at 11:32 AM on February 4, 2007


I don't want to see them pushed down stairs, but I do want to see some of them frogmarched off to prison for crimes against humanity. And I would like it, next time the word "unAmerican" forms in their collective mouths, or phrases like "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" starts to form or their snarling lips, if someone would waterboard them a little -- just a little -- because waterboarding is, after all, not torture and not violent, according to them.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:33 AM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Somewhere...deep in space...Hunter S. Thompson is calling all of us assholes.
posted by rhizome23 at 11:35 AM on February 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


4 Recent Copter Crashes in Iraq Probably Due to Ground Fire, U.S. Says
posted by homunculus at 11:37 AM on February 4, 2007


There had been a recent call to put aside differences bweteen these two groups and view themselves as all Muslims

Have you read the histories of the occupation period? The division was initially created by the CPA in 2003-2004 during Bremers reign, he intentionally created a provisional government along religious lines believing it was "democratic". It would be like assigning the US Congress based on religion (%40 Catholics, %40 Protestants, %10 Jews). Then when the elections came the Sunnis decided not to participate because they saw the provisional government stacked against them, along religious lines. And the divide has continued since. It didn't have to be that way, the US set the precedent of division, it's difficult to see how to undo that damage now.
posted by stbalbach at 11:43 AM on February 4, 2007


I missed something. What is "Three feet high and rising..."?
posted by jaronson at 11:54 AM on February 4, 2007


Well... ok, so who DIDN'T Hunter S. Thompson call an asshole?
As I recall, he even called himself one. And not incorrectly.
posted by miss lynnster at 12:14 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


"border incident" with Iran in 5...4...3...
posted by telstar at 12:18 PM on February 4, 2007


If the U.S, or I should say Bush and the Neocons had any brains they'd be exploiting this, by siding with the Sunni, (who are our traditional allies, other then Bin Laden) against the Shia who, since the fall of the Shah of Iran have been our enemies. Keep in mind the Kurds are mostly Sunni as well.

Of course, if they were smart, they could have avoided this war and all the attendant unpleasantness. *shrug*
posted by delmoi at 12:26 PM on February 4, 2007


British officers have expressed serious concerns about the commitment of Iraqi troops they are training for the new US offensive in Baghdad.

Choice quote:
Colonel Stephen Kilpatrick told him the same battalion being trained now was asked to send troops to Baghdad for last year's Operation Together Forward "and effectively they mutinied".

Shots were fired at the commanding officer's car and they did not get there.
posted by furtive at 12:52 PM on February 4, 2007


Iraq’s Shadow Widens Sunni-Shiite Split in U.S.
Corners Cut in Rush to Add Troops
posted by rtha at 12:53 PM on February 4, 2007


I missed something. What is "Three feet high and rising..."?
posted by ofthestrait at 1:13 PM on February 4, 2007


well, W wanted to be a War President. . .
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:28 PM on February 4, 2007


hilariously, InstaPundit -- a reliable source of neverending merriment -- "reports" that some nut he knows just went to Iraq and he thinks the surge will be, like, cool. and the Iraqi troops have made "tremendous progress", according to the same nut.

so everything you've read elsewhere is wrong. I blame the liberal media and y2karl.
posted by matteo at 1:30 PM on February 4, 2007


And the mouth breathers and pigs that voted for them and continue to support this travesty. Remember who these people are, never listen to them again, and if you were to shove one down the stairs every now and then it couldn't hurt.

You know, like it not, some of those folks are friends, co-workers and family members of mine (and probably yours). I still don't understand how intelligent people supported this crap but I don't wish violence to come to any of them.
posted by octothorpe at 1:33 PM on February 4, 2007


I missed something. What is "Three feet high and rising..."?

Maybe a reference to this?
posted by octothorpe at 1:35 PM on February 4, 2007


There is an older
Three (or so) feet high and rising
--Johnny Cash.

Also
Waist Deep in the Big Muddy
--Pete Seeger.
posted by hexatron at 1:36 PM on February 4, 2007


Young Marine Dies Of PTSD - And Neglect
posted by homunculus at 1:56 PM on February 4, 2007


You know, like it not, some of those folks are friends, co-workers and family members of mine (and probably yours). I still don't understand how intelligent people supported this crap but I don't wish violence to come to any of them.

Of course you don't. They are, after all, your friends and family.

But I should think you can understand how a nations' worth of Iraqi citizens, an armies' worth of soldiers deployed on the basis of outright lies, and a whole lot of frustrated US citizens cheated out of a fair election might feel it worth a smack upside the head.

People who voted for Bush the second time around voted to support a known liar, a known warmonger, and a known intractable national debt. Tell us again how they're undeserving of a boot to the arse.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:58 PM on February 4, 2007


"Of course, if they were smart, they could have avoided this war and all the attendant unpleasantness. *shrug*

But then who would their buddies send their "cost plus" bills to?
posted by rougy at 2:09 PM on February 4, 2007


"border incident" with Iran in 5...4...3...
Definitely a given. The question is, just what form the "incident" takes? My money's on the Iranian's capturing a special-ops detail somewhere deep inside Iran.
Any takers?
posted by Thorzdad at 2:12 PM on February 4, 2007


"My money's on the Iranian's capturing a special-ops detail somewhere deep inside Iran."

And we claim it's a counterattack and go from there.
posted by wrapper at 2:57 PM on February 4, 2007


I missed something. What is "Three feet high and rising..."?

It was the Johnny Cash song I had in mind when I wrote the title--How high's the water, Papa ?--which is the same song De La Soul sampled and took as the title of their debut album. S'funny, I remembered Johnny Cash's version and completely forgot the De La Soul part. Oh, well...
posted by y2karl at 3:30 PM on February 4, 2007


...even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate.
The New Iraq NIE: Pig Ugly, Little Lipstick
Factbox-Key findings of US Iraq intelligence report
Analysis Is Bleak on Iraq’s Future
The cost of the war can also be expressed as approximately 28 HS's, where HS, the annual budget for the Department of Homeland Security, is about $35 billion. Really securing the ports and chemical plants would have only eaten up a few of these HS's. A few more could have been usefully spent in Afghanistan.

One last and rather tiny governmental monetary unit functions almost as spare change and has the ungainly acronym NHTSA. It stands for the annual budget of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, which is approximately $670 million, or about two-thirds of $1 billion. The Iraq War has cost about 1,500 NHTSA's, several of which could probably have reduced the more than 40,000 Americans killed annually on our roads...

Another way to get at the $1 trillion cost of the Iraq War is to note that the Treasury could have used the money to mail a check for more than $3,000 to every man, woman and child in the United States. The latter alternative would have an added benefit: Uniformly distributed and spent in this country, the money would have provided an economic stimulus that the war expenditures have not.

Alternatively, if the money was spent in an even more ecumenical way and a global mailing list was available, the Treasury could have sent a check for more than $150 to every human being on earth. The lives of millions of children, who die from nothing more serious than measles, tetanus, respiratory infections and diarrhea, could be saved, since these illnesses can be prevented by $2 vaccines, $1 worth of antibiotics, or a 10-cent dose of oral rehydration salts as well as the main but still very far from prohibitive cost of people to administer the programs.
Who's Counting: How Iraq Trillion Could Have Been Spent
posted by y2karl at 4:07 PM on February 4, 2007


Scenes from Iran.

I can say this with truth: Tehran is a damn site better-looking than most cities I've visited. Clean, thoroughly modern, attractive.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:37 PM on February 4, 2007


Tehran is a damn site better-looking than most cities I've visited. Clean, thoroughly modern, attractive.

It's the Barack Obama of the middle east.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:26 PM on February 4, 2007 [4 favorites]


Carl Levin, of all people, offered up the best and only strategy for Bush and his apologists to not go down in history as a criminally incompetent cabal -- declare victory and leave.

The Shia would slaughter the Sunni overnight, literally, as opposed to dragging out the murders over years of tit-for-tat bombings and attacks. End result? The same -- a Shia, pro-Iranian Iraq. Which is what we're going to get no matter what. (Especially after America starts "tactically" bombing Iran in the coming months.)

Mission Accomplished. Seriously. The US occupation is only making things worse.
posted by bardic at 5:58 PM on February 4, 2007


Reuters, Sunday Feb 4, 2007 — Baghdad offensive to begin: U.S. officers:
A U.S.-Iraqi campaign to stabilize Baghdad will begin soon and the offensive against militants will be on a scale never seen during four years of war, American officers said on Sunday.

Briefing a small group of foreign reporters, three American colonels who are senior advisers to the Iraqi army and police in Baghdad said a command center overseeing the crackdown would be activated on Monday.

"The expectation is the plan will be implemented soon thereafter," Colonel Doug Heckman, senior adviser to the 9th Iraqi Army division, said at a U.S. military base in Baghdad.

"It's going to be an operation unlike anything this city has seen. It's a multiple order magnitude of difference, not just a 30 percent, I mean a couple hundred percent," he added, referring to previous offensives that failed to stem bloodshed.
...
Asked if the Mehdi Army's stronghold in Sadr City would be cleaned out, Heckman acknowledged the political sensitivity but said all options were open.

"If we feel we need to clear Sadr City to bring stability, we will do that. Are there restrictions that will not allow us to do that? Right now there are not," Heckman said.
...
"The end of the summer is when we should see some concrete results and be able to say is this working or not," Heckman said. That would be around September.
Looks like a long, hot summer.
posted by cenoxo at 7:53 PM on February 4, 2007


the Treasury could have sent a check for more than $150 to every human being on earth.

That makes my eyes roll back in my head. $150 for every person on the entire planet has been spent so far destroying saving Iraq? My god.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:07 PM on February 4, 2007


Carl Levin, of all people, offered up the best and only strategy for Bush and his apologists to not go down in history as a criminally incompetent cabal -- declare victory and leave.

I pretty much agree with that strategy, and it's what's going to happen whether it's this year or in 5.

Violence pushes moderates to the extreme. Remember, not all Germans were Nazis and not all Nazis had a lifetime goal of killing Jews. They just chose to act - or shut up and not act - because it was the safest thing for them at the time. Iraqis today are in the same situatoin.

Maybe our new offensive really can quell the violence, but I doubt it. In order to really work, it needs to not just quiet the violence by 25% or 50%, but completely silence it for an enduring period of time. Only then will normal life resume. IMO it would take probably at least double the forces we have there now to really have an affect.
posted by b_thinky at 8:09 PM on February 4, 2007


If we feel we need to clear Sadr City to bring stability, we will do that.

And therein we have Sadr City, directed by Ridley Scott, released 2009...
posted by BLDGBLOG at 8:49 PM on February 4, 2007


New offensive? The "surge" doesn't even bring troop levels up to the highest previous number. It's not a surge, and it's not a strategy -- it is, as it always has been with Bush and people who voted for him, magical thinking. They've done a lot of damage to America, and they should feel deeply ashamed.
posted by bardic at 8:51 PM on February 4, 2007


I think the difference with the new strategy is the focus on Baghdad and the new rules of engagement. But it's basically impossible to stop people who would die to kill each other. Really the only way to do it would be to beef up so much security such that people could not leave their homes or neighborhoods. If the violence ceases for some time, the call of the extremists would weaken. It's difficult to police a place that has no rules. It seems that's what we're doing now.
posted by b_thinky at 9:56 PM on February 4, 2007


If we feel we need to clear Sadr City to bring stability, we will do that.

We had to destroy the village to save it.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:06 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Exactly. b_thinky, how is killing more Iraqis, Shia or otherwise, under the new rules of engagement, going to bring about more stability? Kill 100 of Sadr's men, and you get 1,000 more irate Shia. Kill 100 Sunnis, the same, with the added bones of Saudi Arabia now thinking about sending in their own forces to protect their fellow Sunni.

What amounts to the new "strategy" is nothing but trying to rhetorically lard over the fact that Iraq war supporters, from Bush on down, are responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands, for de-stabilizing the entire region (which is really kind of hard to believe, given the state it was in in 2002), and for empowering Iran for decades to come.

I guess it's silly of me to expect Bush supporters to put on sackcloth and smear their faces with ashes. But really, many people should be held accountable somehow. Impeachment won't happen, but a loud, vigorous chorus of denouncement of Bush, Cheney and their ennablers for the entirety of the 21st century? That's a start, and a mild one at that. They should never be taken seriously on any matter of foreign policy or terrorism, ever.
posted by bardic at 11:42 PM on February 4, 2007


*bones = bonus
posted by bardic at 11:44 PM on February 4, 2007


i hate the war. i protested it in 2002 in dc before it happened.

yay. i was correct, war is wrong et cetera. joy, oh sweet joy.

(the death that has been a result of this war is staggering, and to read over the past 4 years about how wrong it has gone has not failed to bring me small amounts of pleasure)

my pleasure at being right brings me no solace whatsowever, and it brings no life to those killed in the execution of this war.

it hurts to be an american these days. i feel pretty damn bad about it. if i didn't take the whole citizenship thing so seriously, if i just worried myself about superbowl commercials, maybe i'd be a little happier.
posted by localhuman at 12:19 AM on February 5, 2007


Looks like a long, hot summer.

Think about the US soldiers assigned to the (what are they calling them?) "small neighborhood bases" throughout the city.

Oh, the humanity...
posted by jaronson at 2:53 AM on February 5, 2007


That's what's so insane about America right now localhuman. I take no pleasure in witnessing the bloodbath that is Iraq, but even the most meager calls for accountability -- Why did we go in with bad intelligence? Why are we still there? Why are we pinning our hopes for stability on an obviously pro-Iranian guy like Maliki? -- will be painted as "gloating" by the Limbaughs and Tony Snows.

It's not a desire to be told we were correct so much as a recognition that Republicans and their president, their advisors, their war machine, were just so demonstrably wrong as to never be taken seriously ever again.

It's fucking sad and horrible. My country is now a joke. But I'm really tired of this meme of "Well, we're there now and we must fight until the end."

No. Yankee go home. We've done enough damage. But as long as we're talking about sports, let's face it -- bombing Iran is the next Hail Mary.
posted by bardic at 3:26 AM on February 5, 2007


The only way adding more soldiers has a chance of stopping the violence is if we station a soldier next to every single person in Iraq.

A family of four? Four US troups stationed inside that house.
Follow them to the bathroom, eat at their tables, go shopping with them, sit next to them in the mosque.

Then there would be no secret meetings to conspire to attack us.

This would require a full draft.

Not exactly a beacon of freedom, but that has never been our goal.
posted by Balisong at 6:51 AM on February 5, 2007


Exactly. b_thinky, how is killing more Iraqis, Shia or otherwise, under the new rules of engagement, going to bring about more stability? Kill 100 of Sadr's men, and you get 1,000 more irate Shia.

Many of Sadr's fighters are fighting for money and glory, which is doled out by Sadr, a man ultimately fighting for political reasons. Find the right way to pressure him, maybe he'll stop the attacks.

We need to take note of the lessons learned in fighting this war. A deal was brokered with Al-Sadr, basically to avoid the bad press of us killing a bunch of Shiites. It blew up in our face. We stopped short of completing the 1st Fallujah offensive, basically to avoid the bad press of us killing a bunch of Sunnis.

You can never win a war of politics with terrorists or insurgents. Overwhelming force is the only solution. If the president was not prepared to use such force then he shouldn't have made the decision to go to war in the 1st place.
posted by b_thinky at 7:14 AM on February 5, 2007


We need to take note of the lessons learned in fighting this war.

Lesson #1: if you're fighting a war, go in with enough troops to secure the peace afterwards. Don't 'Rumsfeld' it and try to do it on the cheap.

The war was lost as soon as the U.S. stood by and did nothing to stop Baghdad from being looted.

Now we've got a war between Sunni and Shia and it's spreading: to Palestine, to Lebanon...

Worst Case Scenario: If it comes down to Saudi Arabia (Sunni) versus Iran (Shia) we are all in big, big trouble.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:41 AM on February 5, 2007


The war was lost as soon as the U.S. stood by and did nothing to stop Baghdad from being looted.

Whenever this thing ends we'll leave and declare victory. Terrorists will also declare vicotry. And both sides will be right.

Worst Case Scenario: If it comes down to Saudi Arabia (Sunni) versus Iran (Shia) we are all in big, big trouble.

Why are we in trouble if that happens? We've already withstood an Iran/Iraq war. Surely Iran cannot infiltrate Saudi Arabia via insurgents as it has in Shiite Iraq and Lebanon. Also if Iran gets into a war with any country, the world will rally politically and militarily to aid whover Iran is fighting.
posted by b_thinky at 9:46 AM on February 5, 2007


“I wish they would attack us with a nuclear bomb and kill us all,” [Mr. Abdul Jabbar] added, “so we will rest and anybody who wants the oil — which is the core of the problem — can come and get it. We can not live this way anymore. We are dying slowly every day.”
posted by taosbat at 9:57 AM on February 5, 2007


Iraqi Refugee Crisis: an American Crisis of Morality & Security
posted by homunculus at 12:40 PM on February 5, 2007


Worst Case Scenario: If it comes down to Saudi Arabia (Sunni) versus Iran (Shia) we are all in big, big trouble.

Why are we in trouble if that happens?


if Iran gets into a war with any country, the world will rally politically and militarily to aid whover Iran is fighting.

b_thinky, I think you just answered your own question. Remember, Iran has allies too. If Saudi Arabia and Iran go to war, other countries will scramble to join sides-- like, say, the U.S. allied with Saudi Arabia and, say, China allied with Iran-- and World War III will be truly underway. And where I'm from, World War III qualifies as big, big trouble.

But again, that's Worst Case Scenario. Chances are the Sunni-Shia war won't spread that far. But here's something else to think about: what do you think would happen to the price of oil if Saudi Arabia and Iran went to war? My theory is it would go up. Way up.

The world runs on oil. What do you think would happen to the world economy if the price of oil skyrockets?
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 3:07 PM on February 5, 2007


Is there any truth at all to the notion that Iranian Administration is sending people into Iraq?

Or is it more accurate to say that some of Iran's backwater tribes are crossing the border in support of their brothers in Iraq?

This is an important distinction. The former is cause for war against Iran. The latter, not so much.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:08 PM on February 5, 2007


b_thinky writes Overwhelming force is the only solution.

I'd love to know how you felt about Shinkseki getting fired in 2003. Somehow, I doubt you raised much of a cry over it.

This occupation has broken the US military, destroyed US credibility, emboldened radical terrorists of all stripes, and empowered Iran to become the regional hegemon for the 21st century, and blown a huge hole in our economy.

My point, since I have to paint it out for you, is that the occupation of Iraq has been a complete disaster for the US. Declaring "victory" and getting out is the best course of action now -- of course, adults know that it's the opposite.
posted by bardic at 3:54 PM on February 5, 2007


...The 1973 War Powers Act, passed in the wake of our disastrous war in Vietnam, allows the president to put U.S. troops in a combat situation under certain conditions before obtaining any congressional authorization to do so. When Bush signed the Iraq war resolution, he issued a statement challenging the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, indicating that he could take the nation to war without obeying its restrictions. Unfortunately, even if the president were to agree to the act's restrictions, he could still attack Iran and have up to 90 days before being required to get congressional authorization for the attack.

What to do? Congress should not wait. It should hold hearings on Iran before the president orders a bombing attack on its nuclear facilities, or orders or supports a provocative act by the U.S. or an ally designed to get Iran to retaliate, and thus further raise war fever... we need Senate and House hearings now to put the Bush administration on notice that, in the absence of an imminent military attack or a verified terrorist attack on the United States by Iran, Congress will not support a U.S. military strike on that country. Those hearings should aim toward passage of a law preventing the expenditure of any funds for a military attack on Iran unless Congress has either declared war with that country or has otherwise authorized military action under the War Powers Act.

The law should be attached to an appropriations bill, making it difficult for the president to veto. If he simply claims that he is not bound by the restriction even if he signs it into law, and then orders an attack on Iran without congressional authorization for it, Congress should file a lawsuit and begin impeachment proceedings.
Congress must stop an attack on Iran by Leonard Weiss and Larry Diamond
posted by y2karl at 7:36 PM on February 5, 2007


Meanwhile, in Afghanistan...
posted by homunculus at 9:10 PM on February 5, 2007


The Pentagon's Secret Air War in Iraq
posted by homunculus at 12:18 PM on February 7, 2007


The same neocon ideologues behind the Iraq war have been using the same tactics—alliances with shady exiles, dubious intelligence on W.M.D.—to push for the bombing of Iran. As President Bush ups the pressure on Tehran, is he planning to double his Middle East bet?
posted by homunculus at 5:55 PM on February 7, 2007


Well, homunculus, I wouldn't bet against it.
posted by taosbat at 9:21 PM on February 7, 2007


« Older Web 2.0 (2nd draft)...  |  Stand By For Crime! Archive.or... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments